Even More Movies You've Watched This Week

Off Topic
841

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Saw The Hobbit twice in IMAX 3D yesterday. It’s a 10/10, easily. Better than the first LOTR movie. Go see it.[/quote]

Did the doubled frame rate per second enhance the 3D?[/quote]

I don’t know but it did look really good.[/quote]

OK. Thanks. P J claims that the increased frames p/s would show off the full potential of 3D with the effect being like staring through a hole in the wall.
It’s piqued my interest more than the movie itself. [/quote]
Not all IMAX showings had it shown in the high frame rate showing.

I saw the movie and thought it was pretty good. I’d give it 3 out of 4 stars.

842

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Saw The Hobbit twice in IMAX 3D yesterday. It’s a 10/10, easily. Better than the first LOTR movie. Go see it.[/quote]

Did the doubled frame rate per second enhance the 3D?[/quote]

I don’t know but it did look really good.[/quote]

OK. Thanks. P J claims that the increased frames p/s would show off the full potential of 3D with the effect being like staring through a hole in the wall.
It’s piqued my interest more than the movie itself. [/quote]
Not all IMAX showings had it shown in the high frame rate showing.

I saw the movie and thought it was pretty good. I’d give it 3 out of 4 stars. [/quote]

Yeah apparently my theater didn’t.

EDIT: Also, with the 3D, the scenes that use green screens are very obvious. The most noticeable one is when the group first sees Rivendell.

843

Caught Muzi v Nadeji because of this clip.

Generally I don’t like subtitled flicks but it was pretty solid.
She does go topless in the movie as well :).

844

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Not all IMAX showings had it shown in the high frame rate showing.
[/quote]

The option wasn’t available to me. I assumed that all showings would be in 48 fps, seeing as how there was no increase in ticket price for the increased rate. I’d have liked a chance to compare the two.

845

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Saw The Hobbit twice in IMAX 3D yesterday. It’s a 10/10, easily. Better than the first LOTR movie. Go see it.[/quote]

Did the doubled frame rate per second enhance the 3D?[/quote]

I don’t know but it did look really good.[/quote]

OK. Thanks. P J claims that the increased frames p/s would show off the full potential of 3D with the effect being like staring through a hole in the wall.
It’s piqued my interest more than the movie itself. [/quote]
Not all IMAX showings had it shown in the high frame rate showing.

I saw the movie and thought it was pretty good. I’d give it 3 out of 4 stars. [/quote]

Yeah apparently my theater didn’t.

EDIT: Also, with the 3D, the scenes that use green screens are very obvious. The most noticeable one is when the group first sees Rivendell.[/quote]

I didn’t see it in IMAX, just 3D. There was a noticable increase in clarity in the wide shots of cities (like, as you said, Rivendell), but nothing that’ll revolutionize movies.

Maybe these technologies combined make the flaws and joins more obvious than they should be.

846

Watched “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” the other night, because of Cortes’ recommendation

In a word, amazing. One of the best documentaries I have seen in years. If you’ve ever admired the type of person who is able to devote all of his energy, time and talent towards a single endeavor, you will love this film.

847

[quote]groo wrote:
Caught Muzi v Nadeji because of this clip.

Generally I don’t like subtitled flicks but it was pretty solid.
She does go topless in the movie as well :).[/quote]

As much as I like the look of her, woman like that are always gold diggers, even if its a film ym head just goes “STAY AWAY!”

848

[quote]groo wrote:
Caught Muzi v Nadeji because of this clip.

Generally I don’t like subtitled flicks but it was pretty solid.
She does go topless in the movie as well :).[/quote]

I wouldn’t mind seeing that movie in imax 3D.

849

My thoughts on The Hobbit. Prepare to be bored:

Purists will blench at the deviations from the book. It seems now that most of these changes were made b/c of the decision to produce a trilogy and not from having a surplus of amazing material to draw from.

Smaug has been kept hidden until the next movie (a combination of practical and commercial reasons). Azog, a major player in Tolkien trivia, is now the main villain until the dragon awakes.

Without Azog, it would be a very long movie about trekking.

Unlike Azog, Radagast didn’t really earn his screen time. He is The Hobbit’s answer to Tom Bombadil, continually turning up to save the day and generally be too comedic for his environment.

Peter Jackson does a sterling job of bringing Thorin’s company of dwarves to life. Some get more attention than others, but I assume the plan is to have thoroughly introduced them all by the time the end credits roll on the final movie, There And Back Again.

They are by far the most difficult part of the book to portray and Jackson knocks it out of the park, so much so that they often upstage Martin Freeman’s Bilbo. Bickering and boisterous, buffoonish and brave, they are the true stars of the movie (the blend of character and action definitely owes a debt to Avengers).

The flashback scenes are all excellent, condensing a complex and confusing dwarf faux history that’ll clue in novices and satisfy enthusiasts, until they jump the orc with Azog. Thorin’s real beef though, is with Smaug and it’s palpable.

It was a relief to see that PJ didn’t make the movie too prequelly. There are underlying parallels with Fellowship (Jackson said this was intentional), but this is treated as a saga in its own right rather than a warm up for the main event.

Not my top movie of the year but easily breaks my top five. Kicks the troll snot out of Prometheus.

850

Django Unchained.

Everything a Tarantino movie should be. Violent, bloody, funny, and hard to watch in places.

851

[quote]doogie wrote:
Django Unchained.

Everything a Tarantino movie should be. Violent, bloody, funny, and hard to watch in places.[/quote]
This might have been my favorite Tarantino movie. So many great parts in it. Funniest had to be the seen with the guys trying to be like the Klan.

852

[quote]roybot wrote:
My thoughts on The Hobbit. Prepare to be bored:

Purists will blench at the deviations from the book. It seems now that most of these changes were made b/c of the decision to produce a trilogy and not from having a surplus of amazing material to draw from.

Smaug has been kept hidden until the next movie (a combination of practical and commercial reasons). Azog, a major player in Tolkien trivia, is now the main villain until the dragon awakes.

Without Azog, it would be a very long movie about trekking.

Unlike Azog, Radagast didn’t really earn his screen time. He is The Hobbit’s answer to Tom Bombadil, continually turning up to save the day and generally be too comedic for his environment.

Peter Jackson does a sterling job of bringing Thorin’s company of dwarves to life. Some get more attention than others, but I assume the plan is to have thoroughly introduced them all by the time the end credits roll on the final movie, There And Back Again.

They are by far the most difficult part of the book to portray and Jackson knocks it out of the park, so much so that they often upstage Martin Freeman’s Bilbo. Bickering and boisterous, buffoonish and brave, they are the true stars of the movie (the blend of character and action definitely owes a debt to Avengers).

The flashback scenes are all excellent, condensing a complex and confusing dwarf faux history that’ll clue in novices and satisfy enthusiasts, until they jump the orc with Azog. Thorin’s real beef though, is with Smaug and it’s palpable.

It was a relief to see that PJ didn’t make the movie too prequelly. There are underlying parallels with Fellowship (Jackson said this was intentional), but this is treated as a saga in its own right rather than a warm up for the main event.

Not my top movie of the year but easily breaks my top five. Kicks the troll snot out of Prometheus. [/quote]

Speaking on behalf of myself and the rest of the board, do you mind giving us a quick overview of your “best films of 2012” list?

I’m going to go through all the films on that list.

853

Just re-watched the classic 1983 NYC Graffiti Flick “Style Wars.” just awesome. If anyone is into street art or want to see NYC Subway trains in all its graf wonder check it out. Almost surreal to watch, I haven’t seen it in almost 20 years.

854

[quote]roybot wrote:
My thoughts on The Hobbit. Prepare to be bored:

Purists will blench at the deviations from the book. It seems now that most of these changes were made b/c of the decision to produce a trilogy and not from having a surplus of amazing material to draw from.

Smaug has been kept hidden until the next movie (a combination of practical and commercial reasons). Azog, a major player in Tolkien trivia, is now the main villain until the dragon awakes.

Without Azog, it would be a very long movie about trekking.

Unlike Azog, Radagast didn’t really earn his screen time. He is The Hobbit’s answer to Tom Bombadil, continually turning up to save the day and generally be too comedic for his environment.

Peter Jackson does a sterling job of bringing Thorin’s company of dwarves to life. Some get more attention than others, but I assume the plan is to have thoroughly introduced them all by the time the end credits roll on the final movie, There And Back Again.

They are by far the most difficult part of the book to portray and Jackson knocks it out of the park, so much so that they often upstage Martin Freeman’s Bilbo. Bickering and boisterous, buffoonish and brave, they are the true stars of the movie (the blend of character and action definitely owes a debt to Avengers).

The flashback scenes are all excellent, condensing a complex and confusing dwarf faux history that’ll clue in novices and satisfy enthusiasts, until they jump the orc with Azog. Thorin’s real beef though, is with Smaug and it’s palpable.

It was a relief to see that PJ didn’t make the movie too prequelly. There are underlying parallels with Fellowship (Jackson said this was intentional), but this is treated as a saga in its own right rather than a warm up for the main event.

Not my top movie of the year but easily breaks my top five. Kicks the troll snot out of Prometheus. [/quote]
Agree on all counts, saw it yesterday.

Honestly now I don’t have a problem with the trilogy. PJ did a good job with the changes, and I have read the hobbit about 10 times at least.

855

Bullhead - This movie made me physically uncomfortable. Anyone interested in hormones, how they affect the male, and what makes a man should watch this movie.

John Dies at the End - I will continue to watch this movie intermittently for a long time. It was a para-philosophical drug-induced horror flick about multi-dimensional travel among other things. It was what the TV show Supernatural SHOULD be.

856

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
Bullhead - This movie made me physically uncomfortable. Anyone interested in hormones, how they affect the male, and what makes a man should watch this movie.

John Dies at the End - I will continue to watch this movie intermittently for a long time. It was a para-philosophical drug-induced horror flick about multi-dimensional travel among other things. It was what the TV show Supernatural SHOULD be. [/quote]

I want to see this, phantasm and bubba ho tep are classics

857

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

[quote]Ambugaton wrote:
Bullhead - This movie made me physically uncomfortable. Anyone interested in hormones, how they affect the male, and what makes a man should watch this movie.

John Dies at the End - I will continue to watch this movie intermittently for a long time. It was a para-philosophical drug-induced horror flick about multi-dimensional travel among other things. It was what the TV show Supernatural SHOULD be. [/quote]

I want to see this, phantasm and bubba ho tep are classics[/quote]

Agreed. It’s 10 dollars on Itunes right now. I’m just going to buy it when it’s available.

858

I was on a little documentary kick recently. All on Netflix Instant.

Something from Nothing: The Art of Rap -

Interesting piece directed by Ice-T, with him interviewing a bunch of old school MCs about the art of rap, as in, rap as an art form/legitimate musical genre. Really highlights the difference between guys from the '80s and '90s and what I hear playing as rap today. Also has some cool freestyles from most of the interviewed artists. Even if you’re not a fan of rap or hip-hop, I think it’s worth watching if you’re a fan of music.

After Porn Ends - A series of interviews with former porn stars including Houston, Asia Carrera, Mary Carey, and Crissy Moran. Not sure what I was expecting, but after watching this, I learned (unsurprisingly) that most women didn’t have a positive experience while making porn and retired to either start families or to find a new career path (and some often returned to porn) and most guys had a great time as porn stars but turned into losers after they retired. “I used to be a porn star. It was awesome. Ahh, those were the days”-type of thing.

The Zen of Bennet - Followed Tony Bennet through the recording of his “Duets II” album, where he records tracks with current artists. He chats between sessions/on the road about his life and thoughts on general stuff. Was cool, like listening to your 85-year old Uncle Tony talk. Also includes his thoughts on Amy Winehouse, as she died shortly after they worked together. Again, I don’t think you necessarily have to be a fan of his music to find it interesting overall.

859

[quote]roybot wrote:
My thoughts on The Hobbit. Prepare to be bored:

Purists will blench at the deviations from the book. It seems now that most of these changes were made b/c of the decision to produce a trilogy and not from having a surplus of amazing material to draw from.

Smaug has been kept hidden until the next movie (a combination of practical and commercial reasons). Azog, a major player in Tolkien trivia, is now the main villain until the dragon awakes.

Without Azog, it would be a very long movie about trekking.

Unlike Azog, Radagast didn’t really earn his screen time. He is The Hobbit’s answer to Tom Bombadil, continually turning up to save the day and generally be too comedic for his environment.

Peter Jackson does a sterling job of bringing Thorin’s company of dwarves to life. Some get more attention than others, but I assume the plan is to have thoroughly introduced them all by the time the end credits roll on the final movie, There And Back Again.

They are by far the most difficult part of the book to portray and Jackson knocks it out of the park, so much so that they often upstage Martin Freeman’s Bilbo. Bickering and boisterous, buffoonish and brave, they are the true stars of the movie (the blend of character and action definitely owes a debt to Avengers).

The flashback scenes are all excellent, condensing a complex and confusing dwarf faux history that’ll clue in novices and satisfy enthusiasts, until they jump the orc with Azog. Thorin’s real beef though, is with Smaug and it’s palpable.

It was a relief to see that PJ didn’t make the movie too prequelly. There are underlying parallels with Fellowship (Jackson said this was intentional), but this is treated as a saga in its own right rather than a warm up for the main event.

Not my top movie of the year but easily breaks my top five. Kicks the troll snot out of Prometheus. [/quote]

Bored my ass, that was a great post. If I were a smarter man I’d have written something along those lines, but I’m not, so “it’s good; go see it” is about the best I can reasonably muster.

860

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
My thoughts on The Hobbit. Prepare to be bored:

Purists will blench at the deviations from the book. It seems now that most of these changes were made b/c of the decision to produce a trilogy and not from having a surplus of amazing material to draw from.

Smaug has been kept hidden until the next movie (a combination of practical and commercial reasons). Azog, a major player in Tolkien trivia, is now the main villain until the dragon awakes.

Without Azog, it would be a very long movie about trekking.

Unlike Azog, Radagast didn’t really earn his screen time. He is The Hobbit’s answer to Tom Bombadil, continually turning up to save the day and generally be too comedic for his environment.

Peter Jackson does a sterling job of bringing Thorin’s company of dwarves to life. Some get more attention than others, but I assume the plan is to have thoroughly introduced them all by the time the end credits roll on the final movie, There And Back Again.

They are by far the most difficult part of the book to portray and Jackson knocks it out of the park, so much so that they often upstage Martin Freeman’s Bilbo. Bickering and boisterous, buffoonish and brave, they are the true stars of the movie (the blend of character and action definitely owes a debt to Avengers).

The flashback scenes are all excellent, condensing a complex and confusing dwarf faux history that’ll clue in novices and satisfy enthusiasts, until they jump the orc with Azog. Thorin’s real beef though, is with Smaug and it’s palpable.

It was a relief to see that PJ didn’t make the movie too prequelly. There are underlying parallels with Fellowship (Jackson said this was intentional), but this is treated as a saga in its own right rather than a warm up for the main event.

Not my top movie of the year but easily breaks my top five. Kicks the troll snot out of Prometheus. [/quote]

Speaking on behalf of myself and the rest of the board, do you mind giving us a quick overview of your “best films of 2012” list?

I’m going to go through all the films on that list.[/quote]

I won’t have a definitive list until well into 2013. Most of the new releases I’ve seen throughout the year are mainstream movies you’ll have already seen (I’ve posted pretty much every theatrical release I’ve seen this year in this thread: the ones I haven’t posted about are catch-up rentals and not worth reviewing, e.g: I saw Battle: LA for the first time two days ago) . There are several posters who’ll have seen a wider range of movies than I have…

The one movie I thought deserved better was Dredd. It stood as an old school, hard-boiled sci-fi, tossed aside comparisons to The Raid, had an excellent character actor as the lead (very important), the best sci-fi screenwriter of recent years, and it was an R-rated comic book movie which was liked by nearly everyone who saw it. Oh and the use of 3-D as a drug (geddit?) was a direct nod to the comic’s social satire (which influenced the original Robocop). That doesn’t happen very often.

Shame almost everybody else thought it was a remake of Stallone’s Dredd. It was a potential game changer. Movie execs will assume it didn’t work and move on.