Rate the last movie you watched out of 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I've been really looking forward to this, basically ever since the credits finally hit in Return of the King. So to see all the negative reviews this last week or so was very disheartening and I was actually going in with some trepidation...

I honestly don't know what I was worried about. It was just magical. It's a return to a familar place and faces but still the sense of something very new, what I love about these films are that you genuinely feel like you're on an adventure, you feel like you're right there with them. Common complaint against this was that it stretches out the story and drags, but I honestly didn't see any difference in terms of it's pacing compared to the LOTR films, the only bit that slighlty dragged was when they were in Rivendell, but then the Elves always slow things down. Only minor annoyance were literally one or two comedy lines that I felt gave it too much of a modern feel, but even then they're still relatively funny lines and can be easily overlooked. I thought Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo, really want to see more focus on him in the rest of the films. Serkis' Gollum though, was once again probably the best thing in the film.

I love how much untold story there always feels like there is in these films, they all start out with a sprawling backstory which you feel could be told on its own and there feels like there's so many other stories still to come too. It's a shame in that sense that once these films are done that's going to be it, there'll be no more. Much like The Fellowship of the Ring this film is only building towards something more and yet, I think this is a better film than The Fellowship. This film feels absolutely packed and has so much more happening in it.

I think this is probably the best of the blockbusters this year (still have a couple to come though; Django, Les Mis) which is why I'm awarding it 9/10
 
Joshawott said:
Did you see it in 24fps or 48fps? Most of the complaints I've read were focusing on the 48fps version.
Click to expand...

I was curious to know what the cinema would be showing it in and planned on asking when we would get the tickets. My friends ended up buying the tickets during the day yesterday while I was at work so it kinda slipped my mind to ask when we were going in.

There seemed to be something about the first few minutes but after that it looked fine, very smooth. So, either it was just 24 or the 48 is actually just as pleasing on the eye. 3D was actually well used, gave some lovely depth to the film. I'm going to try and remember to ask them next time I'm in if it's in 48 or not.
 
Joshawott said:
Did you see it in 24fps or 48fps? Most of the complaints I've read were focusing on the 48fps version.
Click to expand...
20thCenturyBoy said:
it looked fine, very smooth. So, either it was just 24 or the 48 is actually just as pleasing on the eye.
Click to expand...
I've been rolling my eyes at this whole 48fps thing since people started moaning about it. What the Hell is wrong with people that they dislike watching a smoother picture? I've wanted something like this for years, too often in frantic action scenes I've been unable to make out what the f*ck is going on for motion blur (especially if panning is also involved). I've not yet seen The Hobbit, but I've seen 48fps video and consider it a HUGE improvement over 24fps.

Can these people who dislike 48fps video stand to look at games, or do they play on computers ten years out of date to make sure the FPS is nice and low? I was playing KotOR today and at times it reached over 110fps - From some of the testimony I've read from previews of The Hobbit, viewing this would cause some people's eyeballs to explode as they vomited out their internal organs.
 
One of the main reasons I've seen for people not liking it in 48fps is that apparently, the actors movement look less "realistic" and some described it as making the film look more like actors on a set than as if it was really happening (I guess they mean it looked artificial?).

Jackson said he expected the 48fps to get mixed reviews. I haven't seen it yet, so I can't judge, but I imagine it might be one of those things that people will have to get used to (I mean, if someone has watching nothing but 24fps, going to 48fps is going to look weird at first).
 
Joshawott said:
One of the main reasons I've seen for people not liking it in 48fps is that apparently, the actors movement look less "realistic" and some described it as making the film look more like actors on a set than as if it was really happening (I guess they mean it looked artificial?).
Click to expand...
Outside of being absolutely hammered, I have yet to notice motion blur or a low fps rate in real life. If anything, 48fps looks more realistic - I honestly do not know what these people are on.
 
Well, as it turns out they're only showing 48 on one screen and it wasn't the screen I saw it on...So seeing it again tomorrow in 48fps, I will deliver my thought on it then. As for today though...

Life of Pi

7/10

I'll admit I didn't think this was going to be any good at all. The spiritual journey story I thought was going to be typically self indulgent and nothing was really attracting me to the film beforehand.

But it was actually really quite good. It looked absolutely gorgeous at times and I think a lot of the visual and physical aspects helped to really tell the story. You could really feel the storm when it sinks the ship, it was quite frightening. A bit heavy handed at the end, but otherwise pleasant.
 
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey...IN 48 FPS!!!

The 48 fps makes things look a lot more realistic, there were a couple of moments that looked almost like they were being filmed live, it gives a tremendous amount of clarity to what you see on screen...However, this is not a good thing.

It makes things look sooo realistic that it genuinely looks like it's a bunch of normal people standing around in customes on a film set. An epic fantasy film like this doesn't need to look realistic, what's the point in that? It's meant to be escapism to a fantastic world, filled with fantastic beings beyond our own scope of everyday life. The clarity of everything takes away that shine and gleam of a film to the point it doesn't even look like a film, it looks more akin to something you'd see on BBC, it makes everything look cheap. Some of the movements look absolutely silly at this frame rate, people waddling around on fast forward. Anything that was a small subtle movement now becomes a jarring, sudden snap. It takes away the subtlety of everything. As I said, it just doesn't look or feel like a film, it takes away any sense of atmosphere. I'm glad I seen this in 24 first, because if I'd seen it like this first I wouldn't have cared for it as much. I was so distracted by how things looked that I couldn't get into it and the whole thing just lacked atmosphere. I was actually reminded by the sense of "realism" it bestowed upon the film much like the fight in the last Rocky film (Rocky Balboa). In that film the fight is done in such a way as to make it appear like you're actually watching it on a sports channel coverage, the other films all went for cinematic takes rather than realistic and it made them all feel a lot more epic and gave a greater sense of cinematic atmosphere. When you go to the cinema you want to feel like you're watching an actual film, rather than something you could just watch at home. I personally think that a lot of films lose something when you view them on DVD compared to in the cinema.

In saying all that though, I think 48fps would probably work...for the right kind of film. This is not the film for it though.
 
20thCenturyBoy said:
The 48 fps makes things look a lot more realistic, there were a couple of moments that looked almost like they were being filmed live, it gives a tremendous amount of clarity to what you see on screen...However, this is not a good thing.

It makes things look sooo realistic that it genuinely looks like it's a bunch of normal people standing around in customes on a film set. An epic fantasy film like this doesn't need to look realistic, what's the point in that?
Click to expand...
This is a quite interesting take on this.... Is it also 3D?
 
"It's so realistic I don't like it" is the vibe I've been getting from the critics too. Don't really get it myself.

Do they ever visit the theatre, I wonder?
 
@chaos Yeah, it was in 3D too.

@ayase Since you mentioned the theatre like I said there are times like it feels that what you're seeing is live, and I think this would suit some films, most likely those based on plays or with structures akin to them, Carnage from this year might've worked well in 48. But I just don't personally feel this is the experience I want when going to see a film like The Hobbit, if I wanted that then I would go see a stage production of it.
 
Pitch Perfect

7.5/10

This was Aca-mazing. So funny, it's Bring It On but with acapella. Bumper and Lilly absolutely steal this movie with their stuff, Lilly making a snow angel in puke was brilliant and her 'I ate my twin the womb' was probably the best of her insanity one liners. The songs were all pretty good too and it was just a lot of fun to get in to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Hobbit 6/10

Had low expectations going in (don't like LOTR + had heard negative reviews) but ended up liking it more than I thought I would. It still had a lot of problems however, most promenantly its generally stretched out nature. Was kind of depressed that there was only one female in the cast as I'd suspected there would be. The scene with the eagles was also a bit embarrasing to me, it's probably a good thing that it was right at the end. I don't know if it's a problem with the book itself but in narrative terms the story seems quite amateur in places.
 
ayase said:
"It's so realistic I don't like it" is the vibe I've been getting from the critics too. Don't really get it myself.

Do they ever visit the theatre, I wonder?
Click to expand...
There are some things best left to the theatre, as there are things best left for films. I absolutely love going to the theatre and I have seen some amazing plays, but I feel that a full on fantasy story would look fecking ridiculous in the theatre.

Bringing it closer to home, it's the same with some of the character designs and crazy hair colours in anime. It looks fine in anime, but in real life, it looks laughable (sorry cosplayers - had to say it!) and even in games with more realistic graphics as opposed to cartoony.
 
Ark said:
Was kind of depressed that there was only one female in the cast as I'd suspected there would be.
Click to expand...
Does every story need to have equal representation of genders? Are you bothered by the fact that it didn't include any transgender people? I don't think all stories necessarily need or benefit from diversity, sometimes there's merit to having a majority (or even entirely) male or all female cast, or of a single race. Besides, it's not like it's noninclusive - Look at all the heroic midgets.
 
ayase said:
Ark said:
Was kind of depressed that there was only one female in the cast as I'd suspected there would be.
Click to expand...
Does every story need to have equal representation of genders? Are you bothered by the fact that it didn't include any transgender people? I don't think all stories necessarily need or benefit from diversity, sometimes there's merit to having a majority (or even entirely) male or all female cast, or of a single race. Besides, it's not like it's noninclusive - Look at all the heroic midgets.
Click to expand...

Transgender, Homosexual, Bisexual people are minorities. Women aren't a minority. Many societies are racially monolithic, whereas all societies have both men and women.

Just some context. I always joke that the LOTR films seemed very homoerotic to me and when I saw the Hobbit trailer I was like "I bet that Cate Blanchett is the only female in the cast". I didn't seriously expect that to be the case, so it was shocking to me that I'd joked about it and it ended up being true. I think this is probably more a problem with the books than the film, as I read that Cate Blanchett's character isn't even in the Hobbit originally so you could say they actually tried to be more inclusive in the film.
 
I still don't think lack of women (or men) is a legitimate criticism of a story at all. Is it okay to have an all male cast in a film set in the trenches of WWI? Or a prison? In some stories, women don't factor in, just as in some stories men aren't important. Bearing in mind we're talking about a book written in the early 20th Century and set in a pre-industrial society here, what did you expect?

There's no point being inclusive just for the sake of it - Adding minor female characters who serve no point in the overall plot seems like it would be more demeaning. I'm more than happy to watch something with an all female cast without complaint, nor would I consider it to be pandering to lesbians.
 
ayase said:
I still don't think lack of women (or men) is a legitimate criticism of a story at all. Is it okay to have an all male cast in a film set in the trenches of WWI? Or a prison? In some stories, women don't factor in, just as in some stories men aren't important. Bearing in mind we're talking about a book written in the early 20th Century and set in a pre-industrial society here, what did you expect?
Click to expand...

Battlefields and prisons are very confined settings so it would be understandable in that context. The Hobbit and LOTR have an entire mythical world as their setting though. The Odyssey and Illiad are are also set in (as well as being the product of) pre-industrial societies but they have important female characters. It just seems strange to me that's all.
 
I think in general more females in decent roles would be good but in the case of The Hobbit the storyline makes a very reasonable justification for the group being made up of rough guys. If Bilbo had been a female I'm sure Gandalf would have still called on him (her) given the respectful tone he used in mentioning his mother, but it wasn't to be. Stuffing women into the story as token females is more patronising than omitting them entirely ^^;

I watched the film yesterday myself and thoroughly enjoyed it. The only disappointing aspects were that the cinema here wasn't showing it in 2D at 48fps, so I had to settle for 24fps instead (I hate 3D), and that the dwarves weren't all introduced individually so I couldn't put names to faces for some of them until I got home and looked them up. Hopefully I'll get a chance to watch it in HFR to refresh my memory before the release of the second.

R
 
Attack the Block

I rarely watch movie cause i find them boring specially because i have to watch by myself but i really enjoyed watching this as it's set in London, Brixton

10/10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top