Coraline (2009).
It's inevitably not an accurate depiction of the darkness of the source material but it's still pretty dark stuff for an animated film primarily aimed at children.
The voice acting is good and the animation style is bold.
If you want explain Gnosticism to your kids it's probably the easiest way.
4 Balls.
The Little Mermaid (1989) 9.5/10
Toy Story 3 (2010) 8/10
The Valley of Gwangi (1969) 6/10
The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey (2012).
I finally got around to seeing this after reading so much about it that wasn't good.
It is perfect. No.
It is a not bad adaptation of that part of the book. It changes things but it's a film adaptation so I'm fine with that. Also I can see how the book would need be at least two very long films to be true to the flow of the book so making it a trilogy isn't a problem for me either (upon reflecting on the flow of the film).
It shouldn't be seen in the cinema.
It is too long without an intermission. It would work better as a Game Of Thrones style mini-series. The future of these films and their cousins is to be seen box set style anyway it works better that way.
On the whole I enjoyed it, I would have cut the first Dwarf song (I never liked the songs in the book as a kid anyway) I would have trimmed the Goblin King sequence to make it less cartoonish on paper before adding more rubberpixelation to the mix.
The effects are a real step backwards though. The whole film looks kind of waxy especially the CGI and I saw in 2D Standard Definition with a conventional framerate. If I had seen this at the cinema I would understand the acid thrown at this.
It looked like a video game cutscene of an earlier generation than the other three related films.
The framing device (Frodo etc) doesn't work it makes it into a Lord of the Rings prequel instead of an adaptation of the earlier book.
This backfires because the peril in this film is implausibly mild.
People cling to objects that smack together and nobody gets crushed let alone die etc. Which works as an adaptation of the earlier book but not as a prequel to the later books.
The ponies should have been killed and not run away. This sounds like a minor quibble but as the film is meant to more child friendly displacing the consequences of danger to the animals we have bonded with makes more sense than another scene with dead animals which feels disconnected and gratuitous in terms of story.
Radagast's scenes are handled badly. I don't mind him being there as much as some but very little effort seems to be made to fit him in.
Compared to Lord of the Rings the tone doesn't match.
It would be better to start with young Bilbo and then maybe add old Bilbo at the end of the last film to nod towards the darker sequel story which would allow for a retuning of the universe into a more plausible darkness.
Indeed toning down the action to be more believable would sell the characters better.
4 Cones.
Superman vs. The Elite (2012) - 7/10
Bingowings said:
Compared to Lord of the Rings the tone doesn't match.
Thats because the tone has not got there yet.
The second one gets us closer.
John Williams score to Return of the Jedi Remastered/Remixed:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/JOHN-WILLIAMS-Star-Wars-Episode-VI-Return-of-the-Jedi-Remastered-Edition/topic/14606/page/1/
Yes and the third will probably be closer still. Also, Bingo, this edit might do it for you:
http://www.fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/79-fanedit-listings/fanfix/962-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-arkenstone-edition
Bingowings said:
Coraline (2009).
It's inevitably not an accurate depiction of the darkness of the source material but it's still pretty dark stuff for an animated film primarily aimed at children.
The voice acting is good and the animation style is bold.
If you want explain Gnosticism to your kids it's probably the easiest way.
4 Balls.
Definitely the darkest plot twist I've ever seen in a kid's movie. And the main reason I scream hysterically when a commercial comes on for those creepy button eyed dolls. ;)
Why the heck haven't I bought this on Blu Ray yet?
Where were you in '77?
DominicCobb said:
Yes and the third will probably be closer still. Also, Bingo, this edit might do it for you:
http://www.fanedit.org/ifdb/component/content/article/79-fanedit-listings/fanfix/962-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-arkenstone-edition
I've downloaded that. I really need to see it.
I for one thoroughly enjoyed TH:AUJ for what it was. I didn't mind the winks and nods (which have their place, considering there are many folks who love the LOTR films and know nothing of the books), the broadening of the storyline with apocryphal portions, such as the council, the definitive attachment of the Necromancer to Sauron, and even the White Orc to give a more immediate menace. My biggest beef was the unrealistic action, which even in the books was hard to believe at times, since it seemed the whole team was invincible. It was worse on this front in the film, of course. But I even prefer the different tone. The Hobbit was written many years before LOTR, and the books are different in nature and tone themselves. I like to see that preserved.
Still haven't seen the new one, but I'm looking forward to it.
Saw Frozen last week. Disney's kids' movies are really getting good again, after a pretty lame decade or so. Must be because they are putting Lasseter at the helm. One thing I like about this and Tangled is the fact that they are emphasizing a truer form of love instead of the infatuation they've been famous for. Ariel sees some flutist on a boat and she's immediately in love. Aladdin sees a babe in the marketplace and he's smitten. It's true love folks! For the depth of the character and relationship development in Beauty and the Beast, it has always been one of my favorite Disney cartoons. Well, now people actually sacrifice and change for each other. And in the case of Frozen:
MAJOR SPOILER ALERT--PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK
Love at first sight is shown to be stupid, and the true love that develops is harder to win.
END SPOILER
Short story: Frozen was excellent, even if it had almost nothing to do with the Hans Christian Anderson story it was supposedly based on.
darth_ender said:
One thing I like about this and Tangled is the fact that they are emphasizing a truer form of love instead of the infatuation they've been famous for. Ariel sees some flutist on a boat and she's immediately in love. Aladdin sees a babe in the marketplace and he's smitten. It's true love folks!
It may be funny coming from me, but I actually believe in love at first sight. Of course, it's hard to deny something when it actually happens to you; if it hadn't, I probably wouldn't buy into it.
Whether it's love based on truth or illusion is another matter altogether, though.
darth_ender said:
the broadening of the storyline with apocryphal portions, such as the council, the definitive attachment of the Necromancer to Sauron
I'm reading the LOTR trilogy for the first time right now. I was surprised that a lot of the stuff they've added in this adaptation are actually referenced as happening during The Hobbit in Fellowship of the Ring.
I'll Be Home for Christmas (1998) - 7/10
How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) - 7/10
The Thief of Bagdad (1940) - 8/10
Knight-Mare Hare (1955) - 9/10
Kit for Cat (1948) - 6/10
Kiss Me Cat (1953) - 7/10
Pacific Rim, not such good that I thought
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) - 9/10
Christine (1983) - 7/10
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
It's apt that flaming dog piss is what resurrects Freddy in this movie, 'cause that's what this movie is -- flaming dog piss.
4/10
Bingowings said:
The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey (2012).
I finally got around to seeing this after reading so much about it that wasn't good.
It is perfect. No.
It is a not bad adaptation of that part of the book. It changes things but it's a film adaptation so I'm fine with that. Also I can see how the book would need be at least two very long films to be true to the flow of the book so making it a trilogy isn't a problem for me either (upon reflecting on the flow of the film).
It shouldn't be seen in the cinema.
It is too long without an intermission. It would work better as a Game Of Thrones style mini-series. The future of these films and their cousins is to be seen box set style anyway it works better that way.
On the whole I enjoyed it, I would have cut the first Dwarf song (I never liked the songs in the book as a kid anyway) I would have trimmed the Goblin King sequence to make it less cartoonish on paper before adding more rubberpixelation to the mix.
The effects are a real step backwards though. The whole film looks kind of waxy especially the CGI and I saw in 2D Standard Definition with a conventional framerate. If I had seen this at the cinema I would understand the acid thrown at this.
It looked like a video game cutscene of an earlier generation than the other three related films.
The framing device (Frodo etc) doesn't work it makes it into a Lord of the Rings prequel instead of an adaptation of the earlier book.
This backfires because the peril in this film is implausibly mild.
People cling to objects that smack together and nobody gets crushed let alone die etc. Which works as an adaptation of the earlier book but not as a prequel to the later books.
The ponies should have been killed and not run away. This sounds like a minor quibble but as the film is meant to more child friendly displacing the consequences of danger to the animals we have bonded with makes more sense than another scene with dead animals which feels disconnected and gratuitous in terms of story.
Radagast's scenes are handled badly. I don't mind him being there as much as some but very little effort seems to be made to fit him in.
Compared to Lord of the Rings the tone doesn't match.
It would be better to start with young Bilbo and then maybe add old Bilbo at the end of the last film to nod towards the darker sequel story which would allow for a retuning of the universe into a more plausible darkness.
Indeed toning down the action to be more believable would sell the characters better.
4 Cones.
I agree. I just came from seeing Smaug. As with the first, I feel like the movies are too reminiscent of the style of PT. Faster, more intense, more CGI, rhyming like poetry, etc. In Smaug there was just too much stuff, a couple of big video game type sequences - I was practically convinced we were back on Mustafar inside the Lonely Mountain. Like Radagast, Beorn was handled badly - and not in accordance with the mystery and playfulness in the book. There were other departures and I rolled my eyes a couple of times where things went way overboard (as with one special effect/scene transition). Sounds like I hated it, but I didn't. It's just too much a mish-mash without true levity and playfulness the story needs.
The blue elephant in the room.
Please don't compare The Hobbit films to the PT. Yeah there's more CGI and intense action scenes, but at least there's location shooting, and, most importantly, good acting and dialogue.
The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug
I think I might actually like Bilbo a little more than Frodo. Overall, very exciting and entertaining movie, with the dwarf comedy toned down a great deal (except with one scene with Bombur where he takes out a dozen orcs in a matter of seconds), and one hell of a cliffhanger.
Also, the only off-colour joke I can think of in a LOTR movie.
9/10 Would watch again.
I’m just here because I’m driving tonight.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - 9/10
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985) - 6/10
Roadgames (1981) - 8/10
The Terminator (1984) - 9/10
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) - 9/10
A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989) - 4.5/10
Howling II (1985) - 4.5/10
Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives (1986) - 6/10
Freaked (1993) - 8/10
Love Letter from an Open Grave (2010) - 6/10
Took my wee one to see Frozen a couple of weeks ago, we both loved it,....the last movie I took her to see was the Muppet Movie & she had been put off movies because of the bad guys in that.....it was a relief that Frozen didn't have a scary antagonist, so hopefully thats her over that stage 10/10
I watched The Lone Ranger tonight which I had heard recently was not as bad as the press had made out,....I was pleasantly surprised how good it was,....just a bit too long, but overall brilliant 7/10
J
Do you mean The Muppets, as The Muppet Movie came out in 1979? ;)
Where were you in '77?
Saving Mr. Banks
Mary Poppins is one of my favorites, so I was happy to see this. It's a surprisingly dark entry into its origins.
What can I say? It takes liberties, for sure, but it's thoroughly enjoyable. I love BJ Novak and Schwartzman as the Sherman Bros., Emma Thompson as Travers, and especially Tom Hanks as Disney.
I recommend you see it, but the experience is made better if you've seen the films, and even moreso (IMO) if you've read one of the books (which I have).
10/10 WILL watch again.
I’m just here because I’m driving tonight.
SilverWook said:
Do you mean The Muppets, as The Muppet Movie came out in 1979? ;)
Yeah, the recent one, sorry
J
The Muppets would put me off movies too. Ugh.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Jaitea said:
the last movie I took her to see was the Muppet Movie & she had been put off movies because of the bad guys in that.....it was a relief that Frozen didn't have a scary antagonist, so hopefully thats her over that stage 10/10
This gave me pause but then I remembered THIS. That is scary.
Oh and please tell me you're introducing her to the Disney classics.
That's a scary villain? Doc Hopper wanted Kermit as the pitchman for his fried frog legs franchise, and was willing to resort to drastic measures to force him to do it.
Where were you in '77?
Tack said:
Emma Watson as Travers
Thompson?