doubleKO said:
height
Wait ... Weight !
Poltergeist.
It cracks me.
The critiscism I'd give is that this film got a little old now, visualy speaking. And though I like the story, it misses a little something maybe.
was talking about this film with a friend last week, pointing out how "actual" is this story, metaphoricly, though reality catch fiction pretty quick...
1- There's the "scientific"/"social" part, from how the "vilains" are hijacking the population's energy to feed their interests. (Think about all what you worry about, what sucks your time, energy and money). ;)
2- There's the "sacred"/"scientific knowledge" part with that great conjonction that is also meant to be used by the "vilains", but the wises are well awared of it (they understand it better actually).
Not only it sounds very actual as a whole picture, but some events like the great conjunction of the 12.21.2012 (at 11:11, universal time) may well accentuate that... reality.
OK, I think some are gonna laugh at me because they ignore what's up on that date... Two things:
1- The center of the galaxy will be aligned wit the Sun and the Earth (the Sun eclipsing it), forming a perfect cross with Jupiter and Mars. Happens all the 5000 years or so... The Mayas knew it, among others.
2- The end of the US president mandate.
So much for one day.
... "And is rebooooorn agaaain, and agaaaaain" tatatatatataaaaaaaaa, tatatatatatatintatin....*
I love these Brits !
Damn Brits !
TheBoost said:
One of the things I love about the movie "Labyrinth" is that it works perfectly on two levels.
- It's a child adventure film with magic and goblins.
- It's a coming of age story about a girl using her imagination to deal with the loss of her mother, and her own fears of growing up.
Either way is equally valid based on the content of the film, and IMHO equally enjoyable.
What other films work perfectly on two (or more) totally different levels of interpretation?
It happens for so many films and fictional works... not always "perfectly" let's admit.
But I think it depends a lot on your own imagination, your culture and your sensibility. Some film from nowadays are incredibly metaphoric to me, though they don't meant to be, or not openly.
... Actually I think Star Wars (OT) has gone beyond anything his main director meant to put in his story. He doesn't seem to catch it after all these years. It's possible a majority of fans don't get it neither and they just like it, without an explanation.
I sold my 2 DVD's some times ago, and I bought something else without any robot or technology crap. I think that's a better idea.
... And Sluggo, don't call me neurotic again !
In disorder:
Peter Jackson's HEAVENLY CREATURES
A lot of JAMES BOND
HIGHLANDER ("there can be only one". I don't know the others at all)
V for VENDETTA
GHOST IN THE SHELL (mostly for its awesome ambiant music)
Ang Lee's CROUNCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON
The BOURNE TRILOGY
CONAN The BARBARIAN
Oliver Stone's JFK
Amenabar's LOS OTROS
+ certainly some Aliens & Star Wars stuff, but not that often.
... no, no. Just according to your lazyness regarding your recently born beard.
Bingowings said:
... I looked like Christopher Lee's mini-me.
Pfff! I saw you already. You're just a kid ! Mature, but a kid.
DuracellEnergizer said:
... I give it 5.7/10.
Sorry, I'm sure you meant 5.783/10, no ?
Rhum Express
Superb story, great actors (and based on a true story besides). I loved it.
edit: and great humoristic situations, worth to mention.
Give it money ! ... More money !!! Give, give, give it away !
It 's in 3D !!!
The pop-corns are in 2D though.
Yes, nice one. Kind of film where it seems nothing happens, while it actually is the base of so much things happening ;) .
Why on earth are you all torturing your minds / eyes / thoughts with this, guys ?!
- THREAD CLOSED -
Bobby Jay said:
Watched this at the cinema today and thought I'd share some of my thoughts. Not going to bother talking about the story or acting. You either tolerate it or hate it. Just talking from an entirely visual point of view.
Not surprisingly there isn't that many jump out, in your face moments during the film. A couple of the blue Gungan bombs flying towards the camera and Obi Wan's jumping and slashing at the camera are the main in your face moments but apart from that the 3D conversion is pretty subtle.
It does add depth to many shots throughout the film, the following is a list of what stood out to me:
- The stars in the opening crawl stood out to me a bit more and the exterior space shots all had added depth to them, especially the shots with planetary bodies in them.
- Surprisingly, the battle droids looked a bit more "realistic" and better defined spatially. The added depth helps them look less like they where added to the scene.
- The fish outside the Gungan city are more noticeable thanks to them being in the foreground with added depth.
- The trip through Naboo's core looks better and the fish that chase them all stand out a lot more. One swims towards the camera but stops short of being a showy in your face shot.
- Several of the background characters in Mos Espa stand out more, mainly the CG ones. I thought some had been added for the 3D release but after checking the blu-rays they're the same just more noticeable.
- The pod race looks good in 3D. The pods stand out more and look a bit more realistic with the added depth. Nothing jumps out at you but the whole sequence has a bit more "umph" to it.
....
Wait... All this reminds me a very bad film I saw more than 10 years ago... If only I could remember the name !
... Ape is ZOD one ?.... Hum, no...
Harmy said:
And it's also funny, how he says that 3D vs 2D is like colour film vs. black and white. So basically 3D conversion of 2D films is the exact same thing as colourising a B&W film?
http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainstspecialedition.html
I remember having read that article last year. Awesome.
Bingowings said:
This is my favourite.
The club mix would be a cool replacement for the celebration march in TRM:SE.
LOL ! More hilarious again when you see 128 people like it, 222 don't !
... And that ignoring thyself results in having a ton of panties to wash ?
Wrong way: starting from cleverness and giveall of it and end in absurdity/ridiculousness (ex: politics)
Right way: starting from absurdity/stupidity and show it in all its magnificence. Thus you may well end with a clever piece of work. (ex: some fictions, cartoons and so on...).
SilverWook said:
What was the early print run of The Hobbit in the 30's? More people likely saw Star Wars between 1977 and 1997 by a mile.
The big difference is also this one: we know for sure Tolkien worked with a professional mind, or a care for authenticity and details. I'm sure Tolkien worked at making it better.
That is not at all the mind Lucas has, who's all devoted to commercial and business issues. We know his change are not for the best, but for playing around or test his new toys, deteriorating needlessly the whole thing.
Plus: we know he generates tons of money, and that it would cost "nothing" for him to restore the original in the best quality you could dream of. Spending money in quality !... What a loss for those people.
______________________________________________
George Lucas works for that:
Only your glasses and false nose make yourself your worst ennemy !
Why doesn't he blow that door ? Too shy ?
... Or just call the firemen