Movies you just recently watched
Forum rules
Please keep the forum rules and guidelines in mind when creating or replying to a topic.
Please keep the forum rules and guidelines in mind when creating or replying to a topic.
-
Adsolution
- Posts: 22233
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:55 pm
- Contact:
- Tings: 110541
Re: Movies you just recently watched
I honestly wish that they would make a sequel to the Princess and the Frog, because I just die for 2D animation.
Re: Movies you just recently watched
The animation quality for the Princess and the Frog is loyal to the quality of the old Disney classicals, but I honestly found the plot itself disappointing, and the musicals too.
-
Adsolution
- Posts: 22233
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:55 pm
- Contact:
- Tings: 110541
Re: Movies you just recently watched
That is true, though knowing that Disneytoon studios is closed and they would never resort to something like that again, I think that a sequel to that movie could only go uphill.
-
BzzitTheMoskito
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:15 pm
- Location: The remains of The Buccaneer.
- Tings: 3550
Re: Movies you just recently watched
I don't find anything supporting this.Keane wrote: There's a sequel coming.
(even though i don't care)Or are you referring to Tangled Ever after, the 6 minutes short?
-
Rayfist
- Posts: 12553
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:36 pm
- Location: Right here, right now!
- Tings: 176605
Re: Movies you just recently watched
Finally saw the Hobbit, I loved it! 
Re: Movies you just recently watched
I saw Secret of Kells just now. Beautiful art style and story. Though there's a disturbing, creepy shot that really gave me goosebumps and it won't be leaving my head tonight.
-
Adsolution
- Posts: 22233
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:55 pm
- Contact:
- Tings: 110541
Re: Movies you just recently watched
I just finally saw The Hobbit last night:
Veeerrrry interesting specimen, an overrated one, I think. I've heard people everywhere claim it's one of the best movies they've ever seen, but I merely thought it was kind of 'eh.'
The film's first half was one of the most unnecessary things I have ever seen in cinema. Until they left Rivendell, I was bored out of my mind. What happened exactly? In the span of nearly two hours they had the dwarves show up at Bilbo's place, they encountered some trolls, and they found some weapons in a cave. The Lord of the Rings' movies were good because even though they were long, they understood what the word 'pacing' meant. That word is completely foreign to The Hobbit, or maybe it isn't, you're just watching the first half of the movie at quarter-speed. The only thing it didn't do at quarter-speed was put me to sleep.
The third act and climax however, starting roughly when Bilbo finds Gollum and the giant is defeated, the film suddenly switched over from something that was dragged out like mad to something that was epic, climactic, action-packed, intriguing and very well paced; this is also the section where they decided to cram nearly all the protagonist's character development in. For such an uneventful and relatively boring movie, the ending is extremely satisfying and leaves you in hyper anticipation for the sequel.
How about the 48 FPS? I loved it right from the very start. It made the action so much clearer, far more details can be implemented, and the scenes where you see animals running across the land or where there are explosions will make your jaw drop.
But at the same time, the movie almost feels technically incompetent, as if they were really lazy with some things. It was as if the film was holding a sheet of paper in front of your face saying "EFFECTS, EFFECTS!!!!", and the CG is some of the fakest I've seen in recent years. A good example is Gollum: Even though he looks remarkable in his own merits, his shading didn't match that of the world's at all, and it was very obvious that he was pasted on top. An even better example is at the scene where the bridge falls down through the crevasse, good god, that is the worst simulation I have ever seen in film history! How could they screw up something like that so badly? Yes, I get that the movie is supposed to be kind of quirky, but the way they try to mesh it with the other more serious tone just does not work.
It was 'eh.'
Veeerrrry interesting specimen, an overrated one, I think. I've heard people everywhere claim it's one of the best movies they've ever seen, but I merely thought it was kind of 'eh.'
The film's first half was one of the most unnecessary things I have ever seen in cinema. Until they left Rivendell, I was bored out of my mind. What happened exactly? In the span of nearly two hours they had the dwarves show up at Bilbo's place, they encountered some trolls, and they found some weapons in a cave. The Lord of the Rings' movies were good because even though they were long, they understood what the word 'pacing' meant. That word is completely foreign to The Hobbit, or maybe it isn't, you're just watching the first half of the movie at quarter-speed. The only thing it didn't do at quarter-speed was put me to sleep.
The third act and climax however, starting roughly when Bilbo finds Gollum and the giant is defeated, the film suddenly switched over from something that was dragged out like mad to something that was epic, climactic, action-packed, intriguing and very well paced; this is also the section where they decided to cram nearly all the protagonist's character development in. For such an uneventful and relatively boring movie, the ending is extremely satisfying and leaves you in hyper anticipation for the sequel.
How about the 48 FPS? I loved it right from the very start. It made the action so much clearer, far more details can be implemented, and the scenes where you see animals running across the land or where there are explosions will make your jaw drop.
But at the same time, the movie almost feels technically incompetent, as if they were really lazy with some things. It was as if the film was holding a sheet of paper in front of your face saying "EFFECTS, EFFECTS!!!!", and the CG is some of the fakest I've seen in recent years. A good example is Gollum: Even though he looks remarkable in his own merits, his shading didn't match that of the world's at all, and it was very obvious that he was pasted on top. An even better example is at the scene where the bridge falls down through the crevasse, good god, that is the worst simulation I have ever seen in film history! How could they screw up something like that so badly? Yes, I get that the movie is supposed to be kind of quirky, but the way they try to mesh it with the other more serious tone just does not work.
It was 'eh.'
Re: Movies you just recently watched
And now I've watched All Dogs Go To Heaven for the first time in a good 15 years. When we still had it, I watched it a lot. But a chunk of the movie was missing since it was recorded on a VHS tape. The entire beginning up until Charlie and the pink angel dog were dancing in heaven, to be exact. So I never knew what happened exactly before that other than what hints the movie threw at me. Anyway still liking this movie.
Re: Movies you just recently watched
The Room.
It was beautiful.
It was beautiful.
Re: Movies you just recently watched
Tommy Wiseau's work is very enjoyable, and this is one of all time favourite movies... perhaps not in the way he'd intended.GNineify wrote:The Room.
It was beautiful.
-
BzzitTheMoskito
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:15 pm
- Location: The remains of The Buccaneer.
- Tings: 3550
Re: Movies you just recently watched
Gangster Squad. It's a great action movie, minus some cheesy slow motion scenes, I would recommend it to all who wishes to start 2013 with a action movie.
Re: Movies you just recently watched
Went to see Frankenweenie. Overall story wasn't that special really. I didnt care for it at all, but the stop motion animation is definitely Burton quality and the character design is fun to look at. So let's put the animated features of 2012 that I saw in a personal top 3.
1. Paranorman
2. Wreck-it Ralph
3. Frankenweenie
1. Paranorman
2. Wreck-it Ralph
3. Frankenweenie
Re: Movies you just recently watched
The Last Stand. I loved it.
-
Adsolution
- Posts: 22233
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:55 pm
- Contact:
- Tings: 110541
Re: Movies you just recently watched
I watched Shaun of the Dead again. I'd seen it before in theatres when I was nine, but I didn't really follow it well back then. What a great experience, it's probably one of the best comedy-dramas I've ever seen.
Though, the ending left me feeling a bit uncomfortable. Even though it's technically a happy resolve, it's also rather depressing.
Though, the ending left me feeling a bit uncomfortable. Even though it's technically a happy resolve, it's also rather depressing.
-
Adsolution
- Posts: 22233
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:55 pm
- Contact:
- Tings: 110541
Re: Movies you just recently watched
- Spoiler text is green -
I finally saw Frankenweenie.
Great start, great concept, great characters, great art, great style, great direction. The first half of the movie was great! It pulled at your emotions, it raised quality moral issues and really dished them out well. Watching Victor's subtle facial expressions, especially when for a moment his experiment on bringing Sparky back to life failed, were a real treat. The cat-girl was absolutely hilarious.
Unfortunately, the film's second half falls awkwardly in a similar way to the way Paranorman did: It swapped out the character development and depth for a much shallower, action-filled and silly second half, and the original moral being raised was dashed away entirely for something upsettingly wrong. Since my Paranorman 'review' was a while back, allow me to explain:
In Paranorman, Norman was an outcast because he had a strange fascination with those beyond the grave, and he claimed to be able to speak to the dead, and thus was always seen talking to 'himself.' Norman has to deal with this by finding a friend he can confide in, and someone that accepts him for who he is, whether or not he is delusional or can, in fact, talk to the dead. I loved this, I thought it was brilliant and setting a new standard for animated films, but then it did that thing. That thing was having the dead pop up and terrorise everyone, making the film turn incredibly silly for the most part with the odd seemingly out-of-place incredibly serious scene that lasted far too short here and there, and then the townsfolk respected Norman because he turned out to actually be able to speak to the dead, and everyone instantly submits and says that they were wrong.
Good god, no! This is wrong on so many levels, and the point it makes is actually far more harmful than it is helpful, or even not helpful at all... Remember kids, if you're a bullied, depressed outcast with a strange amount of knowledge that may or may not be true(whether or not it's true doesn't even matter in principal) and no one will believe you, just wait for the knowledge to present itself in shimmering armour and terrorise those who hurt you until they have no choice but to submit to you because you know more than they do.
That isn't the only problem though, why do they have to claim they were wrong to not believe him? Let me delve into Plato's argument quick: according to Plato, the one who has superior knowledge given to him and only him has a subconscious moral obligation to enlighten everyone else about said knowledge, a la the preacher, or the designated crackpot on the sidewalk claiming to have been abducted by aliens. Naturally, people don't have to believe the 'enlightened' individual, the people have no way of knowing whether or not he speaks the truth, and therefore are not at fault for not believing him; faith, believing him, is in its most basic form entirely irrational. On top of that, the 'enlightened' individual could in fact be in one of three situations: he could either be lying, delusional, or telling the whole truth.
So then why did both Frankenweenie and Paranorman end up with this screwed-up moral of stating that people should always believe the person who speaks without even having attainable proof? I have no doubt that a good amount of kids watching these films who were heavily invested in the respective film's protagonists, being depressed and/or in the same position as them, would feel alienated by the endings. To go into a little more detail, this was how Frankenweenie laid out its moral:
Victor is an elementary school student with an incredible gift for science, his only friend being his dog Sparky. His parents don't much pay attention to his interests despite their lacklustre efforts, and sign him up for baseball - the common counterpart to science - against his wishes. Like he always does, he brings his dog along with him, and as fate would have it, his dog is run over and killed by a passing car. Left utterly alone, using his scientific gift he manages to resurrect Sparky, and when his parents find out they instantly disapprove and call Sparky a walking abomination; a lot of school children also find out and pretend to be Victor's friends to exploit his ability. What do you know, for a good forty minutes the movie suddenly turns into mutant warfare zaniness as a bunch of giant re-deads duke it out. Skipping that crap, for some reason after all that, the parents hit some 'revelation' that made them 'see' that Sparky was not an abomination, and that undead or not, he was still Victor's best friend. To the film's credit, it did have a scene where Sparky saves Victor's crush(?), but that's no justification for the total moral cop-out.
Yes, I know I'm picking on children's films here, honestly quite good ones at that, but in my opinion, don't even begin to raise these complex moral issues and delve so deep into them if you can't even bother to remotely wrap them up, let alone twist it into something so counter-productive it's actually kind of disturbing.
I finally saw Frankenweenie.
Great start, great concept, great characters, great art, great style, great direction. The first half of the movie was great! It pulled at your emotions, it raised quality moral issues and really dished them out well. Watching Victor's subtle facial expressions, especially when for a moment his experiment on bringing Sparky back to life failed, were a real treat. The cat-girl was absolutely hilarious.
Unfortunately, the film's second half falls awkwardly in a similar way to the way Paranorman did: It swapped out the character development and depth for a much shallower, action-filled and silly second half, and the original moral being raised was dashed away entirely for something upsettingly wrong. Since my Paranorman 'review' was a while back, allow me to explain:
In Paranorman, Norman was an outcast because he had a strange fascination with those beyond the grave, and he claimed to be able to speak to the dead, and thus was always seen talking to 'himself.' Norman has to deal with this by finding a friend he can confide in, and someone that accepts him for who he is, whether or not he is delusional or can, in fact, talk to the dead. I loved this, I thought it was brilliant and setting a new standard for animated films, but then it did that thing. That thing was having the dead pop up and terrorise everyone, making the film turn incredibly silly for the most part with the odd seemingly out-of-place incredibly serious scene that lasted far too short here and there, and then the townsfolk respected Norman because he turned out to actually be able to speak to the dead, and everyone instantly submits and says that they were wrong.
Good god, no! This is wrong on so many levels, and the point it makes is actually far more harmful than it is helpful, or even not helpful at all... Remember kids, if you're a bullied, depressed outcast with a strange amount of knowledge that may or may not be true(whether or not it's true doesn't even matter in principal) and no one will believe you, just wait for the knowledge to present itself in shimmering armour and terrorise those who hurt you until they have no choice but to submit to you because you know more than they do.
That isn't the only problem though, why do they have to claim they were wrong to not believe him? Let me delve into Plato's argument quick: according to Plato, the one who has superior knowledge given to him and only him has a subconscious moral obligation to enlighten everyone else about said knowledge, a la the preacher, or the designated crackpot on the sidewalk claiming to have been abducted by aliens. Naturally, people don't have to believe the 'enlightened' individual, the people have no way of knowing whether or not he speaks the truth, and therefore are not at fault for not believing him; faith, believing him, is in its most basic form entirely irrational. On top of that, the 'enlightened' individual could in fact be in one of three situations: he could either be lying, delusional, or telling the whole truth.
So then why did both Frankenweenie and Paranorman end up with this screwed-up moral of stating that people should always believe the person who speaks without even having attainable proof? I have no doubt that a good amount of kids watching these films who were heavily invested in the respective film's protagonists, being depressed and/or in the same position as them, would feel alienated by the endings. To go into a little more detail, this was how Frankenweenie laid out its moral:
Victor is an elementary school student with an incredible gift for science, his only friend being his dog Sparky. His parents don't much pay attention to his interests despite their lacklustre efforts, and sign him up for baseball - the common counterpart to science - against his wishes. Like he always does, he brings his dog along with him, and as fate would have it, his dog is run over and killed by a passing car. Left utterly alone, using his scientific gift he manages to resurrect Sparky, and when his parents find out they instantly disapprove and call Sparky a walking abomination; a lot of school children also find out and pretend to be Victor's friends to exploit his ability. What do you know, for a good forty minutes the movie suddenly turns into mutant warfare zaniness as a bunch of giant re-deads duke it out. Skipping that crap, for some reason after all that, the parents hit some 'revelation' that made them 'see' that Sparky was not an abomination, and that undead or not, he was still Victor's best friend. To the film's credit, it did have a scene where Sparky saves Victor's crush(?), but that's no justification for the total moral cop-out.
Yes, I know I'm picking on children's films here, honestly quite good ones at that, but in my opinion, don't even begin to raise these complex moral issues and delve so deep into them if you can't even bother to remotely wrap them up, let alone twist it into something so counter-productive it's actually kind of disturbing.
Re: Movies you just recently watched
*SPOILERS HIDDEN*
I had no problem with the second halves of Paranorman and Frankenweenie. What mostly let me completely confused in Frankenweenie was [how the invisible fish was never brought up again after its disappearance. Could that happen to Sparky too?] This was never answered and the little part was just thrown away.
I had no problem with the second halves of Paranorman and Frankenweenie. What mostly let me completely confused in Frankenweenie was [how the invisible fish was never brought up again after its disappearance. Could that happen to Sparky too?] This was never answered and the little part was just thrown away.
-
Raven_Guardian
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:30 pm
- Tings: 1035
Re: Movies you just recently watched
This movie is great!GNineify wrote:The Room.
It was beautiful.
YOU ARE TEARING APART LISAAAA. chichipchipchip
-
Adsolution
- Posts: 22233
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:55 pm
- Contact:
- Tings: 110541
Re: Movies you just recently watched
But are you in acknowledgement of anything I listed?GNineify wrote:*SPOILERS HIDDEN*
I had no problem with the second halves of Paranorman and Frankenweenie. What mostly let me completely confused in Frankenweenie was [how the invisible fish was never brought up again after its disappearance. Could that happen to Sparky too?] This was never answered and the little part was just thrown away.
Re: Movies you just recently watched
I'm currently watching the sixth season of Dexter, I think it's simply amazing.
Breaking Bad just wasn't my cup of tea, but Dexter on the other hand.... it's almost the perfect TV show in my opinion.
Breaking Bad just wasn't my cup of tea, but Dexter on the other hand.... it's almost the perfect TV show in my opinion.
Re: Movies you just recently watched
Die Hard 5.