Last night, I attended a private screening of the Andrew Bird music doc, "Fever Year." There were only 12 of us in attendance, but we applauded afterward. I informed the director of this today (via Twitter), and she said I, quote, "Made her day." Boom.
Reminds me a bit of the Portuguese tradition of giving an airplane's pilot a round of applause for making safe landing...
I watched the 1st half an hour of Iron Sky the other night before turning it off. If there was ever a film that should have just stayed as a trailer and a tag line.
The miniseries is actually really good. I have it on VHS somewhere; it's worth watching. The Children of Dune sequel miniseries is a bit hokey, but also pretty good. They came out when Sci-Fi was doing REAL science fiction: Alien marathons, big blocks of 1970s Matsumoto anime on Saturday mornings, stuff like that.
The first miniseries actually won an Emmy for cinematography and visual effects.
Didn't they swap around a bit of the story in the miniseries? It's been a _long_ time since I've seen it but I recall being all butthurt about some story elements that were added/taken away.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is the saddest, most personal movie I have ever seen. It's not the depiction of 9/11 that got me. While, that is one of my clearest memories (a al Kennedy's assassination for the older folks), it's the main character that cuts so close to home for me. One of my family's closest friends has an autistic child, and in watching the movie, I couldn't help but see him going through the events himself.
Also, it was totally better paced than Fellowship. Seriously, I don't understand how people can praise that movie and say that the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey really drags in a bloated running time.
I'm going to watch it tonight. Friday showing, back-half-of-the-cinema-seats, 3D, 3D glasses, HFR, parking... it's probably going to be my most expensive trip to the cinema to date.
The hobbit was way too long and could have lost about 1/3 of the film without any serious loss to the story.
Here's my problem: the same could easily be said about Fellowship of the Ring.
The "You could have cut _____ with no loss to the story" depends on what filled that time. I liked Fellowship for many reasons, efficient storytelling not being one of them. The fluff was good fluff, with character and world building. Drunken Butler apparently doesn't think The Hobbit's fluff was of similar caliber.
Will the Hobbit be receiving a wider release in HFR if it is successful this weekend? If not I may just go see it in the standard format since the closest place showing it in that format is just over an hour away and it will be December 29 before I can get to it, at which point it will likely not even be in HFR anymore.
The Hobbit was really, really good fun. There is a lot that could be cut, and the movie still make sense, but it's a movie that has no problem taking its time. And you know what? If you're going to watch a followup/prequel to the Lord of the Rings, complaining that it takes its time is pretty stupid.
I liked it because it gave me exactly what I wanted. That is, I really loved Fellowship of the Rings, liked bits of Two Towers, and got almost nothing from Return of the King. The Hobbit feels very much like a retelling of Fellowship (which, of course, the book version of Fellowship of the Rings was like a comfortable retreading of the same territory as the beginning of the Hobbit).
There's the Shire, a chase to Rivendell, a trip to the mountains, a trip under the mountains, chases through caverns, and all that stuff. Except this time they know exactly what they are doing, so it's actually better in a lot of ways.
And it keeps the tone light throughout, which is very important considering the ponderous weight of the later Lord of the Rings movies.
I liked the addition of the new baddie, to give a sense of urgency and threat throughout the movie, though his addition did diminish the role of the other monster characters. I also liked bringing characters from later in this story, and from the Lord of the Rings, into this movie, to tie it too the bigger picture.
Whether or not theaters are showing the Hobbit in 48 fps is completely determined by whether or not the theatre has a projector that can show movies in 48 fps. If this is a runaway hit because of the higher frame rate, more theaters will upgrade their projectors to handle it.
I really enjoyed the high frame rate. It works perfectly for 3D.
I'm not sure a drama would work in HFR, as it would look too much like a TV show shot on video, but The Hobbit is very, very hard to mistake for a TV movie, due to the scope and scale. At the very start it looked a bit computery game-ish, but after about 5 minutes my brain just went with it. The same with the 3D. It's a pity the colours were washed out a bit though.
The 3D in Avatar really annoyed me all the way through whenever there wasn't action with a single clear focus. Maybe the Hobbit was shot better, or maybe it's down to the HFR video, but this time the 3D was never annoying.
I'd certainly pay extra to see a HFR 3D movie again, which is the opposite of my reaction to normal 3D.
Comments
I mean, it looked nice, and all the performances were great, but we get it.
I'd really like to see a two part Dune movie. It's too big for one movie, but not the right shape for a trilogy. Let's see what 2014 brings.
The first miniseries actually won an Emmy for cinematography and visual effects.
Not that I were truly happy with sound guns ...
Also, it was totally better paced than Fellowship. Seriously, I don't understand how people can praise that movie and say that the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey really drags in a bloated running time.
I still liked it, I just didn't love it.
I hope it's worth it!
I liked it because it gave me exactly what I wanted. That is, I really loved Fellowship of the Rings, liked bits of Two Towers, and got almost nothing from Return of the King. The Hobbit feels very much like a retelling of Fellowship (which, of course, the book version of Fellowship of the Rings was like a comfortable retreading of the same territory as the beginning of the Hobbit).
There's the Shire, a chase to Rivendell, a trip to the mountains, a trip under the mountains, chases through caverns, and all that stuff. Except this time they know exactly what they are doing, so it's actually better in a lot of ways.
And it keeps the tone light throughout, which is very important considering the ponderous weight of the later Lord of the Rings movies.
I liked the addition of the new baddie, to give a sense of urgency and threat throughout the movie, though his addition did diminish the role of the other monster characters. I also liked bringing characters from later in this story, and from the Lord of the Rings, into this movie, to tie it too the bigger picture.
Two thumbs up (but really, it takes its time).
I'm not sure a drama would work in HFR, as it would look too much like a TV show shot on video, but The Hobbit is very, very hard to mistake for a TV movie, due to the scope and scale. At the very start it looked a bit computery game-ish, but after about 5 minutes my brain just went with it. The same with the 3D. It's a pity the colours were washed out a bit though.
The 3D in Avatar really annoyed me all the way through whenever there wasn't action with a single clear focus. Maybe the Hobbit was shot better, or maybe it's down to the HFR video, but this time the 3D was never annoying.
I'd certainly pay extra to see a HFR 3D movie again, which is the opposite of my reaction to normal 3D.