Relative to the Evil Dead 1 Blu-Ray(which is excellent), the Evil Dead 2 BD has a variety of issues, including some really nasty crushed blacks, and digital edge enhancement/noise reduction, on top of the print itself being a bit crude. It's an upgrade from the DVD, but it doesn't look as good as it should, and it was filmed on film stock that really can't take full advantage of DVD.
Grr, you're so lucky! I've been awaiting this film with almost the same level of fevered anticipation as I have Ridley Scott's Prometheus. However, it's not getting released in the UK until next month. I frequent the Outpost 31 forum and I now have to endure people talking about the ins and outs of the prequel. It's incredibly frustrating.
By the way, I heard people saying that the dog-thing looks nothing like Jed from the '82 film. Is that accurate? If so, that's surely going to make my geek blood boil due to the glaring continuity issue.
That sucks man. At least you don't have much longer to wait. As for the dog, they looked about the same to me. You don't really see him that often in the movie. A brief moment at the begining and the end. But he looked like a wolf-dog so good enough for me. lol
That sucks man. At least you don't have much longer to wait. As for the dog, they looked about the same to me. You don't really see him that often in the movie. A brief moment at the begining and the end. But he looked like a wolf-dog so good enough for me. lol
I know they used the same breed of dog (or wolf-dog hybrid) but I hear that the markings of the fur are nothing alike. I suppose one could always account for the differences between the two's markings, by way of the Thing subtly altering it's canine appearance between films.
Attack The Block: 8
It was fun. Really, that's all I can say about it.
Not Another Not Another Movie: 2
I only watched it because I like Chevy Chase, and, man, this movie was lame. It's supposed to be about the production of a spoof movie, right? Well, most of the movie focused on the characters instead, which wouldn't be a bad thing if they weren't boring as hell. The main character, whose name I forget, is this 'idiot with a heart of gold' archetype who works at a studio that makes crappy movies, and he's so obnoxious, he makes Jar-jar not entirely unlikable. There are very few jokes that are good, and most of them are dragged on too long. I couldn't finish it.
Johney English Reborn - 9/10 man i loved this movie it was funny and English was as clueless as ever. sometimes when i watch johney english and see how clueless he is it makes me want to go sometimes - wow did mr.bean buy a suit and some sercet agent place hire him. but as i don't want to giove spoilers im not gonna say any of the jokes or tell u the story
Let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of the 80's film. The gore and creature effects were amazing and still hold up today in my opinion. The new film ops out of the animatronics though and goes full CGI. This is my only complaint about the new film and it's not a major one.
Most people don't know this and I still don't know why (Maybe because the title is the same?) but The Thing is actaully a prequel to the 80's film. It takes place at the Norwegian camp that the 80's film visits. It tells the story of how they first find The Thing and how it destroys the Norwegian camp.
Overall, this is a great movie. If you are a fan of the 80's film I just don't see how you can not like this movie. The creatures (even if they are fully CGI) look great and are really intense. The scenes where they were attacking the character were all very well done. There are reviewers who say that the characters are under devoloped and to that I say "So what?"
The original characters from the 80's film weren't exactly deep characters either. You don't learn about their past, you don't learn much about them at all. It was a movie about a group of men being very paranoid and very scared about what was going on around them. That was it. This prequel does the same exact thing. It gives you characters and keeps you guessing about who might be the "thing". Granted, they're more obvious in this movie than in the 80's film but its still really cool to see these characters freaking out and turning on each other to try and save themselves.
The best thing about this movie is how well it ties in to the 80's film. You can actually edit the two films together and they would fit perfectly together as one film. Everthing that Kurt Russle found at the camp in the 80's film happens in this film. Everything ends up in it's place.
Overall, I really enjoyed it and it is a worthy addition to the 80's film. I'm ready for more and I hope they do make more.
Also Saw It on Friday, If any of you go see this Movie I Highly advise people to stay for the credits, There's a extra special scene that makes the tie-in even more awesome.
Murder by Death 6/10
It's a parody of the mystery genre, pretty much making fun of thing like not showing some characters until the end or delibrately making it so you can't figure out whodunit. It's kinda slow, but the way they revealed everything was pretty funny. Points for Peter Sellers playing a stereotypical Asian man.
Saw over half of X-Men First Class as I came downstairs when my mother and brother was watching it. I am sure I only missed the beginning.
It gripped me so I couldn't leave, it was so much better than the 3 first that I am trying my hardest to forget I ever saw.
5/5 I will see it again, and the beginning this time.
I am easy to please when it comes to movies, and I know what I like and what I don't.
And this movie had it all, humour, action and suspense. I enjoyed it all the way through.
Not only was the story brilliant, it's animation was at least I think top notch. One of if not the best batman film of all time.
I, actually, just re-watched this film since seeing it in theaters back in the day. It was better than I remembered. Coming off the heels of a strong animated series still running, I originally felt it was a nice 7/10. Didn't wreck what I loved but didn't really add too much to it that I didn't know or presume. NOW....seeing it in 2011, I loved it and completely agree with 10/10. This is the most complete Batman animated film. I thoroughly enjoyed Red Hood as well, but this had the voices. Great film. Just great.
Took a break to watch this and it was positively fantastic. In addition to containing two things I like, dragons and Vikings, it was also a hilarious, tightly told story with a terrific soundtrack. Would watch again...probably will.
I'd give it a 0 but I think I might have chuckled once.
I still can't figure out what possessed you to do this to yourself in the first place. When the trailers show Mila Jovovich doing more fighting than all three Musketeers together, I feel that's more than enough reason not to see it.
Come to think of it, any film whose trailer includes Mila Jovovich fighting at all is a pretty good sign that you should avoid it.
My wife wanted to watch Paranormal Activity 1. It freaked me out primarily not from the content of the movie itself but the method of presentation/filming used in how it looked realistic, which continuously made me think about how such things can and probably do happen.
Further (and at the risk of being picked on for saying so), I kept thinking about how God will save and protect us from such beings if only we ask it of Him, and I kept wondering
why they never turned to Him for help. I don't mean talking to someone about exorcism. I mean praying to the Father for safety and protection, and then relying on God's power to defeat it rather than their own. Granted, it is a movie, so for the sake of the story the writers can't make it as simple as that. But during the movie I kept thinking that if the characters had then they would have been fine.
The CGI is pointless to the plot, the jokes are EXTREMELY unfunny, half of the characters are perverts, and almost all of them are ASSHOLES as well. It's painful to watch, it makes me sick every time I watch it. Why did I watch it, you ask? Because I wanted to laugh AT it. It couldn't even accomplish THAT for me. Every single wisecrack and sexual joke is like a punch in the gut for me. Why people like this movie is beyond me.
why they never turned to Him for help. I don't mean talking to someone about exorcism. I mean praying to the Father for safety and protection, and then relying on God's power to defeat it rather than their own. Granted, it is a movie, so for the sake of the story the writers can't make it as simple as that. But during the movie I kept thinking that if the characters had then they would have been fine.
Uncensored that for you. I figure they didn't because he obviously doesn't give two shits about Africa so why should he care about them? He's pretty shitty at the whole looking out for people thing when you look at it objectively.
Further (and at the risk of being picked on for saying so), I kept thinking about how God will save and protect us from such beings if only we ask it of Him, and I kept wondering
why they never turned to Him for help. I don't mean talking to someone about exorcism. I mean praying to the Father for safety and protection, and then relying on God's power to defeat it rather than their own. Granted, it is a movie, so for the sake of the story the writers can't make it as simple as that. But during the movie I kept thinking that if the characters had then they would have been fine.
Well, if they had been Christians and prayed to God, they wouldn't have deserved to die, and then the movie couldn't kill them.
That's not true. The priests in the Exorcist were Christians and they most definitely died.
How does that make sense? It's not even an atheist thing since The Exorcist implies the existence of a god of some sort in that universe. I never got it.
How does that make sense? It's not even an atheist thing since The Exorcist implies the existence of a god of some sort in that universe. I never got it.
Does it? I thought it just implied the existence of demons.
How does that make sense? It's not even an atheist thing since The Exorcist implies the existence of a god of some sort in that universe. I never got it.
I was just saying that being Christian doesn't automatically exlude you from the "dying in horror movies" club. Sheesh. Tetchy.
I wasn't meaning to apply real world logic to the movie, but rather aspects of the movie's story to real life.
I was saying that (myself being a Christian) I kept asking myself why, though they had determined that this was a demon stalking her, they didn't turn directly to God for deliverance. I did say that, it being a movie, doing so wouldn't happen as it would have been too easy.
I do understand however that there are real life accounts of demon possession, which I accept as believably accurate since the Bible describes Jesus and his disciples encountering demon possessed people on multiple occasions.
In short, Paranormal Activity freaks me out because it was filmed in such a way that it looks like it really happened, and I am aware that similar occurrences (though perhaps less dramatic) are capable of happening in real life. I am also saying that, had this actually happened in real life, all that they needed to do was to call on God to save and protect them from this being and to put their faith in His power and not theirs and He would be faithful to do so without question. It's not movie logic. It's real life.
On the subject of The Exorcist, from what I've read about the exorcism that the book/movie was based on, the priest involved didn't die from the event.
[EDIT:]By the way, the version of Paranormal Activity that I watched was the director's cut, not the theatrical version. I have since seen all 3 possible endings, and concluded that the ending in the director's cut (with police) is by far the best one.
Right, and if they prayed to the wrong God(relied on the strength of a fellow that wasn't specifically the Christian one), they'd be fucked and deserve to die.
The CGI is pointless to the plot, the jokes are EXTREMELY unfunny, half of the characters are perverts, and almost all of them are ASSHOLES as well. It's painful to watch, it makes me sick every time I watch it. Why did I watch it, you ask? Because I wanted to laugh AT it. It couldn't even accomplish THAT for me. Every single wisecrack and sexual joke is like a punch in the gut for me. Why people like this movie is beyond me.
Actually I liked The Mask when I watched it at the age of 12 upon release but having seen it again as an adult, I'd pretty much have to concur with your opinion.
Still, The Mask is a classic piece of art when compared to it's sequel...
The CGI is pointless to the plot, the jokes are EXTREMELY unfunny, half of the characters are perverts, and almost all of them are ASSHOLES as well. It's painful to watch, it makes me sick every time I watch it. Why did I watch it, you ask? Because I wanted to laugh AT it. It couldn't even accomplish THAT for me. Every single wisecrack and sexual joke is like a punch in the gut for me. Why people like this movie is beyond me.
Brian Setzer Orchestra are in that film and you still didn't give it a single solitary point? :eek:
I hate The Mask as well, though I'd say it's a "okay, not really bad" Jim Carrey movie if you ignore the awesome source material, which you really shouldn't, because The Mask is a great comic.
@Davies: Ugh, WHY did that movie even get MADE? Did anybody really WANT a sequel to this bullshit?
@Rather Dashing: Wow, I actually got Rather Dashing to agree with me? That's pretty awesome.
By the way, I know that the movie is based off of a comic book, which from what I've read is pretty good, but I mostly hate the movie because there's nothing funny or halfway entertaining about it.
The Adventures of Tintin - The Secret of the Unicorn
A movie that gets better on repeat viewings
I'll start off by mentioning I don't hate motion capture. I didn't hate it when Zemeckis used it, and I don't hate it now. Why? Because despite the fact that Zemeckis failed miserably, I admire him and everyone since for pushing through failures to achieve something. Something like motion capture will never be perfect at first, and it may even look awful. The Polar Express remains one of the worst instances of animation I've ever seen, but if you look beyond that, you can actually see a great amount of effort and some really beautiful art. I admire people who fight for something even if it doesn't work. Well, motion capture does work. The proof is in Pirates of the Caribbean 2, The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and The Adventures of Tintin.
Motion capture, or more specifically, performance capture, works best when it's working with something that is only a slight exaggeration of reality. Too far and it steps into ugliness. Performance capture wouldn't work well with Looney Tunes or Mickey Mouse, but it works well with King Kong, who is an ape exaggerated in size but not in realism, and with Herge's drawings, which are stylized exaggerations of reality with jokes and slapstick that only slightly exaggerate reality. Now that doesn't always mean performance capture has always succeeded under this law, but that's not due to the law being wrong but due to the technology not being good enough to render the films.
Uncanny valley rarely affects me. It's only affected me in one movie: Perfect Blue, where uncanny valley was intentionally used on the lead villain at the end to make the person extremely unsettling. As far as CGI uncanny valley, I'm so used to seeing bad CGI I can't tell one flaw from another. Needless to say, it doesn't hit me on Tintin either. To me, the CGI looks very very good. I don't notice any strangeness in the mouths or eyes. Maybe some will. I can't. It just doesn't work on me in CGI.
Tintin's story is bare bones, but it's no more bare bones than the comics or Spielberg's other adventure movies. Therefore, it's not a flaw of the film. We've come into an era where story and dialogue heavy movies like The Dark Knight and The Departed take the reigns. Everyone expects this out of their movies now. With this movie, Spielberg is taking a trip back to the action movies of the 80s, and a lot of people aren't going to like that. It's going to be too cheesy or quick for some. I find it fun and thrilling. Tintin is no Raiders, but I would stick it right with the Last Crusade in Spielberg's filmography. It uses a lot of the same tricks and even some similar action sequences. Both films have action sequences on a boat, on a plane, where the character comes a little too close to a spinning propeller, a motorcycle chase where the older lead has to ride in a sidecar, where written clues must be deciphered, and a tank even figures in at one point. The relationship between Tintin and Haddock isn't so much like the relationship between Indy and his father as much as it is two great friends. Haddock, being the older man, has more worldly wisdom, but at times his age shows a type of stupidity too. Tintin doesn't speak to him as a father, but as a man who is his friend but still exasperates him to no end.
Tintin, unlike Indiana Jones in Raiders, isn't superfluous to the most important pieces of the plot. Yes, unlike Indiana Jones. If Indy hadn't have gone after the Ark in Raiders it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the story one bit. He was superfluous. And yet Raiders is still praised as one of the greatest films of all time. And when you bring this up, do you know what most people say? Who cares. It's Indiana Jones. The real star of The Secret of the Unicorn is Captain Haddock. Andy Serkis brings an incredible amount of life, energy, and endearing feel to the character. By the time the film was over, I no longer felt I was looking at animation, so convincing did I find Haddock. He's easily one of my favorite characters of all time. He's easily as enigmatic, as interesting, as funny, and as charming as Jack Sparrow or Indiana Jones or hell, even Sean Connery. If you don't like my Jack Sparrow comparison, as I know many of you won't, shut up. I don't care. The movie is Haddock's story. From the minute he appears on screen, we follow an incredibly engaging portrayal of a man hardened not only by a curse on his family, but by the effects this curse has had on his mind and character. The fear of the curse drove Haddock to become a severe alcoholic, incredibly feeble and depressing and sad one minute, and a roaring, dangerous, frightening visage of drunken rage the next. There are times where I wondered if Haddock was actually physically dangerous to those around him, as he goes out of his head in drunken hallucinations and ramblings over and over without warning. Tintin is a stabilizing character, with a no nonsense attitude and no tolerance for vices or dejected characters, and he acts as a stabilizing force in Haddock's life. Tintin is the catalyst that begins Haddock's transformation into a better, sober, unyielding man in the image of his adventurous and successful ancestors.
The Unicorn is simply a MacGuffin for Haddock to restore his name. A driving force that gives him the strength to beat his addiction and carry on a better family name. I felt incredibly sympathetic for the character, and no movie with no worthwhile story would do that. The villain is more than just, as some have called him, a slightly anger looking professorly gentleman. He's a creature whose entire existence is to destroy, ruin, and kill Haddock. He lives to enact his ancestor's curse on Haddock, and once you've seen the events of the past play out in their ancestor's great duel, the movie becomes so engaging as a scenario of repeating history that it never lets you go. The problem? Slow films have conditioned us to expect things to play out in a lazy fashion for us. The events of the story and the important themes and ideas play out at a pace the current generation is unused to. That's why I say, repeated viewings make the movie better, because the information is given in the details. What comes across as a simple film at first, upon more viewings, becomes increasingly complex, and the true mastery behind it shines through. Spielberg is so good at this genre, that he has literally made a film where his hand in it is nearly invisible. You'll think, oh those are neat techniques, or huh thats kind of a fun action sequence, but you won't realize how well it all works and how well designed it all is the first time. This could be a flaw in the film, I'll admit, but it's a flaw that weeds its way out. This is different for Spielberg's other recent adventure film, Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, where the annoyances only become more and more annoying on repeat viewings. The movie ends on a natural thematic conclusion which is both thrilling and well created.
Herge was an artistic genius. He was a serious researcher, and had traveled all over the world. What we regard as racist now in his art, may just have been how things looked back then. Watching Back to the Future and Indiana Jones, I'm always seeing things that looked like they popped right out of a Herge comic. This film is a perfect match. It's not without it's flaws, and I do admit it could have used a bit more filler and padding, but overall, the scenes are memorable and well done. If you find the valley dips too low or you, nothing will save this film for you, probably. The valley doesn't affect me, so I'm able to look beyond that. Even so, I didn't see any signs of bad animation in this film, except in one instance. A close up. An EXTREME close up.
The movie is made even better by John William's music. I can't imagine how anyone could listen to the music from this movie and think it was boring, or that it's unmemorable. Sir Francis and the Unicorn is one of the best pieces of film music I've ever heard. The pirate battles in this film blow Pirates 2 and 3 out of the water in both whats on the screen and the music. Pirates 2 and 3 never gave me the impression any of the characters were really that clever or even good pirates, but Tintin makes me believe Red Rackham and Sir Francis Haddock are truly cunning pirates, always with a trick up their sleeves. And it does it in only a few minutes.
Spielberg uses Tintin as an opportunity to explore camera techniques and film transitions he couldn't do in live action. Some will call this too dynamic because it does things live action couldn't and wouldn't and therefore might take some out of the movie. I loved it. I was truly pulled in and impressed by every technique I saw. Moreso than in the Polar Express, where the experimentation went a bit too far and wasn't very visually pleasing. Part of the reason the movie works is BECAUSE the experimenting it does so is natural and flows, and doesn't take up your time by focusing on things like feet moving through dirt...like in Avatar.
Anyway, I give the movie a 9 out of 11. I've already watched it several times, and I plan to buy it and watch it over and over once its out on Blu-Ray.
PS: Joop said the slapstick didn't work. It worked just as much as anything in Home Alone or Indiana Jones did. Then again I liked the atomic refrigerator. Sue me. I've seen bigger stretches of believability in silent comedies.
"Secret Fawful's review of The Adventures of Tintin"
Though I disagree with you on the story and characters part, the techniques used were indeed breathtaking.
I too, however, liked the refrigerator in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
For the people who haven't checked the other thread, here's my review of the film.
When going to film school, there was one mistake that I saw a lot of the beginning directors, cameramen, editors and the like make. They were all so focused on the technique behind the film, that they forgot to focus on story and the characters. Watching Tintin and the Secret of the Unicorn made me feel like I was in film school again.
From the first shot on, walking into the world of Tintin feels amazing, you see that everything was treated with the greatest care and eye for detail, and even though they still can't quite seem to get eyes right, the whole movie looks absolutely amazing. Strangely enough, you don't get the time to enjoy the beauty of it all, because right after the initial scene you're taken into a roller-coaster ride. It's there where this movie is starting to show it's flaws. There's very little breathing time left for the movie, and because of this, you never really get to feel or care for the characters. They never become lovable, they don't get their moment to shine and they're never genuinely funny.
Watching the whole spectacle, one begins to wonder if Spielberg purposely chose to abandon all basic storytelling rules and just go with it, or if he was distracted the whole technique of motion capture while making it. At least, to me, it feels that way.
As a result of this, the movie falls a bit flat. You have a great introduction sequence, but after this you're sucked into one two hour action sequence which is barely followable because of all the different layers of action going on on screen. Steady camera shots have been replaced by a constantly moving roller-coaster cam, which gives beautiful lenghty shots, but gives so much information that it's barely followable en sometimes even stomach turning.
Another part where the technique doesn't compliment in the storytelling is with the sometimes slapstick humor. Because the characters look so real, except for some facial features, as a viewer, you can't really accept some of the things that happen to them. If a piano falls on a cartoon character, you think it's funny because you accept that he'll just come out of it unharmed except for the fact that the piano keys are (completely playable) sticking out of his mouth. If that same thing happens to a human, we know that he would have broken every bone in his body and, if still alive, would have to be driven to the intensive care immediately. These kind of things feel illogical in the movie and take the viewer away from the viewing experience.
Storywise they took the easy way out. The situations feel forced and uneasy, like they wanted to put as many locations in the film as they could, and the plot, told by action instead of dialogue, is rather laughable. I don't like to compare the source material to the movie in a review, but the way they translated and hollywoodised the story feels out of place and never genuine. This feeling even goes as far as the soundtrack, because even the music by the brilliant John Williams seems flat, uninspired and never truly memorable. We never hear any of the compositions that Williams excels at, the recognizable orchestrated themes introducing plot elements or characters, telling a story of their own. But to be honest, these elements never really get enough screen time to have their own theme.
In a nutshell, it feels like the movie was focused on technique, and while it looks truly beautiful, it lacks in all the other departments. And in a world in which computer graphics get prettier every day, this movie, in a couple of years, will be forgotten with the rest of the for-their-time beautiful, but lacking story wise, computer animated films.
The Adventures of Tintin; Secret of the Unicorn
** out of *****
Just Watched Thiem (Not to be confused with THEM!(giant ants) or Them (2008) Yesterday on Netflix, This low-budget French Thriller is very short (1hr. 16min.) But very, very good. This film also (Probably) served as the "unofficial" inspiration for The Strangers as well. Some even compare this to High Tension.
The Film is about a school Teacher and her husband who are attacked in their Secluded home by an unseen force (who you don't see until 3/4 of the way though the Movie) This movie works so well Because of the atmosphere and setting which are the real stars of the show IMO (Think the black and white The Haunting) as well The acting and cinematography and camera work. Tension is built through sound effects and music(again, think The Haunting). I deducted 1 1/2 stars due to the lack of Character development (but Let's be honest how much character development could you have in an hour) and the Twist at the end (Yes there's a twist, SHOCKER right;)) not that it's a bad twist, it's just that You don't expect it to be what it actually is.
Highly Recommended(especially if your in to foreign movies)
Comments
Which two Blu Rays had the prestigous rights of being purchased by me:
Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness.
I haven't watched Army of Darkness, and they sadly, didn't have the first film in stock, so this leaves me with Evil Dead 2.
Now, I love Bruce Campbell. I mean, what self-respecting movie-goer wouldn't?
And this is THE Bruce Campbell classic.
This film is gory, brutal, and an absolute laugh.
Its a 1 man show, but it could be the best damn show on earth! XD
Bruce Campbell's delivery is just perfect.
His expressions, his motions, and his quotability.
Absolute 100% perfect.
The only thing that stops this film from being perfect is the arguably bland plot, and some odd pacing.
But its a solid 8/10 film. And the Blu Ray looks great.
Very clean, nicely scaled, and on the big TV its pretty damn cinematic, thats for certain.
Now its time to look forward to Army of Darkness tonight.
That sucks man. At least you don't have much longer to wait. As for the dog, they looked about the same to me. You don't really see him that often in the movie. A brief moment at the begining and the end. But he looked like a wolf-dog so good enough for me. lol
I know they used the same breed of dog (or wolf-dog hybrid) but I hear that the markings of the fur are nothing alike. I suppose one could always account for the differences between the two's markings, by way of the Thing subtly altering it's canine appearance between films.
It was fun. Really, that's all I can say about it.
Not Another Not Another Movie: 2
I only watched it because I like Chevy Chase, and, man, this movie was lame. It's supposed to be about the production of a spoof movie, right? Well, most of the movie focused on the characters instead, which wouldn't be a bad thing if they weren't boring as hell. The main character, whose name I forget, is this 'idiot with a heart of gold' archetype who works at a studio that makes crappy movies, and he's so obnoxious, he makes Jar-jar not entirely unlikable. There are very few jokes that are good, and most of them are dragged on too long. I couldn't finish it.
It's a parody of the mystery genre, pretty much making fun of thing like not showing some characters until the end or delibrately making it so you can't figure out whodunit. It's kinda slow, but the way they revealed everything was pretty funny. Points for Peter Sellers playing a stereotypical Asian man.
Not only was the story brilliant, it's animation was at least I think top notch. One of if not the best batman film of all time.
It gripped me so I couldn't leave, it was so much better than the 3 first that I am trying my hardest to forget I ever saw.
5/5 I will see it again, and the beginning this time.
I am easy to please when it comes to movies, and I know what I like and what I don't.
And this movie had it all, humour, action and suspense. I enjoyed it all the way through.
I, actually, just re-watched this film since seeing it in theaters back in the day. It was better than I remembered. Coming off the heels of a strong animated series still running, I originally felt it was a nice 7/10. Didn't wreck what I loved but didn't really add too much to it that I didn't know or presume. NOW....seeing it in 2011, I loved it and completely agree with 10/10. This is the most complete Batman animated film. I thoroughly enjoyed Red Hood as well, but this had the voices. Great film. Just great.
I'd give it a 0 but I think I might have chuckled once.
Took a break to watch this and it was positively fantastic. In addition to containing two things I like, dragons and Vikings, it was also a hilarious, tightly told story with a terrific soundtrack. Would watch again...probably will.
I still can't figure out what possessed you to do this to yourself in the first place. When the trailers show Mila Jovovich doing more fighting than all three Musketeers together, I feel that's more than enough reason not to see it.
Come to think of it, any film whose trailer includes Mila Jovovich fighting at all is a pretty good sign that you should avoid it.
Further (and at the risk of being picked on for saying so), I kept thinking about how God will save and protect us from such beings if only we ask it of Him, and I kept wondering
Most overrated comic book movie EVER.
The CGI is pointless to the plot, the jokes are EXTREMELY unfunny, half of the characters are perverts, and almost all of them are ASSHOLES as well. It's painful to watch, it makes me sick every time I watch it. Why did I watch it, you ask? Because I wanted to laugh AT it. It couldn't even accomplish THAT for me. Every single wisecrack and sexual joke is like a punch in the gut for me. Why people like this movie is beyond me.
Uncensored that for you. I figure they didn't because he obviously doesn't give two shits about Africa so why should he care about them? He's pretty shitty at the whole looking out for people thing when you look at it objectively.
That's not true. The priests in the Exorcist were Christians and they most definitely died.
How does that make sense? It's not even an atheist thing since The Exorcist implies the existence of a god of some sort in that universe. I never got it.
I was just saying that being Christian doesn't automatically exlude you from the "dying in horror movies" club. Sheesh. Tetchy.
I do understand however that there are real life accounts of demon possession, which I accept as believably accurate since the Bible describes Jesus and his disciples encountering demon possessed people on multiple occasions.
In short, Paranormal Activity freaks me out because it was filmed in such a way that it looks like it really happened, and I am aware that similar occurrences (though perhaps less dramatic) are capable of happening in real life. I am also saying that, had this actually happened in real life, all that they needed to do was to call on God to save and protect them from this being and to put their faith in His power and not theirs and He would be faithful to do so without question. It's not movie logic. It's real life.
On the subject of The Exorcist, from what I've read about the exorcism that the book/movie was based on, the priest involved didn't die from the event.
[EDIT:]By the way, the version of Paranormal Activity that I watched was the director's cut, not the theatrical version. I have since seen all 3 possible endings, and concluded that the ending in the director's cut (with police) is by far the best one.
Actually I liked The Mask when I watched it at the age of 12 upon release but having seen it again as an adult, I'd pretty much have to concur with your opinion.
Still, The Mask is a classic piece of art when compared to it's sequel...
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klo9EnJD9Pw
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYI2g5ue1LA&feature=related
Brian Setzer Orchestra are in that film and you still didn't give it a single solitary point? :eek:
Anyhoo, the Mask's good, you're weird.
Yeah because having a difference of opinion is weird and deranged.
Exactly.
@Rather Dashing: Wow, I actually got Rather Dashing to agree with me? That's pretty awesome.
By the way, I know that the movie is based off of a comic book, which from what I've read is pretty good, but I mostly hate the movie because there's nothing funny or halfway entertaining about it.
@JedExodus Let me spell it out for you:
bullshit movie + excellent orchestra = bullshit movie with an excellent orchestra.
Symphony orchestra or not, it's still a horrible movie.
Lovely. I dislike Pooh's new Swedish voice, though. Can't wait for the DVD release, so I can watch it in English.
Great movie, and I especially loved the shout-out to Braindead in it.
(Whenever Peter Jackson is allowed to have fun, he brings it! XD)
A movie that gets better on repeat viewings
I'll start off by mentioning I don't hate motion capture. I didn't hate it when Zemeckis used it, and I don't hate it now. Why? Because despite the fact that Zemeckis failed miserably, I admire him and everyone since for pushing through failures to achieve something. Something like motion capture will never be perfect at first, and it may even look awful. The Polar Express remains one of the worst instances of animation I've ever seen, but if you look beyond that, you can actually see a great amount of effort and some really beautiful art. I admire people who fight for something even if it doesn't work. Well, motion capture does work. The proof is in Pirates of the Caribbean 2, The Lord of the Rings, King Kong, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and The Adventures of Tintin.
Motion capture, or more specifically, performance capture, works best when it's working with something that is only a slight exaggeration of reality. Too far and it steps into ugliness. Performance capture wouldn't work well with Looney Tunes or Mickey Mouse, but it works well with King Kong, who is an ape exaggerated in size but not in realism, and with Herge's drawings, which are stylized exaggerations of reality with jokes and slapstick that only slightly exaggerate reality. Now that doesn't always mean performance capture has always succeeded under this law, but that's not due to the law being wrong but due to the technology not being good enough to render the films.
Uncanny valley rarely affects me. It's only affected me in one movie: Perfect Blue, where uncanny valley was intentionally used on the lead villain at the end to make the person extremely unsettling. As far as CGI uncanny valley, I'm so used to seeing bad CGI I can't tell one flaw from another. Needless to say, it doesn't hit me on Tintin either. To me, the CGI looks very very good. I don't notice any strangeness in the mouths or eyes. Maybe some will. I can't. It just doesn't work on me in CGI.
Tintin's story is bare bones, but it's no more bare bones than the comics or Spielberg's other adventure movies. Therefore, it's not a flaw of the film. We've come into an era where story and dialogue heavy movies like The Dark Knight and The Departed take the reigns. Everyone expects this out of their movies now. With this movie, Spielberg is taking a trip back to the action movies of the 80s, and a lot of people aren't going to like that. It's going to be too cheesy or quick for some. I find it fun and thrilling. Tintin is no Raiders, but I would stick it right with the Last Crusade in Spielberg's filmography. It uses a lot of the same tricks and even some similar action sequences. Both films have action sequences on a boat, on a plane, where the character comes a little too close to a spinning propeller, a motorcycle chase where the older lead has to ride in a sidecar, where written clues must be deciphered, and a tank even figures in at one point. The relationship between Tintin and Haddock isn't so much like the relationship between Indy and his father as much as it is two great friends. Haddock, being the older man, has more worldly wisdom, but at times his age shows a type of stupidity too. Tintin doesn't speak to him as a father, but as a man who is his friend but still exasperates him to no end.
Tintin, unlike Indiana Jones in Raiders, isn't superfluous to the most important pieces of the plot. Yes, unlike Indiana Jones. If Indy hadn't have gone after the Ark in Raiders it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the story one bit. He was superfluous. And yet Raiders is still praised as one of the greatest films of all time. And when you bring this up, do you know what most people say? Who cares. It's Indiana Jones. The real star of The Secret of the Unicorn is Captain Haddock. Andy Serkis brings an incredible amount of life, energy, and endearing feel to the character. By the time the film was over, I no longer felt I was looking at animation, so convincing did I find Haddock. He's easily one of my favorite characters of all time. He's easily as enigmatic, as interesting, as funny, and as charming as Jack Sparrow or Indiana Jones or hell, even Sean Connery. If you don't like my Jack Sparrow comparison, as I know many of you won't, shut up. I don't care. The movie is Haddock's story. From the minute he appears on screen, we follow an incredibly engaging portrayal of a man hardened not only by a curse on his family, but by the effects this curse has had on his mind and character. The fear of the curse drove Haddock to become a severe alcoholic, incredibly feeble and depressing and sad one minute, and a roaring, dangerous, frightening visage of drunken rage the next. There are times where I wondered if Haddock was actually physically dangerous to those around him, as he goes out of his head in drunken hallucinations and ramblings over and over without warning. Tintin is a stabilizing character, with a no nonsense attitude and no tolerance for vices or dejected characters, and he acts as a stabilizing force in Haddock's life. Tintin is the catalyst that begins Haddock's transformation into a better, sober, unyielding man in the image of his adventurous and successful ancestors.
The Unicorn is simply a MacGuffin for Haddock to restore his name. A driving force that gives him the strength to beat his addiction and carry on a better family name. I felt incredibly sympathetic for the character, and no movie with no worthwhile story would do that. The villain is more than just, as some have called him, a slightly anger looking professorly gentleman. He's a creature whose entire existence is to destroy, ruin, and kill Haddock. He lives to enact his ancestor's curse on Haddock, and once you've seen the events of the past play out in their ancestor's great duel, the movie becomes so engaging as a scenario of repeating history that it never lets you go. The problem? Slow films have conditioned us to expect things to play out in a lazy fashion for us. The events of the story and the important themes and ideas play out at a pace the current generation is unused to. That's why I say, repeated viewings make the movie better, because the information is given in the details. What comes across as a simple film at first, upon more viewings, becomes increasingly complex, and the true mastery behind it shines through. Spielberg is so good at this genre, that he has literally made a film where his hand in it is nearly invisible. You'll think, oh those are neat techniques, or huh thats kind of a fun action sequence, but you won't realize how well it all works and how well designed it all is the first time. This could be a flaw in the film, I'll admit, but it's a flaw that weeds its way out. This is different for Spielberg's other recent adventure film, Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, where the annoyances only become more and more annoying on repeat viewings. The movie ends on a natural thematic conclusion which is both thrilling and well created.
Herge was an artistic genius. He was a serious researcher, and had traveled all over the world. What we regard as racist now in his art, may just have been how things looked back then. Watching Back to the Future and Indiana Jones, I'm always seeing things that looked like they popped right out of a Herge comic. This film is a perfect match. It's not without it's flaws, and I do admit it could have used a bit more filler and padding, but overall, the scenes are memorable and well done. If you find the valley dips too low or you, nothing will save this film for you, probably. The valley doesn't affect me, so I'm able to look beyond that. Even so, I didn't see any signs of bad animation in this film, except in one instance. A close up. An EXTREME close up.
The movie is made even better by John William's music. I can't imagine how anyone could listen to the music from this movie and think it was boring, or that it's unmemorable. Sir Francis and the Unicorn is one of the best pieces of film music I've ever heard. The pirate battles in this film blow Pirates 2 and 3 out of the water in both whats on the screen and the music. Pirates 2 and 3 never gave me the impression any of the characters were really that clever or even good pirates, but Tintin makes me believe Red Rackham and Sir Francis Haddock are truly cunning pirates, always with a trick up their sleeves. And it does it in only a few minutes.
Spielberg uses Tintin as an opportunity to explore camera techniques and film transitions he couldn't do in live action. Some will call this too dynamic because it does things live action couldn't and wouldn't and therefore might take some out of the movie. I loved it. I was truly pulled in and impressed by every technique I saw. Moreso than in the Polar Express, where the experimentation went a bit too far and wasn't very visually pleasing. Part of the reason the movie works is BECAUSE the experimenting it does so is natural and flows, and doesn't take up your time by focusing on things like feet moving through dirt...like in Avatar.
Anyway, I give the movie a 9 out of 11. I've already watched it several times, and I plan to buy it and watch it over and over once its out on Blu-Ray.
PS: Joop said the slapstick didn't work. It worked just as much as anything in Home Alone or Indiana Jones did. Then again I liked the atomic refrigerator. Sue me. I've seen bigger stretches of believability in silent comedies.
I have to wait to December to watch it, though. And that's weird, because here Tintin's as popular as he's in Europe! No fair
But I'm really looking forward to watching it. I've been listening to the soundtrack non-stop lately. It's awesome!
(dubbed in German, sorry, my French just sucks)
Once a year, I need that movie so badly, and manly man or not, the tears keep rolling every time. Looking out for a Blu Ray version just 'cos.
Though I disagree with you on the story and characters part, the techniques used were indeed breathtaking.
I too, however, liked the refrigerator in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
For the people who haven't checked the other thread, here's my review of the film.
Just Watched Thiem (Not to be confused with THEM!(giant ants) or Them (2008) Yesterday on Netflix, This low-budget French Thriller is very short (1hr. 16min.) But very, very good. This film also (Probably) served as the "unofficial" inspiration for The Strangers as well. Some even compare this to High Tension.
The Film is about a school Teacher and her husband who are attacked in their Secluded home by an unseen force (who you don't see until 3/4 of the way though the Movie) This movie works so well Because of the atmosphere and setting which are the real stars of the show IMO (Think the black and white The Haunting) as well The acting and cinematography and camera work. Tension is built through sound effects and music(again, think The Haunting). I deducted 1 1/2 stars due to the lack of Character development (but Let's be honest how much character development could you have in an hour) and the Twist at the end (Yes there's a twist, SHOCKER right;)) not that it's a bad twist, it's just that You don't expect it to be what it actually is.
Highly Recommended(especially if your in to foreign movies)