What Movie Did You Just Watch

[Avaitor]

Peter O'Toole is dead

[Spark Of Spirit]

RIP. From what I heard he was a good man.

[Avaitor]

Im watching Airheads now, and it's good!

But I just can't believe this exists.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I watched 2 horror movies within the past few days, one classic and one relatively recent one.

Rosemarry's Baby is the classic, and it definitely deserves to be called that. However, I can't say that it's a movie that necessarily appeals to me on a personal level, so while I can recognize it as a great film, I can't really call it a favorite of mine, and I doubt I'd want to watch it a second time, though in a way that may just be testament to how successful it is at being incredibly disturbing.

The more recent movie I watched was Sinister, which came out last year. I honestly quite liked it a great deal more than I expected to. It's a film that got pretty mixed reception, but I found the acting to be quite good for the genre, and I like how it takes genre tropes and cliches and mixes them together to make something that, while not feeling entirely original, feels very well-crafted and appropriately suspenseful. It's also one of the few movies with a twist ending that actually works for me in that it makes sense of things, rather than just being a twist for the sake of having one. I wouldn't say it's quite as good as The Conjuring, as far as recent horror movies go, but I'd put it a rating above Insidious, making it one of the 3 horror movies that I've seen from the past few years that is actually watchable (and IMO, good).

[talonmalon333]

Rosemarry's Baby is the classic, and it definitely deserves to be called that. However, I can't say that it's a movie that necessarily appeals to me on a personal level, so while I can recognize it as a great film, I can't really call it a favorite of mine, and I doubt I'd want to watch it a second time, though in a way that may just be testament to how successful it is at being incredibly disturbing.

That's actually one of my all time favorites. In fact, it was probably 3rd when I make a top movie list some time ago. I would recommend watching it again someday, as seeing it fully knowing how it ends makes for quite an experience, and you also notice things you didn't before. For me it's like Vertigo where it truly gets better and better the more I watch it.

[Avaitor]

I just saw Saving Mr. Banks. I know the film has a bit of controversy behind it due to particular facts about P.L. Travers' life which are glossed over or ignored completely, and yes, there are some inaccuracies, but as a drama, I very much liked it. The acting is great all around, and there's a strong story set behind it.

I'm glad I went.

[talonmalon333]

A few nights ago, I rewatched the first Hobbit. I do think it's still a good, but heavily flawed, movie. And I do think it's a shame that this franchise will never reach the heights of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That's something I feel confident on.

[talonmalon333]

In keeping with my Christmas tradition, I just got done rewatching Black Christmas. It's certainly one of the best slashers, one of the few I'd truly call a "very good" film. Though I will say that it's not elevated to that status until after you see it for the first time. I won't say why, but until it after you see it, it's only a good film.

[Kiddington]

Anchorman 2

Not quite as good or quotable as the first, but still a lot of fun. Glad I went.

[Avaitor]

You know, it's weird. I'm usually the pickiest person in my groups of friends when it comes to modern comedies, because, well, most of them suck, but I don't think I have any friends who are fans of Anchorman. At least not as much as I am.

I don't get it. But yeah, that's why I still haven't seen 2.

[Foggle]

I watched The World's End again with my family. The film's message really speaks to me, and Gary King is probably the best character Simon Pegg's ever played. It really is an amazing movie.

[talonmalon333]

I saw Desolation of Smaug tonight. As someone who wasn't too fond of the first movie (I liked it, but nothing more), to me, they got it right this time. It's still no where near the level of Fellowship or the other two originals. But this is kind of what I hoped the first Hobbit was going to be like last year, in terms of quality. If I had two complaints, it would be that the romance between Kate and the dwarf wasn't handled particularly well, and I started to feel the length as the movie neared its end (Jackson just handled the pace of 3-4.5 hour movies better with the original trilogy). One nitpick is that I didn't see the point of showing Sauron appear as that big knight in the center of the eye. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point that Sauron can appear in any form, and that the knight form was just a form he took in battle? Again though, just a nitpick.

Now that that's out of the way, I'll get onto the good. First of all, Smaug was great in this movie. His voice and design were perfect. And I think it's like the first movie where Bilbo's confrontation with Gollum was the best part of the film. In this one, it's his confrontation with Smaug. I also think the dwarves felt more like real characters in this movie. And one of the most important things is that it had a consistently serious tone. I found it frustrating how the first movie had no consistent tone, and I thought the humor got tiring quickly. This movie is serious from start to finish. Overall, it was just more enjoyable for me. And it definitely leaves me looking forward to seeing the next movie.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

In that regard, though, the first movie was closer in tone to the book, which was more of a fun adventure story than a dark and moody piece. It was Jackson's doing to try and make this feel more epic like the Rings trilogy, but just being darker for the sake of it doesn't make a story feel more epic.

And as for the pacing, the reason is simple. The Rings trilogy had better pacing because Jackson had a wealth of source material to draw from, and if anything, he had to rush through the story by cutting out significant chunks from the books. The Hobbit trilogy, on the other hand, is based on comparatively limited source material, so it REALLY has to be stretched to make 3 films. That of course means long, drawn-out scenes along with a whole-lot of filler. Yes, Jackson just pulled a Dragon Ball Z with this adaptation.

[talonmalon333]

In that regard, though, the first movie was closer in tone to the book, which was more of a fun adventure story than a dark and moody piece. It was Jackson's doing to try and make this feel more epic like the Rings trilogy, but just being darker for the sake of it doesn't make a story feel more epic.

True, but I think it just came off as a bit too childish with the dwarf belching and the "Three Stooges" style orcs. I might just not remember perfectly some of the stuff in the book. Perhaps it was just less noticeable there because, as you say, in the movie Jackson tried to mix it in with the more serious style of the Lord of the Rings films.

And as for the pacing, the reason is simple. The Rings trilogy had better pacing because Jackson had a wealth of source material to draw from, and if anything, he had to rush through the story by cutting out significant chunks from the books. The Hobbit trilogy, on the other hand, is based on comparatively limited source material, so it REALLY has to be stretched to make 3 films. That of course means long, drawn-out scenes along with a whole-lot of filler. Yes, Jackson just pulled a Dragon Ball Z with this adaptation.

That's about right, but someone could also make the argument that this wouldn't be an issue if he just made The Hobbit into a single, 2 hour film (which I imagine could be done, or 2.5 hour at most). Personally, I do welcome him fleshing it out into a trilogy by taking things from all over Tolkien's Middle Earth universe (maybe it's just because I really love this world). But in the process, by doing that you're bound to get some things that drag.

Also, one thing I noticed was that the dwarf theme, which was very prominent in the first movie, wasn't in this movie much, if at all (I don't remember hearing it at any point). I don't mean that as a positive or negative. It's just something I noticed.

EDIT: Looking at him again... Smaug looks so good, he actually looks like a practical effect.

Spoiler

[close]

[Spark Of Spirit]

It probably felt childish because it was a children's book. It was written long before LOTR and for an entirely different audience.

The story simply takes place over a large amount of time which is why one film probably wouldn't have been enough, but the whole thing could have been fit into two 2 and a half hour films and no one would have been the wiser.