|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 20, 2009 19:48:05 GMT
Ken's already mentioned 'Nativity', but is anyone else planning to visit the cinema over the holiday period?
I think I may go and see 'Avatar 3D' tomorrow morning, just for the spectacle. The trailer sold it to me on that basis. The story looks pretty formulaic - cross between 'Dances With Wolves' and the Ewok battle in 'Return of the Jedi'. But it may prove me wrong.
It'e entirely possible (since my criteria for going to see things aren't high) that I will see 'Sherlock Holmes' between Christmas and New Year, since Robert Downey Jr was so watchable in 'Iron Man', though I think it will be a complete travesty as an 'interpretation' of Conan Doyle's characters and stories. I'm certainly not going to go into it with Jeremy Brett as a baseline for comparison.
Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2009 22:01:00 GMT
I don't care much for today's films and Guy Richie's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes has made me want to avoid it like the plague. One film however I am interested in seeing at some point is this kids film called Where The Wilds Things Are. I read (and enjoyed) the book as a kid and I'm surprised it has taken it this long for it to be made into a film.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 21, 2009 8:00:55 GMT
I'm skipping Avatar as wearing 3-d specs as well as spectacles is too uncomfortable. Also, funds are very tight so I declined an offer to accompany Gavin to a viewing. I may give Sherlock Holmes a try.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Dec 21, 2009 10:20:55 GMT
One of my friends has already seen Sherlock Holmes (part of the cast and crew screening, lucky git!) He says it is good but not really that absorbing as a film.
Not sure if I really want to see Avatar either to be honest. We shall see!
|
|
Dave
Empty
Posts: 1,811
|
Post by Dave on Dec 21, 2009 10:21:57 GMT
Saw Avatar in 3D the other day. Well worth the ticket price.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benn on Dec 21, 2009 10:30:08 GMT
Sherlock Holmes seems interesting enough, and my only basis for comparison is Basil Rathbone, so I'm not even going to bother comparing. Avatar was an okay spectacle, the plot didn't really deserve a run time that long, and the CGI still looked like CGI to me.
I did notice element in it that made me think "Transformers could have been like this.", which is sad, I suppose. But then, I did the same with Iron Man, and thats an enjoyable film in it's own right.
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,476
|
Post by Hero on Dec 21, 2009 11:13:58 GMT
May go see Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeekuel since the first film was surprisingly a guilty pleasure to watch. Also Where The Wild Things Are tickles my fancy.
Christmas Carol 3D I'll catch on DVD sometime to add to my numerous other versions of the Dickens tale I own. Same with Avatar and Sherlock Holmes.
===KEN
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Dec 21, 2009 11:36:25 GMT
Saw Avatar in old-school 2D yesterday afternoon.
The plot indeed is a little light and predictable, but its all done with such a sense of fresh energy and vibrancy you would have to be a Christmas Grouch to judge it solely on that.
Oddly enough I found the CGI was most noticeable when there was no 'real' mixed in with it. That might be more to do with the total alien nature of Pandora though and we humans only having our own world to compare things with.
Some nice little touches in the background of the humans playing around and being in character 'casual' with their hi-tech and some good attention has been paid to the alien culture as well as the world itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 21, 2009 15:12:23 GMT
Well, out of my two 3D experiences, Avatar certainly beats Beowulf hands down, but that's not asking much. And at least when it beats TF:ROTF for best visual effects Oscar this year it will be right and proper that it does so, unlike when the first TF film lost to The Golden Compass.
Yeah, it was worth the ticket price for the 3D spectacle. But as a story, it was totally formulaic and predictable. Everyone you expect to live lives, everyone you expect to die dies. I had read nothing about it but I had seen the trailer, and as I expected from that, it was basically Dances With Wolves / The Last Samurai but without the historical edge or realistic resolution.
I would give it the great compliment of having the best visual effects in cinema to date, and then damn it by adding that the storyline to go with those effects has no originality or surprise in it whatsoever.
But worth the ticket price on the first count.
Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2009 17:38:58 GMT
I think I'll give Avatar a miss. I've heard nothing good about it on the net and the trailer did nothing to make me want to go out and see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 21, 2009 19:13:44 GMT
Does Avatar still need 3-D specs to see it properly? I recall early hype said it didn't need glasses due to some new tech.
I was overjoyed when passing today to note that the Edinburgh Filmhouse is showing a restored print of The Wizard of Oz. Fantastic, I thought, I'll see that later in the week. Then I checked the website and saw it was only on today and the last showing was an hour and a half ago. I am not a happy man AT ALL.
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2009 19:24:48 GMT
I'm not too fond of the original Wizard of Oz film but I do like its much later sequel Return to Oz.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 21, 2009 20:00:14 GMT
I adore both.
-Ralph
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,476
|
Post by Hero on Dec 21, 2009 23:06:11 GMT
Me too.
===KEN
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 22, 2009 6:57:00 GMT
Does Avatar still need 3-D specs to see it properly? You can either go to a 3D screening, in which you need 3D specs, or you can go to a normal screening where it just looks like a normal movie. So at Edinburgh Cineworld, for example, there are different times for Avatar 3D and Avatar 2D. I think that only certain screens at certain multiplexes are capable of showing it in 3D. Need some special technology installed or something. I think. I like 'The Wizard of Oz', but think 'Labyrinth' is much better. Never seen 'Return to Oz'. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 22, 2009 8:03:24 GMT
Mmmm. I have no interest in seeing 3D films in 2D. I just don't see the point. It's like watching a colour film in black and white. You still get the gist of it but miss the point of the way it was made. If the film industry keeps pushing 3D films I'll just be going to the cinema much less.
Nick had a good idea the other day. Lots of people wear glasses, but are put off 3D films due to wearing them. So there's a gap in the market for some canny optician to start producing 3D prescription glasses. Could be a winner if 3D films take off!
-Ralph
|
|
panderson
Protoform
Kiss Me? Hardly!!!
Posts: 548
|
Post by panderson on Dec 22, 2009 10:12:30 GMT
Not a bad idea - but a better short-term version would be a one of those clip on sunglasses you used to be able to get for your specs (not seen them for ages) where the slide in from the top
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Dec 22, 2009 13:21:20 GMT
Return to Oz is probably truer to the actual tone of a lot of Baum's books in some places than Wizard (which actually inverts the clear assertion of the books that Oz is a definitively real place with the suggestion that it might have been a hallucination).
I have to agree though that Labyrinth is better than either of them.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 23, 2009 8:21:25 GMT
Not a bad idea - but a better short-term version would be a one of those clip on sunglasses you used to be able to get for your specs (not seen them for ages) where the slide in from the top Slide in from the top??? Is there then a lever on the side that changes the view you see every time you pump it? (Thinks of ViewMaster.) I have the original book of 'The Wizard of Oz' on my shelf and do rate it above the film. I can see why the film-makers changed certain things though. ('Ruby slippers' is much more poetic than 'silver shoes'.) Martin |
|
panderson
Protoform
Kiss Me? Hardly!!!
Posts: 548
|
Post by panderson on Dec 23, 2009 8:48:03 GMT
Love both Oz films for different reasons but also agre Laby is better overall film - with better songs as well
...for weird spins on Oz look at Wild at Heart and for the cool ref I love Zardoz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2009 11:18:47 GMT
If you're looking for different spins on the Oz stories then you might want to see the one made in the late 70's / early 80's starring a cast of all black musicians. I've never seen it but I have read a bit about it and I think Diana Ross and Michael Jackson star in it.
|
|
panderson
Protoform
Kiss Me? Hardly!!!
Posts: 548
|
Post by panderson on Dec 23, 2009 11:20:19 GMT
Ohhhh yea forgot that - The Wiz - do have that on DVD - saw it a few weeks ago and felt it was a littel overlong but had some great songs...worth more than a look...in fact may try and find soundtrack now...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 23, 2009 17:41:03 GMT
Return to Oz is either a love or hate it experience. Sadly a properly remastered version is not available for it to be judged properly. It's become pretty obscure, sadly. I love the atmosphere of it.
The Wizard of Oz film with Judy Garland is one of this films I just love and can't really critically appraise. I just think it's a great slice of storytelling.
I tried the original books and just couldn't get far into them. Prose was a bit chunky.
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2009 19:09:46 GMT
I first saw Return to Oz when I was a kid and I loved it back then although those characters with wheels as hands (I think they were called the Wheelers) did scare me a little. Nevertheless, a few years ago I found it on DVD and brought it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 29, 2009 19:10:19 GMT
Well, I saw 'Sherlock Holmes' today and, having based my expectations on the trailer, was pleasantly surprised. I got a lot more enjoyment from it than Avatar, I must say. While, there are many more chases, fist fights and set pieces in the film than in Conan Doyle's stories, the writer has clearly read Doyle's stories and treated the characters with respect. The lead characters are all extremely likeable, and the female love interests are both lifted from Doyle. Robert Downey Jr isn't Doyle's Holmes (Jeremy Brett is Doyle's Holmes) but I think he is as close as you can get to Doyle's Holmes in a semi-humorous fast-paced action movie. He is certainly not the Sherlock Holmes equivalent of Hugh Jackman's Van Helsing or the characters in Sean Connery's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie - this is far, far more faithful to the source material. And I was enormously relieved that it ended with a rational explanation for all the supernatural stuff . I'll be back for the Moriarty sequel. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Dec 30, 2009 23:30:24 GMT
Seconded! Was very engaging and a lot of fun throughout with good characters and direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 31, 2010 20:45:10 GMT
Just back from seeing Sherlock Holmes. Nice production design and a jaunty tune couldn't save me from the yawning pit of boredom. A deeply dull villain and unengaging mystery sunk it. Downy Jr was watchable, but never for a moment did I believe he was Sherlock Holmes. Jude Law apparently played Watson. What a crock of shite.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 31, 2010 20:51:04 GMT
Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy it.  Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 31, 2010 20:55:09 GMT
Yeah, I was really in the mood for it and excited by my first cinema trip of the year, but it just didn't connect with me at all.
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 10:45:14 GMT
I haven't seen the film but from what I've seen of the trailers it just seems like they've updated the original ideas to appeal to todays 'come out with all guns blazing' style action fans.
|
|
