Jump to content

Last Movie You Watched


Recommended Posts

Watched American Beauty with the missus last night, it won the oscar for best film a few years back so i thought we may as well check it out, turned out to be pretty good, kevin spacey is a fantastic actor.

 

That was a decent movie. And agreed, Kevin Spacey is a fantastic actor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right ladies and gents, help me choose a film for tonight.

I've just got some new steelbooks over Christmas, but I haven't watched any of them before, I've got:

Inception

Sherlock Holmes

Lifeboat

Total Recall (remake)

 

Haven't seen the last two, but I've heard that Total Recall isn't good.

 

As for the first two, both are really good. Not sure which one I'd prefer. Probably Sherlock Holmes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took mum to see Le Mis today, and I thought it was excellent. I have no intrinsic feelings about musicals...I don't like or dislike the genre, just like or dislike the production of film. Never seen the theatre production of it, but the movie was excellent (albeit nearly 3 hours lol). I don't cry in movies (not because I'm a tough guy, just because films don't get me), but it was one of the movies where it gets it close...where your eyes feel a little heavier and you can feel something coming (but it doesn't for me haha). 3 moments in particular I can think off. A couple of moments gave me goosebumps (which happens far more often to me). The ending was the main one.

 

Anyway, I thought it was a very well done rendition of a story I had heard of, but not seen in any form. Hugh Jackman was pretty fantastic (at least with my Aussie specs on)...and it was good to know that Wolverine used to be called Jean Val Jean...I didn't know...hmm

Link to post
Share on other sites
Going to watch the hobbit now, hopefully really good.

 

Saw it a couple of days ago. I really liked it. Not perfect, but really good. And the cgi is amazing. Gollum is flawless.

 

I really like that they've added some things to the story as well. Things that didn't appear in The Hobbit, but in other books Tolkien wrote.

 

Before I saw it, I had read that some thought there was too much jokes in it, but I didn't think so. Nothing that made it too ridiculous anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hobbit was brilliant!

 

I had low hopes, i heard it had a slow build-up and was boring. But i found it anything but. 

 

 

 

And the cgi is amazing. Gollum is flawless.

 

The advancement in CGI in the last ten years has been incredible.

 

Take Rivendell for example. In Fellowship of the Ring, it was a bit blurry and looked like a painted picture in the background. In The Hobbit it looked flawless. Ditto Gollum. 

 

I hate the idea that such a small book has been turned into three films but if they maintain the quality in the next two then i'll eat humble pie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the idea that such a small book has been turned into three films but if they maintain the quality in the next two then i'll eat humble pie. 

 

I'll wait until I see parts 2 and 3, but based on just the first one, I could've lived without any of the additions that came after they left Bilbo's home. I thought the build up was pretty good (the movie needs to work for those who haven't read the books or seen the "Rings" movies) and it didn't feel long or boring, but I think it would've been a better movie if it had been about 30-45 minutes shorter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll wait until I see parts 2 and 3, but based on just the first one, I could've lived without any of the additions that came after they left Bilbo's home.

 

I agree with you on that. The bit with Radagast the Brown messing about with hedgehogs and what have you was over-long. 

 

And i have to say, that the scene between Bilbo and Gollum in the cave could have had about 5 mins cut from it too. It got a bit over-indulgent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...the scene between Bilbo and Gollum in the cave could have had about 5 mins cut from it too. It got a bit over-indulgent.

That is the one that I think they got spot on. That scene just could NOT be rushed through. It's one of the most important (iconic) scenes in the book, especially when the movies want to make as many connections to Lord of the Rings storyline as possible. Most of the big action sequences could've done with some toning and cutting down. For example, the Stone Giants scene was needlessly stretched and overblown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the one that I think they got spot on. That scene just could NOT be rushed through. 

 

I've read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and i understand it is a key scene but i still think it slightly over-ran. Each to their own i guess. 

 

And agreed- that Stone Giants scene was extremely over-blown. In fact,i wouldn't have minded if it was omitted all together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The advancement in CGI in the last ten years has been incredible.

 

Take Rivendell for example. In Fellowship of the Ring, it was a bit blurry and looked like a painted picture in the background. In The Hobbit it looked flawless. Ditto Gollum. 

 

The CGI isn't the reason for this, the first three films were shot on film and projected on film and duly lost a lot of detail in the process, if you're old enough to remember it's the same as copying a vinyl record to cassette tape, it's still the album but the sound is muddy because of the generational loss through copying. The Hobbit was shot on digital cameras at 48 frames per second which is twice the rate at which film is shot, furthermore it's being projected digitally so there is far less generational loss and the pictures are sharper and clearer. 

Edited by Westway
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to see it in HFR(48 frames/second) and while some of it looked very impressive, parts of it looked like a mix between a daytime drama and a video game. Part of it was due to it being shot digitally, part of it was the large resolution (I think it's 5K) and part of it's due to the lack of motion blur, which results from the higher frame rate.

 

Some shots looked "too real" in a bad way, because everything was in focus: crisp, clear and sharp. Fantasy movies need to have a bit of that old time movie magic about them. Although technically superior, it looked cheap in some parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The CGI isn't the reason for this, the first three films were shot on film and projected on film and duly lost a lot of detail in the process, if you're old enough to remember it's the same as copying a vinyl record to cassette tape, it's still the album but the sound is muddy because of the generational loss through copying. The Hobbit was shot on digital cameras at 48 frames per second which is twice the rate at which film is shot, furthermore it's being projected digitally so there is far less generational loss and the pictures are sharper and clearer. 

 

Actually, the CGI is one of the reasons for this. They're able to articulate quite a few more facial muscles for Gollum than they were in the past, thus making him more expressive. You're right about the framerate and the digital video, but the CGI definitely advanced since the first trilogy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to see it in HFR(48 frames/second) and while some of it looked very impressive, parts of it looked like a mix between a daytime drama and a video game. Part of it was due to it being shot digitally, part of it was the large resolution (I think it's 5K) and part of it's due to the lack of motion blur, which results from the higher frame rate.

 

Some shots looked "too real" in a bad way, because everything was in focus: crisp, clear and sharp. Fantasy movies need to have a bit of that old time movie magic about them. Although technically superior, it looked cheap in some parts.

Couldn't agree more, the Hobbit is a watershed movie because what Peter Jackson seems to be saying is " forget all this nonsense about digital cameras looking like film, they don't, doesn't matter how clever the algorithms are it's not the same, get over it and get the most bang for the buck you can from digital "  I don't like it but he's right.

James Cameron wants to shoot Avatar 2 at 60 frames per second, it'll be the first time the video game looks more like film than the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"...get the most bang for the buck you can from digital "

I hope they can get it right in the future, because the first attempt was not entirely convincing. They probably need to find new ways to shoot action sequences, because those were the ones that suffered most from the higher frame rate. Set builders, prop makers and costume makers will also need to improve their work, because you won't be able to get away with some things like you could when shooting on film. There's a good reason why they won't use miniatures as much (or at all) as they did on the Lord of the Rings movies and it's not the cost. The higher resolution means you just won't be able to make the miniatures as detailed as they'd need to be when shooting in 5K/HFR.

 

We probably will get used to the look, though, and I can see it becoming more rare to shoot on film in the future. Technology moves on and it's a small wonder that shooting on film 24 frames per second has been "the king" for so long. And because we're all so used to the film look, it will take time before it gets accepted by the public. I mean, when close up shots were introduced (instead of showing the actors from head to toe) back in the early 1900s, the movie going public were outraged as they had paid good money to see the stars of the movie and they wanted to see them in their full glory. They felt cheated that they saw only parts of them. Jump cuts? People didn't like them when Godard when crazy with them, but now they're a completely acceptable trick to use. I could go on.

 

Then again, I can see more people sticking to the old methods, like Christopher Nolan does. Shoots only on film and doesn't do 3D. I'm not a huge fan of his Batman trilogy, but they do look glorious on the big screen, even if they're "technically inferior". 

 

I just hope people will pick the technology that gets them the best results for their particular movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!