|
|
Post by the light works on May 6, 2014 14:50:41 GMT
Could it? Think about it for a moment, not just in terms of the Hobbit but in terms of LOTR. The latter books deal with events that took place during The Hobbit, such as forcing Sauron out of Mirkwood and the gradual realisation that the Lord of the Rings is back. Other elements, such as Saruman's fall from grace, are not detailed in the books at all but rather important in terms of the overall story beyond The Hobbit. (It should also be noted that the reasons Gandalf gives for backing Thorin's quest in Unexpected Journey actually came from the council meeting in Fellowship, but they were never mentioned in that film as they were incidental to the main story.) Jackson is, in effect, trying to do what Tolken himself did, which was connect the stories so they made a singular history. The problem was that two and a half hours just wasn't going to be long enough to do this without short changing something. Initially they intended to make two films, but clearly decided that in order to do justice to the stories they needed more time so they could play everything out - which is probably also the point where they realised they had another problem in that there was not quite enough there to support some 8 hours of film. So they had to add additional material. They also needed to add additional material since otherwise at least one of the films, most likely the first one, wouldn't have contained anything really interesting in them or would have ended in rather strange places and without any resolution. Jackson has noted that while all the films are/will be linked they were also intended to be understandable and watchable on their own without having to have watched any of the others. This placed some restrictions and limitations as to what they could realistically get away with including and showing in each film, as each film needed to have its own arc. (In Unexpected Journey the arc is Bilbo accepting and being accepted as having a place in Thorin's company. In Desolation of Smaug the arc is that of growing darkness, or if you like that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.) As I noted above, there are elements of the Hobbit that have repercussions by the time of LOTR. But these are not included in The Hobbit (book) itself, and are not mentioned in the film versions of LOTR. Other elements were not mentioned in the main text of the books, or not expanded on, and yet more could be explained fairly well in text but not on film. Imagine, for example, filming the council meeting from Fellowship was it was written. Half of what was said would make no sense unless you'd read The Hobbit, and much of the rest would require you to have read the Fellowship up to that point since several of the things being talked about were in fact explained much earlier. so call it LOTR Episode 1: the dragon menace, Episode II attack of the dwarves, and Episode III, revenge of Sauron; instead of The Hobbit. in short. when I first saw the animated version of the Hobbit, I started dreaming that maybe someday someone would make a faithful film adaptation of the book. I will have to keep on dreaming. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 7, 2014 6:16:25 GMT
Its the thing about **All** adaptations of a book....
If you adapt it too far, it ceases to be the story you know.
May make a good film, but for fans of the book, you may alienate them....
And Jackson knew that, he admitted as much whilst LOTR was being made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 7, 2014 9:16:33 GMT
Its the thing about **All** adaptations of a book.... If you adapt it too far, it ceases to be the story you know. May make a good film, but for fans of the book, you may alienate them.... And Jackson knew that, he admitted as much whilst LOTR was being made. As I said, what works in one medium will not automatically work in another - even if the other medium is similar in many respects. You just need to look at how many video games have been successfully made into movies. Jackson was not the only writer of the films, one of the other major writers was/is Fran Walsh (who he has two kids with). Fran's commentary on the Hobbit DVD, and from what I can recall LOTR as well, is interesting. Not because of any particular insight she gives into turning a book into a film (although she does deal with this on occasion). But because unlike everyone else who did commentary she never says 'Tolken'. Fran always says 'Professor Tolken', which to me seems to indicate a considerable amount of respect for the original material. We should also keep in mind that Sir Christopher Lee, who plays Saruman the white, is not only a huge Tolken fan but owing to real life experiences was able to tell them the exact sound someone makes when you stab them in the back. (He was in the SOE in WW2). He is not a man who would seem likely to remain quiet, or whom you would want to offend, by 'messing up' the books - nor is it likely that he would have agreed to reprise the role in The Hobbit if he was unhappy at what Jackson was doing. (Keep in mind here that Saruman's role in Return of the King was cut from the theatrical release). That Sir Lee came back anyway indicates that he understood why some things had to be changed (and if anyone is going to understand such things it would be Sir Lee, he'd made more films than the rest of the cast combined at the time of LOTR). |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 7, 2014 14:16:55 GMT
Its the thing about **All** adaptations of a book.... If you adapt it too far, it ceases to be the story you know. May make a good film, but for fans of the book, you may alienate them.... And Jackson knew that, he admitted as much whilst LOTR was being made. As I said, what works in one medium will not automatically work in another - even if the other medium is similar in many respects. You just need to look at how many video games have been successfully made into movies. Jackson was not the only writer of the films, one of the other major writers was/is Fran Walsh (who he has two kids with). Fran's commentary on the Hobbit DVD, and from what I can recall LOTR as well, is interesting. Not because of any particular insight she gives into turning a book into a film (although she does deal with this on occasion). But because unlike everyone else who did commentary she never says 'Tolken'. Fran always says 'Professor Tolken', which to me seems to indicate a considerable amount of respect for the original material. We should also keep in mind that Sir Christopher Lee, who plays Saruman the white, is not only a huge Tolken fan but owing to real life experiences was able to tell them the exact sound someone makes when you stab them in the back. (He was in the SOE in WW2). He is not a man who would seem likely to remain quiet, or whom you would want to offend, by 'messing up' the books - nor is it likely that he would have agreed to reprise the role in The Hobbit if he was unhappy at what Jackson was doing. (Keep in mind here that Saruman's role in Return of the King was cut from the theatrical release). That Sir Lee came back anyway indicates that he understood why some things had to be changed (and if anyone is going to understand such things it would be Sir Lee, he'd made more films than the rest of the cast combined at the time of LOTR). heck, they made a movie out of the tabletop game Battleship. and it was entertaining if almost totally unrealistic. but on the topic of the Hobbit: I don't take orders from Sir Christopher Lee. I have every right to feel that Peter Jackson was too unfaithful to the story and spirit of the book; and I have every right to make those feelings known by declining to pay any extra to view the movie in a theater (cinema). And by writing in viewer reviews that I found it to be a significant departure from the book. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 8, 2014 4:12:31 GMT
[edit]
I red this and had a thought....
You all know how to drive.
But do you know how to drive MY car?...
I have no reason to suspect any of you are bad drivers, nor do I have the right to criticise the way you drive.
However....
If I were to give you the keys to one of the original Bond Aston Martin DB5's and allowed you to take it for a spin....
Do I have the right to speak for the whole of the country (and a lot of the world) by expressing the concerns that you are driving a national treasure and to take great care?....
I think maybe I have that right.
I have transported such vehicles, I have transported very valuable vehicles in my time, and to do that, I have had to drive them (Loading/unloading and putting them in and out of storage)
I can drive, no one questions that, but I always get the "Take care" sentence of some kind before I am given the keys...
So I have the right to expect that other people take the same care.
If you agree that I do, then I have the same rights when handing over a book to someone who wishes to make a film out of it to take great care, as that book is also a national treasure...
The writer received recognition from the Queen.
Therefore his works are of great importance.
I read the books back in the 70's....I read the books before they became fashionable, I think I may have the same rights to say I am not a HUGE fan of the film adaptation....
And that was the usual English Sarcasm... I know I have the right to air my own view.
I also believe my own view is more important than anyone else connected with the film, as my own words are liable to be unbiased, as I know the readers here will not accept anything else......
So read this with the view I am trying to reconcile my own respects to Tolkein with the needs to put that into film, and trying to allow that to happen without undue "Fan-boy" criticism that they got the colour f Sams trousers wrong as it clearly says on page XYZ that they were Fawn, not dark brown.....
I accept that written work does not always work on screen.
In fact, if the screen version contained all the reported singing in Dwarvish Elven and other that were in the books, I could only watch on Video as that is the only way to fast>>fwd through the boring songs.....
I have watched part of the first Hobbit film.
I stopped watching at a suitable break, and decided that I would only resume when I could do all the story in one, as I (correctly) predicted that the first film would end on a "Cliffhanger" in order to enthuse the audience to watch part two.....
Is this an "Important" book?...
Hell Yeah.
Tolkein is one of the founders of modern Fantasy, Sci-Fantasy, Sci-Fiction.
This book is "the first" by many accounts.
Previous books by Tolkein only became fashionable AFTER the Hobbit/LOTR.
Respect MUST be due, we expect all characters involved, be they famous in their own right or not, to pay respect to Tolkein.
"Artistic licence", away with yer....
Jackson is NOT the writer here.
He is someone who is adapting a book for screen, yet he seeks to be acknowledged as a writer?.. that is akin to plagiarism?... taking someone elses work and claiming it as your own?... he should tread carefully, for the paths he walks upon are laid by MUCH greater men than he?....
My own view.
And I am proud of it...
And I think that we ought to pay attention to other non commercial views, the people who watched the film, those who did so for the first time, and those who did so after reading the book, and maybe even after seeing previous attempts (animated) to put the story on film.
I found that LOTR films "Close enough" to the books to get away with it, as in the didnt distance too far from the story line.
But my biggest question has to be, on the back of the "artistic licence" of LOTR, has Jackson gone too fat this time?....
I am not sure.
And as I am trying to stay unbiased, I think that probably means he has strayed too much....
And no, I NEVER read reviews from other people who have commercial interest before I watch a film.
I listen to unbiased views of those who watch the film on the look for a good film.
In the same way, I NEVER pay attention to "Fan-boy" "I-read-the-book-and-this-is-nothing-like-it" fans who love to pick holes on the unimportant, such as "He drove a Jaguar in the books and you have him driving an Aston" complaints.....
But those who say the character in the book was a womanising archaic sexist racist and here you portray him as a lovable rouge with the looks and charm of a demi-god, then on that score, I am allowed to question the changes.
I know its difficult to put a good book into film, but with a book as good as this, you only get one chance.
Its not as if its going to be re-written as much as say Godzilla.....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 8, 2014 5:35:23 GMT
I gave it three stars. that is three stars for the visual impressiveness, and no stars for being true to the story. what he put in from the book, he rewrote. often for no good reason and sometimes to make it go better with the stuff he added for no good reason.
when Mrs TLW asked me, "why are the Orcs so interested in the Dwarfs?" I had to tell her, "I have no idea, this scene wasn't in the book."
If Peter Jackson had done as good a job on the hobbit as on LOTR, he would have become the paramount director in Hollywood. he didn't. he not only made a microsoft movie - he also made it so far from the actual story that no amount of editing can make a supercut that is actually close to the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 8, 2014 6:06:10 GMT
This is the problem when you depart from the script....
I was watching a documentary some years ago about a famous script writer and his departure from a certain show....
I wont name names, as it was rather acerbic, and the argument ranged onwards over "Allegations" made in that documentary...
The main one he claimed as his reason for leaving is departure from script.
Wandering off topic is par for the course to some extent, all acting people do that to some degree, sometimes it even makes the script better...
But to his dismay, most mornings, his script was delivered back to him, after a read through by main character, who had often completely re-written most of their own part, stolen lines from other characters, and changed the story line.
He bought this up with the shows producers, to the extent why do they bother asking him for scripts if they are to be re-written by the cast.
It caused arguments when the producers argued back that it was the characters right to re-write the parts.
"If they think they can do a better job"
and it went down hill from there.
The script write left, claiming they were asked to leave, the show claimed they left of their own accord, it got legal.
What we have here is "Peter Jacksons Hobbit".
It is no longer Tolkein.
Was this a waste of a good opportunity?....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 8, 2014 10:43:51 GMT
There were five writers for LOTR, and four for the Hobbit - all of whom are 'screenwriters', meaning that they translated the books into a film script rather than came up with the story as a whole. The two most important of these (although from what I can tell they would probably not consider themselves as such) are Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, who were/are also producers.
What many people don't realise about films (and TV) is that stories are usually dreamt up by Producers, and then handed over to writers. Producers in Hollywood are rather notorious on the whole for ignoring inconvenient facts, and treating writers as only slightly more important that the person who cleans the toilet. (Although some of this is probably down to networks trying to push things onto shows and films rather than leaving the creators to just get on with things*).
If you look at those films and film series that, for the most part, have been successful in fairly recent years it is interesting to note that the Producers have also tended to be the writers to a greater or lesser degree. Star Wars was written and Produced by George Lucas, Star Trek was (at least partly) written and produced by Gene Roddenberry (GR's writing was more or less limited to TOS, TMP and the first season of TNG. As a Producer he took an 'executive' position where he could be overruled by others after TMP). The Matrix was written and Produced by the same people, as were the (first three) Spiderman films. And of course we have Avengers, which was written, Produced and Directed by the same guy.
Producers who write tend to make better films, since they understand both the needs of the visual medium and the demands of actually having a story beyond that. (The story can, of course, get obscured in the finished product. But if the Producer/writer knows the 'background' they can tell the director who can attempt to at least hint at that part of the story).
The catch, and risk, is that if the Producer is also the writer there are few people who are able and willing to call them out if nothing actually makes sense or if they are getting carried away - especially if the first film/season turned out to be a success. So in the examples above you may also note that all of the above had one or two successful films followed by at least one very poor film.
Jackson seems to be in a good position, in that it appears that while he is the one who is calling the shots he remains 'grounded' and works with people who are able and willing to call him out if they think he is going off the rails. Others, principally Joss Wheaton, seem to be capable of being critical of their decisions with or without such input (although I *think* Wheaton surrounds himself with people who will call him out as well). Sure, they will make mistakes and get carried away from time to time (season 6 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a fair example), but as they have checks on their ego's they are more consistent in terms of quality.
Not that this means that everything they produce is gold or will be viewed as such. Like any other film or series much depends on personal preference. So some people will enjoy the Hobbit films, others will detest them - I happen to fall into the former group but don't expect everyone else to do so**. Nor do I think that people *should* enjoy the films because I do. I do think that pointing out misconceptions or misunderstandings regarding why some things were done the way they were, or what the intention was is fine.
(*The network insisted that Babylon 5 should have an 'Ace Fighter Pilot' in its second season. JMS did as they asked, and then killed the guy off at the end of that season - after which he was left alone)
(**Personally I hate being told that I should enjoy something. Be that a book or a film. Everyone told me I should worship Anchor Man, I couldn't get halfway though it without turning it off and resisting the urge to snap the disk in half. Likewise I was told that I 'must' enjoy Inception. Another film I couldn't force myself to watch for long.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 8, 2014 13:58:28 GMT
The best films have the writer as the producer - and the worst films have the writer as the producer. the one because the writer understands what the producer needs and vice versa; the other because the writer lets the producer do whatever he wants and vice versa.
as for the hobbit - he should have either been faithful to the book OR done the prequels for LOTR. in trying to do both, he failed at both. as someone already said, The Hobbit was about Bilbo's journey, and it did not have knowledge of what was going on around him. it did not have the ring affecting him so badly so soon, it did not have flashbacks all over the place, it did not have a huge battle between the dwarves and Smaug, (instead it had Bilbo matching wits with Smaug and coming out slightly ahead) I could go on nitpicking - but three is probably enough to make the point without belaboring it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on May 8, 2014 18:20:25 GMT
I think that part of why LotR works is that despite having multiple story lines running parallel with each other, they are all leading towards the same endgame, and you know that the whole time. However with the Hobbit, you have two or more stories running concurrently with each other, but they do not share a common goal. If they do, it has not been revealed in the first two movies. So they really feel like two separate moves that share a common landscape, but are just spliced together. I really thin the problem is that Jackson got greedy. He is trying to generate the same success that he had with LotR by having an another epic trilogy, but he simply doesn't have enough materiel to work from to take up 6+ hours of screen time in a entertaining way. The result is the movies feel bloated and drawn out.
I think part of it may be the name recognition issue. The Hobbit is a well known book, but the Simarillion is not. He was banking on the Hobbit to have enough clout to get people in to tell both stories, and has ended up with a couple critical duds on his hands. I think he would have been much better off making the hobbit into one long movie and be done with it with the reputation intact and then make a series of movies for the other stores, doing them as stand alone pieces. All you would need to do is add "The Lord of the Rings" to the title to be able to tie everything together. Getting people into see a movie called "The Lord of the Rings: The Simarillion, Part 1" would be enough to get people into theaters if you don't kill their interest with a bad Hobbit series before hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 8, 2014 19:56:14 GMT
Humm, I think you are largely correct for the first film. Which introduces the White Orc and the threat from the 'Necromancer' (which anyone who has read LOTR already knew was Sauron) as individual plots. The Orc is at least tied into the main plot with the dwarves by virtue of hunting Thorin*, although lets be honest that the threat from him never really felt all that serious no matter how they tried. Then again much the same could be said from that 'Super' Uraki that appeared in Fellowship of the ring, who's role was to kill the first person he saw, then use Boromer for target practice before being hacked apart by Aragorn. (*The orc in question was not invented for the film, as he was the same orc who killed Thorin's father in front of Moria. However in the 'Tolkenverse' he died from his wounds, and it was his son who went after Thorin (and I think killed him during the battle of the five armies)) The second film does fair somewhat better, or at least seems to be doing so. It appears that unlike the book, where the battle to force Sauron out of Mirkwood took place at a different time and place. This time around the battle will almost certainly be merged with the Battle of Five Armies, where all the separate elements and plots will tie together. This may well turn out to be a slightly better ending for a film than the one in Return of the King. That film did suffer slightly from its climax effectively being cut between the army outside the Black Gates and Frodo and Sam at Mount Doom, and with the really impressive battle having taken place roughly halfway through. This structure works well in the book, but didn't work quite as well on screen. In the Hobbit of course events climax near the end with the battle - most of which we don't get to 'see' since Bilbo gets knocked out fairly early on. I doubt that this will happen in the film, because I'm guessing that Bilbo and Thorin will have a falling out in the first third of the film and make up when Thorin is on his deathbed near the end. (Assuming they do remain faithful and kill him off - note that in Fellowship Gandalf mentions Thorin once, but the language used doesn't indicate if he was alive or dead. This holds for both the film and the book as the line is the same. Given that Legolas represented the Wood Elves at the council meeting in his fathers place, it is not unreasonable to assume that if Thorin was still alive in the film version he would have sent Gloin in his place...Yes feel free to howl in horror at the idea of Thorin not being hacked into small chunks by angry Orcs.) If I had to make some guesses, I'd say that they'd probably remain fairly faithful to the books. Smuag will attack Lake town (which he was on his way to do at the end of the second film) and get himself killed in the first half hour or so - If I were plotting it based on the last film I'd start with Gandalf, switch to Smaug beating the stuffing out of Lake Town, then switch back to Gandalf being rescued by elves from Lorien (probably with backup from Radagast and Saruman) before switching back once again to Lake Town where Bard manages to kill Smaug. Legolas will probably follow the white orc until he runs straight into the large army heading for the mountain, at which point he will probably turn around and head back to raise the alarm. The Dwarves will remain in the mountain, waiting for their army to turn up and locking the doors - don't ask exactly how they are going to defend a fortress when the large dragon smashed his way through the main doors on his way back. There will be a lot of Thorin slowly going mad and shouting/threatening Bilbo. Then when the battle starts outside Bilbo will eventually talk Thorin into seeing sense, at which point the Dwarves will kit themselves out with the best weapons and armour available in the mountain (probably a mixture of 'serious preparation for ass-kicking' with some 'humorous' moments as they try to find armour to fit the overweight one) before charging out to do battle just as things seem lost (either the king of the elves or Bard will be within a hairsbreadth of being killed by Mr Large White and Nasty). Epic battle between Thorin and White orc, which Thorin will appear to be loosing badly before getting in his fatal blow - possibly with Orcrest (sp?) which Legolas will helpfully throw to him just in the nick of time. Thorin himself will either survive outright, or more likely suffer a fatal wound which will still give him enough time to make amends with Bilbo, the elves, Bard and probably everyone else within fifty miles. The ending will almost certainly include an image of the tower of Sauron starting to be constructed and mount doom in full on 'I have lots of lava and am not ashamed of showing it to everyone' mode. The last scene will probably be Bilbo sitting down at his desk at Bag End and starting to write his book - even if we actually saw him do this in Fellowship. (I'm kind of curious to see how close my guesses as to the general plot are to the last film now. If I'm alarmingly close to the truth I think I deserve a barrel or two of Old Toby...and a job as a Producer  ) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 9, 2014 4:09:41 GMT
On a different topic - saw the new Wolverweenie movie. a bit messy, but entertaining. not really very critical to understanding him, but it may have a few details that will be relevant in the next X-men movie. the hair and makeup department could have done a little better in my opinion, but Jackman is definitely still the man for the role.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on May 9, 2014 11:51:25 GMT
I say The Grand Budapest Hotel last night. It was a single showing at one theater in town.
I normally don't got for art films, but this one was quite enjoyable. It is not one that takes itself too seriously and has quite a bit of subtle humor to it.
Quick plot summary: Ralph Fiennes (Mallory in Skyfall) is a high class hotel concierge who likes rich older women. When one of this favorite guests dies and her will leaves him a priceless painting, he is framed for her murder and with the help of his lobby boy, has to clear his name and find out who set him up. This, of course, involves a far amount of slapstick and wit. This is all happening as the country is going to war. Given the setting, it does not take itself overly seriously.
I found it interesting that despite having a lot of big name stars and more than a few cameo appearances, (Owen Wilson, Bill Murry, Edward Norton, Jeff Goldbloom, Harvey Keitel, Tilda Swinton, Jude Law) The film also stars a person who is brand new to the silver screen.
I found it fun. It's limited release, so if you can't see it locally, it is defiantly worth picking up the bluray.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 9, 2014 20:47:19 GMT
We had a hard storm go through town last night, and this morning it was rather overcast.
As you can imagine, when I went to the theater this morning the place was deserted. There were more theater staff members than patrons when I arrived at around 10:20 AM (a full ten minutes after opening).
I was literally the only person in the theater for the 10:45 showing of "Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return", and I don't think anybody turned up for the 10:40 showing of "Brick Mansions". I heard and saw some kids and parents about in the theater for "Rio 2", but even the trio of staff members I spoke with said that it was pretty much dead in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2014 0:41:26 GMT
We had a hard storm go through town last night, and this morning it was rather overcast. As you can imagine, when I went to the theater this morning the place was deserted. There were more theater staff members than patrons when I arrived at around 10:20 AM (a full ten minutes after opening). I was literally the only person in the theater for the 10:45 showing of "Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return", and I don't think anybody turned up for the 10:40 showing of "Brick Mansions". I heard and saw some kids and parents about in the theater for "Rio 2", but even the trio of staff members I spoke with said that it was pretty much dead in there. When you guys have storms, you have the potential to get nailed pretty hard, don't you? I recall our first trip to Disneyland, it started raining while we were in line for Splash Mountain. we decided to ride the ride, then walk back to the hotel and change clothes (there's a Days Inn within easy walking distance of the free parking shuttle) when we got back armed with plastic ponchos, the park was relatively deserted. mind you, by "rain" I mean maybe enough for a drop to occasionally land on a spot that was already wet. so, how was the movie? I saw the teaser, by which I mean I saw that there was a teaser. (Mrs TLW aggressively skips anything that might resemble a commercial) |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 10, 2014 0:54:44 GMT
It's hit-and-miss.
We can have storms pop up suddenly, dump rain, and then disappear within minutes.
We can also have storms that roll in like unwanted in-laws and stay just as long.
In my neck of the woods, the storm started a little after 5:45 PM local. The weather reports all said that the front was supposed to pass us by 7 PM, but we merely had about a 10 minute lull before a second front came back to slap us. The first front was a hard, driving rain, such that visibility was pretty well nullified; from where I was sitting in the office at work I could see the highway, and most of the traffic was moving at a crawl. The second front was gentler, but was still pounding for a while.
When I went to go deliver papers later on, there were broken tree branches covering some of the roads.
**
As far as the film goes, "they tried too hard".
Patrick Stewart.
Dan Aykroyd.
Kelsey Grammer.
James Belushi.
Oliver Platt.
Martin Short in a dual role.
Brian Blessed.
And a whole host of others.
With music by Bryan Adams.
In an 88-minute kids' movie.
Had this been an epic film, or even a made-for-television mini-series, everyone would have had a chance to shine. Instead, some of these people barely even had cameo appearances. And I couldn't tell Grammer, Aykroyd, and Belushi apart because of how similar their voices came out.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2014 0:57:53 GMT
It's hit-and-miss. We can have storms pop up suddenly, dump rain, and then disappear within minutes. We can also have storms that roll in like unwanted in-laws and stay just as long. In my neck of the woods, the storm started a little after 5:45 PM local. The weather reports all said that the front was supposed to pass us by 7 PM, but we merely had about a 10 minute lull before a second front came back to slap us. The first front was a hard, driving rain, such that visibility was pretty well nullified; from where I was sitting in the office at work I could see the highway, and most of the traffic was moving at a crawl. The second front was gentler, but was still pounding for a while. When I went to go deliver papers later on, there were broken tree branches covering some of the roads. ** As far as the film goes, "they tried too hard". Patrick Stewart. Dan Aykroyd. Kelsey Grammer. James Belushi. Oliver Platt. Martin Short in a dual role. Brian Blessed. And a whole host of others. With music by Bryan Adams. In an 88-minute kids' movie. Had this been an epic film, or even a made-for-television mini-series, everyone would have had a chance to shine. Instead, some of these people barely even had cameo appearances. And I couldn't tell Grammer, Aykroyd, and Belushi apart because of how similar their voices came out. I took a moment to watch the trailer on IMDB and it looked like a babysit-the-kids movie. by which I mean something that will hold the ADHD kids' attention while the parents do something else. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 10, 2014 1:05:17 GMT
As far as kids go -
The opening credits consist of a tornado throwing objects against the screen in what was basically 3D fodder; anyone with motion sickness or light sensitivity might have issues (I was mildly affected, and I sat in the back row).
There's a little bit of crude humor, and things do get a bit grim at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 10, 2014 7:36:28 GMT
I cannot review movies.
Please read the below as "Evidence", and wonder if my own particular branding of telling the truth even if its ugly would prevent me from getting the job....
This is an informed decision after I was kinda "Forced" into watching a film in the background....
I have long hated that fop fool Hugh Grant, he is everything that is wrong with how English people are portrayed badly in movies, and he was part of the film that was playing, but I set my mind to ignore him on the fact I was at the other end of the room doing Golf with a friend....
Lads at one end playing Tiger Woods on XBox, Wifes&G/G's at the other end watching film, its a LOOOOOng room divided such quite successfully, and as long as no one is selfish with the sound levels, we can all get along nicely and be in the same room in different activities?...
Anyway, because of this, I watched some of a film I have never wanted to watch, four weddings and a badly written script.
I cannot say a positive word about that film.
If I had to comment in any way, maybe I would write something like 'There were a few weak comedy lines in it that gave some escape from a badly written dialogue that was mostly to placate awful characters in awkward situations that were honestly embarrassing.'
To say that of any film invites derision.
Therefore I will openly admit that having to sit through a film where part of the audience make a very good decision to walk away from is a job I can NEVER do.....
Especially as I know some people like that kind of film.
Bridget Jones continued Diary, the second film, is this what they will choose next week?...
It has had a bloody awful review, but as one of the gang has it, it was given to them free, they have decided it should be given a view so that they can make their own mind up and do so unbiased.
As for four weddings...
The Ladies review was that as they spent most of the film chatting, it had not warranted their full attention, the rewind had not been used once, so it cant have been "Spellbinding", and therefore, it wasnt that good, on the score none of them would have wanted to sit through it alone, and the only reason they watched it all the way through was because they had company.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 10, 2014 11:37:27 GMT
I cannot review movies. Please read the below as "Evidence", and wonder if my own particular branding of telling the truth even if its ugly would prevent me from getting the job.... This is an informed decision after I was kinda "Forced" into watching a film in the background.... I have long hated that fop fool Hugh Grant, he is everything that is wrong with how English people are portrayed badly in movies, and he was part of the film that was playing, but I set my mind to ignore him on the fact I was at the other end of the room doing Golf with a friend.... Lads at one end playing Tiger Woods on XBox, Wifes&G/G's at the other end watching film, its a LOOOOOng room divided such quite successfully, and as long as no one is selfish with the sound levels, we can all get along nicely and be in the same room in different activities?... Anyway, because of this, I watched some of a film I have never wanted to watch, four weddings and a badly written script. I cannot say a positive word about that film. If I had to comment in any way, maybe I would write something like 'There were a few weak comedy lines in it that gave some escape from a badly written dialogue that was mostly to placate awful characters in awkward situations that were honestly embarrassing.' To say that of any film invites derision. Therefore I will openly admit that having to sit through a film where part of the audience make a very good decision to walk away from is a job I can NEVER do..... Especially as I know some people like that kind of film. Bridget Jones continued Diary, the second film, is this what they will choose next week?... It has had a bloody awful review, but as one of the gang has it, it was given to them free, they have decided it should be given a view so that they can make their own mind up and do so unbiased. As for four weddings... The Ladies review was that as they spent most of the film chatting, it had not warranted their full attention, the rewind had not been used once, so it cant have been "Spellbinding", and therefore, it wasnt that good, on the score none of them would have wanted to sit through it alone, and the only reason they watched it all the way through was because they had company. which reminds me of my own worst rating for a film: "it was so bad Mrs TLW turned it off." (I do spend a fair amount of time here, while she is watching things I will not watch.) |
|
)