Watched Catch Me If You can for the millionth of time...still good and still holds your interest though its one of those films for some reason that I never see the start of i always catch it after the start.Actually The Moria Thing comes after since a lot of people have said that both Balin and Fili are the guys in the Tomb, so I'm guessing Gimli lived in the city after it was taken back.
Last edited by Xercies; 07-01-2013 at 10:56 AM.
There's a timeline which shows the events, remember that the hobbit is one movie of three movies from one book, which is part of a series of four mains books and one other book that contains other stories and goings on.Originally Posted by Ravelle
Timeline
2941 - The year The Hobbit takes place, marked by Bilbo obtaining the One Ring. The Hobbit ends the same year, I won't spoil anything.
2989 - Moria is recolonized
2994 - Moria is destroyed
3001 - The events of The Lord of The Rings begins with Bilbo giving Frodo the One Ring.
Additionally
The dwarves "won" the battle at Morias East gate when they "killed" Azog. They just didn't have the numbers to take Moria back. The company of dwarves you see in the movie are not the last remaining dwarves, but rather the ones who take on the quest led by Thorin. The remaining dwarves live in Rhovanion.
Aha! Thanks for the information, sure clears things up a bit. I wasn't sure how long it took from one event to another, could be hundreds of years or only a dozen, if that were the case I thought the lifespan of a dwarf to be pretty long but it seems they age like normal humans do.
Steam | Origin: xRavelle | Skype: TheRavelle | PSN: Voltburn | Watch me struggle through my backlog
No problem! The Hobbit takes place pretty much over a year. If they go far with the third movie, we might get to see a few years past the events of The Hobbit and see the battle in Moria where it ultimately falls. I think the LOTRs takes place over about 2-3 years.
I think that will be the case. I'm sure I read an interview in which Guillermo del Toro basically said that they had plans to use content from the various appendices to bridge what happens between The Hobbit and LotR. Obviously alot has changed since then but I still think this is likely to happen. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit before he'd even conceptualised the LotR, so this is quite a nice oppurtunity to bring in some of the things he retroactively added. The focus on the 'Necromancer' and the long scenes with Saruman and Galadriel at Rivendell is also an indication that Jackson is not treating The Hobbit as an isolated story from what happens later.
Indeed. With the timeline and the events that happen outside the books but within the realm of the universe, they've a lot of material to show. And for all the people who complain "it's not like the book!!" I say who cares, it's more Tolkien being done by a director who really really really loves and gets Tolkien.
Went to see Jack Reacher tonight. A resounding meh from it. Some funny moments, but probably made my funny by seeing it with friends. Dragged on a bit too and the female lead wasn't a very good actress.
I just saw Cloud World in cinema,with tom hanks and hally berry,interesting movie.
Last edited by DaftPunk; 07-01-2013 at 11:50 PM.
... I take the lives of a few to protect the lives of many. I commit acts of war to preserve the greater peace. I take no joy in killing, but make no mistake; I'll do what needs to be done. Because it's my job. It's my duty. My name is Sam Fisher, and I am a Splinter Cell.
It was a while since I'd seen Watchmen, so I got the US version of the Directors' Cut Blu-Ray version as it's supposedly better than the UK version. (There's now an Ultimate Cut too, which is even longer...)
Visually, the film is stunning. The audio is brilliantly mastered, the Bob Dylan intro especially so.
Unfortunately that's all the praise I have for it, as there is not a single character in the whole film for whom I can have any kind of sympathy for. To varying degrees, they are all either fascistic cunts or apologists for fascistic cunts. Ironically, the only one I could even vaguely respect for the majority of the film was was Dr Manhattan, who was the furthest from humanity, and then he goes and blows that credibility he'd built in the final few minutes by siding with a genocidal cunt like Ozymandias.
Sally Jupiter not only forgives a man who tries to rape her, but goes on to have a child with him. Where do I even start with how wrong this is.
The Comedian is so thoroughly detestable I was hoping he'd die in every scene he was in, even though I'd already witnessed his death in the opening.
Rorschach spends so much of the film conveying a sense of "I have extremist right wing views and am persecuted for them" that, especially given his narrator status, it's hard to see him as anything other than an author insertion fantasy. Rather than what seemed to be painted as a noble sacrifice in the name of The Absolute Truth, his death scene ultimately left me wondering why Nite Owl even gave so much of a fuck about a character who'd existed merely to be a mouthpiece, which is odd given that Alan Moore has self-identified as an anarchist.
Were they good company? ;p
Steam | Origin: xRavelle | Skype: TheRavelle | PSN: Voltburn | Watch me struggle through my backlog
The whole movie i was thinking how are they going to tie all characters and stories together at the end of the movie,but they don't lol xD Still it was nice breath of fresh air to see something like this.
... I take the lives of a few to protect the lives of many. I commit acts of war to preserve the greater peace. I take no joy in killing, but make no mistake; I'll do what needs to be done. Because it's my job. It's my duty. My name is Sam Fisher, and I am a Splinter Cell.
Do it. See it again. The 3D is simply brilliant, and I've never even 'liked' 3D. I'll just re-post my gushy Facebook status rather than paraphrase myself:
The Life of Pi movie is a masterpiece. I think it's jumped straight into my top 5. Every single minute offers something ridiculously gloriously beautiful on about a million levels at once, and it's all in service of a great story and message. Even the 3D is perfect; it's just a seamless part of the cinematography - I wouldn't want to see the film without it, and I don't even like 3D (it's a distraction, and I mean this in many senses of the word). I do like tigers however, and the tiger is awesome. I'm sure this film'll be huge regardless of anything I say or don't say, but there, that's my contribution to word of mouth marketing. Please heed it.
I hadn't read the book, but I helped my ex with an essay about it so I knew the general plot and a few specifics. This hampered nothing at all; go in blind or as a fan of the novel and I defy you to not be enchanted. I didn't think films could still do this to me.
Last edited by Gwilym; 09-01-2013 at 10:22 AM.
I actually did, and I agree. I think Ang Lee has paid attention to the use of 3D in terms of enhancing the feature (seemingly not often the case), and it really shows in it's presentation; it's both subtle and striking in places. I still don't think I'd switch to mainly watching in 3D, but this was a good use of it.
The Hunger Games - A very very good movie it just grabs you by the neck and keeps you held there throughout. It has a different take on the killing kids in an arena then Battle Royale its definitely a lot more modern story and definitly taps in the zeitgeist. It starts of extremly creepy and sickening with the hunger games being introduced and the rich people, then it goes very thrilling, kinectic, and brutal in the games itself. The characters you do actually care about so it definitly gets you with its style. It basically is a punch gut throughout the movie. And this is for kids! It just tells a very important story i have to say. I do like this movie though I really don't know where they would go with the sequels. I recommend it!
V/H/S: I have mixed feelings about this one. First of all, Ti West is the biggest cockblock in filmmaking today. He excels (and indulges) in creating a thick, foreboding atmosphere and then delivers only scares that would make a child wimper. It's ironic that Radio Silence manage to out-do West's own House of the Devil in the best segment of V/H/S, 10/31/98. The larger issue that I have with the film, and this isn't entirely its own fault, is that indie films have been more and more relying on cop-out endings rather than answer the questions that have been raised. When it's done right - Kill List, Sound of My Voice, Inception, or the master David Lynch - this can make the viewer re-assess what we have just watched and, much to my pleasure, lead to much more interesting conversations than "that was a good movie" or "that bitch couldn't act." But it's such a delicate balance, and when it's done wrong you've wasted your audience's fucking time, and even as someone that spends between 10 and 15 hours a week watching movies I can think of no greater sin than to do that. Every one of the vignettes in V/H/S has an open ending, which fits well with the frame narrative (itself another open ending) but when only half of the shorts work it robs the overall film of its impact.
Still, I thought loathed found footage films, and I have to give credit where credit is due. V/H/S actually came a good way towards changing my mind about the technique. Unlike other, shitty found footage films, every one of the shorts manages to make it through all of their action scenes without throwing the camera across the room every time anything remotely exciting happens, and for that I have to applaud it. My second favorite segment, Tuesday the 17th, even pokes fun at the apparent "unfilmability" of found footage monsters. Roll on S-VHS.
Recently re-watched Dear Doctor or ディア・ドクター in the often curious Japanese way of giving things a faux-English title. It's a story about what is essentially a fake doctor who is seen as the hero of an old farming village in the Japanese country side where he treats mostly old people who, while sometimes sick, seem to be living a pretty content life. The doctor is pretty rubbish at what might be called modern medicine, which is exposed when a student joins him for his internship and the (grand)daughter of one of his patients, who is herself a doctor, discovers that the patient in question is very sick indeed and not receiving 'proper' treatment.
The film paints a pretty interesting contrast between the people in the village who are all quite happy and go about their lives until one day they pass away for one reason or another, and the elderly in the big city who seem to have a terrible last few months or weeks in big anonymous medical institutions.
"And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves." ~ 1 Samuel 8:18
BladeRunner. For the one thousandth time. Can't get over how awesome the city looks while blade runner blues is playing.
Zero Dark Thirty: kinda long but decent. The raid scene itself was the best part.
The Medallion of the Imperial Psychopath, a Napoleon: Total War AAR
For the Emperor!, a Total War: Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai AAR
Watched Headhunters last night, been on my list ever since it came out. Not what I was expecting but a very well made thriller nonetheless that really took me by surprise with the sudden shift into lethal danger. Watching the carefully controlled (but entirely hollow) life of the protagonist rapidly dissolve into desperate acts of survival and terror was a fun journey, and all of it within less than 2 hours of running time. Which was refreshing itself after watching Hobbit and Django Unchained, sometimes it's nice to watch a movie and do other things in the same evening... Anyway, highly recommend Headhunters. It's easy to see how they cast Jaime Lannister in GoT after watching this movie, though hopefully the actor will have a wider range than murderously intent/smug and satisfied for when the series gets around to showcasing him again.
though hopefully the actor will have a wider range than murderously intent/smug and satisfied for when the series gets around to showcasing him again.
Reading the book he definitely will have an opportunity to increase his range.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service - I really don't understand how people hate George Lazenby, because watching this without the bias of seeing Shaun Connery before he is actually a pretty decent Bond, he has the charm and also he actually has a bt of emotion behind him which is good, the only problem is the one liners he is not very good but judging by the movie they seem to be only there because they have to be there and they don't really fit the tone. That tone is quite grounded which I have to say I am beginning to enjoy more from Bond then the fantasy stuff. It starts off pretty noir actually and I wish it could continue that throughout the film. Another surprising thing, Bond has a lover and its a lover not some woman that he shags once and dies he actually begins to love her which is definitly character development for him which I like. The main villians plan is fecking weird when you get to it, it has 70s psychedelic surrealism. the action scenes are pretty brutal when its fighting It might be the sound but man it really looks like people are getting damaged in this. all in all a very good watch to be honest.
I have to say You can watch previous bonds and sometimes they just are great little time pieces of how the films were made and what they contained back then. For example this film is very 70s in its hypnotism scenes showing that those times films were kind of obsessed with people being assassins against there will. I think if you wanted to be a film historian looking at the Bond films is definitely a quick way of doing it.
I suspect GOT found him first since it premiered before Headhunters, but yeah, excellent movie.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
