iguanapunk, on 11 December 2012 - 7:10 PM, said:

I'm seeing it in Imax 3D high frequency (48fps) in a few days. I already turned off the 120hz feature of my TV because it hurts my eyes, so I don't know... I'll see

Takes a little while for the eyes to adjust. Report back.

Seen Hobbit last week, in IMAX 48fps and, I can't believe I'm going to say this, it's... not sure what word to use, plain bad. Peter Jackson butchered the book in any way he could. I want my money back...

Huh. I really liked the Hobbit, so much I've seen it twice so far! I read the book about 4 years ago, so my memory is a little hazy, but everything scene I remembered, the movie pulled off really nicely (especially Gollum).

Sandelic: In what ways did he butcher the book? And how does this make the movie (on it's own) bad?

I saw it in 2D and 3D and hope to see it again in IMAX 48fps. The 3D works but isn't necessary. Some action sequences look a little cooler with the 3D, otherwise it's pretty useless (as usual).

I enjoyed The Hobbit! I am looking forward to the next movie.

But I have not read the book in almost 30 years so to be fair, I rightfully don't have the literary knowledge to compare to the movie.

There are few major differences: Azgog is mentioned in one sentence by Gandalf in the book, while plays quite a important part in movie. Same with Radagas, who is also just mentioned in book. Same with stone giants, also with wargs, also with little things like what sword was found where, but that's nitpicking. When you thing about it, those differences I described are on the screen most of the time, so little beside names of characters remain true to the book. I understand that for the need of 9h trilogy Jackson had to do something, but inventing most of the movie for the sake of the action is just unnecessary. That's what I meant when I said that he butchered the book.
But what is really unnecessary is deviations from Peter Jacksons own interpretation of Lord of the rings. Remember how Bilbo found the one ring in Fellowship of the ring? Like book hobbit described - by tapping blindly in the dark. In Hobbit the movie, Bilbo watches as it drop out from Gollums purse? Really?
Maybe my expectations where too high - I am, as far as I can remember huge Tolkien fan, more of a nerd really, and maybe am unfair to movie, but as fan of books I can't help feeling cheated. It was based on specific world invented in those books and movie cannot stand on it's own. It leans on only source it has and it does that badly. Lotr was great without any major changing.
Still, I am glad that you had fun watching Hobbit, and I hope rest of you will.

I didn't go in with high expectations for The Hobbit, and so my expectations were met. I enjoyed it, and I'll go see the next ones.

I don't think that the film is bad; however, this is clearly the worst of the Lord of the Rings films to come out. I do agree with Sandelic a bit in that there was some serious milking going on here to draw another trilogy out of a book that amounts to a prologue of a very long story.

I mean--it's the smallest of the Lord of the Rings books... yet somehow they wanted to make the longest story out of it. That's not going to have a fulfilling end result, no matter how it is done. This is d-grade meat stuffed inside of a steak. Tasteless filler inside of a gourmet shell. Nonetheless, this is what I expected and I enjoyed it. I just won't go back for seconds.

Seen it in 3d 48fps, not that bad.

I watched in last night in 48fps and 3D. What a mistake! It looked more like a LARP than a film. It was like they didn't put the film through post-production, it didn't have that film feel, it felt live. This is the same effect I see on many LCD televisions, but the majority of people don't notice it. I have sensitive vision or something because I see what others can't, like Neo from The Matrix. So I couldn't really enjoy the film because of how terrible it looked. It was ok... damn, I was really looking forward to this film.

Life of Pi (3D).
Wasn't sure I'd like this. There's been talk about the visuals but I have to say that the main character and his story are what propels this film along. I was really engrossed. Much better than I expected.

By the way, does anyone else think it's odd that Django Unchained and Lincoln have had Bafta nominations but neither has been released in the UK yet?

skyscraper, on 10 January 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

I don't know but watch this: http://www.channel4....-your-butt-down

Interesting. I've seen all his films and I'll probably see this one. But if Tarantino agrees to do an interview with a news program, he has to expect them to ask more serious questions than an entertainment show would ask. I guess there's two sides to this: There is a suspicion by people that film violence may affect some people (that's why Kubrik chose to withdraw A Clockwork Orange as far as i know). That's the angle that Krishan was more or less coming from. Meanwhile Quentin, who is very good at making violent, entertaining films would never want to go down that road, and somehow acknowledge that his films may have some sort of (negative) effect on society. Which point of view is more 'correct' is perhaps a long debate but Tarantino could have dealt with it more gracefully I think.

I guess that he just got tired of explaining over and over again his stand on violence in his movies, and at the same time it is ridiculous to expect that that topic wouldn't pop up during interview (especially these days). Maybe he should refrain from giving interviews if that line of questioning gets him irritated.
Looking forward to seeing Django next week

I have now seen Django Unchained and I have to say I was impressed. I didn't see that performance coming from Samuel L Jackson. For me, Christophe Waltz was at least as good in this as he was in Inglorious Basterds. I thought he carried the movie more than Jamie Fox, but I guess Fox playing the titular character and being a bit younger was always going to be most prominent face on the posters. I'm not a big fan of Westerns but I liked this one.

I'm worried Django won't keep me interested for the whole movie as the story seems obvious whats going to happen etc. Although it is Tarrantino so hopefully some surprising twists, glorified violence and countless movie homages will make up for it. Going to see it tomorrow for sure. Oh and the aussie accent he does his cameo in to see if authentic enough ha.

I didnt mind the hobbit but far out the first scene especially where the dwarves gatecrash his house for a good quarter of the movie before they've gone the adventure even. Definitely milked to the last drop. Seen it once in 3D and thats enough. Will wait for the next one to see if goes a bit better in development.

I liked Django Unchained. There was plenty of gratuitous violence so if you're a fan of that, you won't be disappointed.

I have to admit the constant use of the n word made me uncomfortable, however I don't feel that was a fault with the movie at all. Tarantino always manages to bring an audience out of its comfort zone and this film is no different.

I hope I dont come across as a 'sicko' (aussie slang for sick in the head) when I said was partly looking forward to glorified violence. It is one of his trademarks and the way he does it seems artistic and poetic to whats happening with the story. Of course its a whole fiction fantasy thing. I suppose its like when now even musicians/artists use the symbol of the gun etc. in there art and stir the controversy pot and come across as heartless due to recent unfortunate real events even though it might not have been the reason behind it.

Agree with the uncomfortable thing he does. Thats another thing he does which is what I like aswell. Keeps you a bit edgy whilst watching it.

Ok just saw it. I don't think its his best one like alot of people are saying but it wasn't crap. His aussie accent was accurate in some parts, others he sounded like a off key irish drunk.

mikl, on 25 January 2013 - 5:00 PM, said:

I don't think you're sicko at all. If someone is a fan of Tarantino, then they are in tune to his cinematic trademarks which include (but are not limited to) the use of violence in his movies, and understand how it goes hand in hand with his style of story telling.

Speaking of Tarantino's trademarks. His obvious foot fetish. My husband and I think it's hilarious. By now the inclusion of a scene or shot of a female foot in his films is pure Tarantino fan service by now, haha!