Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Harry Potters are perfectly good books, but still technically pulp. Making a good movie of them would be impossible, there is too little room for intepretation/artistic license. Thats the reason lord of the rings are some of the finest movies ever made and the harry potters are not. It is not fair on film-makers to slate them, they had a meddling author and a far larger young fan base to deal with. Same with twilight, though admittedly i havent read a twilight.

I thought Thor was a pleasant surprise though not as great as X men.

The only movie that I know of that hasn't been released yet that I care about is the "The Thing" prequel. It'll probably be awful, but I'm hoping I will be pleasantly surprised.

Other than that, I saw Thor, which was OK, and Final Destination 5, which was exactly what I expected.

EDIT: Oh, and Super 8 which was pretty good, IIRC.

Cheesecat wrote:

lukewild1982 wrote:Harry Potter ended brilliantly for everyone.

Those of us who really enjoyed the world she created were treated to a beautiful, action packed grand finale.

Those of you who don't like it can stop ranting about Harry Potter and how much you detest it (more than likely without ever having seen or read one piece of it).

2011 in general was pretty poor for films, but there were some crackers out there.

Senna
Source Code
Super 8
X Men First Class
127 Hours
Horrible Bosses
Paul
Attack the Block
Take Me Home Tonight
Bridesmaids
Potiche
Kung Fu Panda 2
Change Up
Win Win
Limitless
Water for Elephants

Now I realise there are plenty on that list that people probably can not stand. They are all good movies in their own right. To be a good movie does not mean it has to win a BAFTA/OSCAR/GLODE.

You actually liked Paul?!? Go cleanse your mind by watching Hot Fuzz and Shawn of the Dead.

Although I recognise its not nearly as good as Shaun OFD and Hot Fuzz, I enjoyed it for what it was. Little bit chilldish most of the time, but fun enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Platuan4th wrote:

lukewild1982 wrote:
Those of you who don't like it can stop ranting about Harry Potter and how much you detest it (more than likely without ever having seen or read one piece of it).

When did I say I didn't like it? I'm ranting about that ONE aspect of how she often goes out of the way to make sure to point out how futile Muggle society is in comparison to thewizarding world. She almost takes it to the point where the only redeeming quality Muggles have is how they can breed with and spontaneously produce wizards. It's even stated that a wizard is odd and/or eccentric for thinking the Muggle world is interesting(Arthur Weasley) and earns naught but eye rolling for such a hobby.

For the record, I've not only read every HP book and seen every movie, I've done so multiple times, so I feel I can properly complain about it with the knowledge of what I'm complaining about.

Who said I was talking about you, I was talking about the loads of people who rant about Harry Potter having generally not seen any of it. You have proved in your posts you have read Harry Potter. I was talking about nobody specific!

So Plat at what point did I mention in my post that I was talking about you?

lukewild1982 wrote:Who said I was talking about you, I was talking about the loads of people who rant about Harry Potter having generally not seen any of it. You have proved in your posts you have read Harry Potter. I was talking about nobody specific!

So Plat at what point did I mention in my post that I was talking about you?

Well in all fairness, Plat was the only one who had said anything (majorly) bad about the Potter films up to that point...

On a side note, I have read all the books, and watched the first 4 films, giving up after that point as they were all terrible. Missing out major points of the story, poor acting, and a needless insistence to incorporate huge special effects into every single scene (yes i know they are wizards, but ffs stick to the story instead of wasting time doing effects all the time!)
/rant

Dont want to start an argument about it, just wanted to put my thoughts on those films out there (while having a knowledge of the books and the films i could stomach)

Otherwise, Thor was surrisingly good (not great, but watchable if a little 'fast' in places)

Really need to see Xmen, but now i am safe in the knowledge i will like it. Was going to see GL, but may not bother now if its that bad....

Amaya wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Deathly Hallows part 2 was fantastic.

Really? Last one I watched was Order of the Phoenix and it also happened to be the only one I didn't loathe. The books are just too long and in depth to make good films.

LOL the books are to in depth and long?

And as has already been mentioned WHERE THE F*&K ARE THE GUNS!

Expelia- F*&KIN BANG!

ABRACAD- F*&KIN BANG!

DEATHEATERS ATTA- F*&KIN BANG!

Surely there must be at least one good (or bad) wizard that can take Harry or Voldemorts head of at the shoulders with a high-powered rifle.

ChocolateGork wrote:

Surely there must be at least one good (or bad) wizard that can take Harry or Voldemorts head of at the shoulders with a high-powered rifle.

See earlier in the thread, this is addressed.

In short: MODERN TECHNOLOGY IS INFERIOR TO ANYTHING WIZARDS HAVE BECAUSE MUGGLES ARE WORTHLESS.

There's even a line in the 3rd book about guns and Harry attempting to explain to other wizards what one is.

Super 8, Inception and Paul were greally entertaining, but I do believe I've just seen my favorite movie of the year, Tucker and Dale Vs. evil. It is damn near a perfect horror comedy.

I'm not as much of a Harry Potter fan as my wife, but it seems that technology is essentially incompatible with wizardry- its why you don't see electricity at hogwarts. Something about bugs not working during the Triwizard tournament, and that even SCUBA gear wouldn't function in the lake. Apparently magic gives off some sort of energy field that makes most technology malfunction. If this field spreads widely enough, it might outrange guns- although it is flimsy, there is an in-universe explanation for keeping the modern world out of your wizard duels.

Gitzbitah wrote:I'm not as much of a Harry Potter fan as my wife, but it seems that technology is essentially incompatible with wizardry- its why you don't see electricity at hogwarts. Something about bugs not working during the Triwizard tournament, and that even SCUBA gear wouldn't function in the lake. Apparently magic gives off some sort of energy field that makes most technology malfunction. If this field spreads widely enough, it might outrange guns- although it is flimsy, there is an in-universe explanation for keeping the modern world out of your wizard duels.

I believe you're thinking of something different here. The reason bugs didn't work during the Triwizard Tournament is because of Hogwarts - the whole place is enchanted to prevent people (Muggles) from learning secrets about the wizarding world. Magic doesn't give off an energy that stops technology from working - heck, if that were the case, how do wizards live in the modern world in the first place? Harry lives in a house with normal technology (televisions, lights, presumably heating/air conditioning) and they all work fine, despite occasional magic in the house and him being a wizard, living there every summer. The group even frequently takes car trips, which would stop working altogether in that case. You may be thinking of the Dresden Files series of novels, where magic being incompatible with technology is a major plot point - magic (and magic users) give off a natural electromagnetic field that fouls up any sort of post-World War II technology.

The way that I've seen it is simply that inventions are born out of necessity. Every piece of technology we have is born out of a need for something - lightbulbs for a more efficient way of lighting homes; cars and other vehicles for quicker ways of traveling across the land; all sorts of medical technology and knowledge for keeping us alive. Wizards can do all these things with a wave of the wand. Why invent and use lightbulbs if you can conjure an everburning torch with a few words and a wave? Why invent the automobile if you can simply teleport, instantly, across vast distances? The third case even comes up in Order of the Phoenix, when Arthur tries using Muggle healing techniques when magical ones fail.

This is getting a wee bit off topic, methinks. Sorry for the rant.

And at a previous poster, this also addresses why guns don't show up in the story. The vast majority of wizards know nothing about the Muggle world - even Arthur, who after a great deal of tinkering, knows only very little about the Muggle world, is considered an oddball by the rest of the community for his love of Muggle technology and objects. Since the Muggles and the wizards are so specifically divided from each other (the wizarding world is kept a vast secret), there's no reason that guns would show up in a conflict between wizard and wizard, when magic can do everything for them.

People need to get off the ol' declension model about film. Every year we get all the handwringing about how this is a baaaad year for fiiiiiilm.

Guys, if you get 3 really good movies in a year, it's unusual historically. Nearly every movie ever made has been forgotten. Pick an epic classic from the "good old days", whenever that is to you. Now go look up the year it came out and see if you recognize ANY of the other movies. There are a few years with a lot of good stuff (around the mid 70s) , but it's pretty rare.

So I'm pretty tired of hearing "oh well we got this one mega-oscar winning epic for the ages, but besides that this year was awful," since by that standard, the entirety of the AFI top 100 was made in "bad years"

Further, hundreds of movies come out per year now. "look at this pile of bad movies" no longer even BEGINS to constitute a bad year.

Rented Tritium wrote:People need to get off the ol' declension model about film. Every year we get all the handwringing about how this is a baaaad year for fiiiiiilm.

Guys, if you get 3 really good movies in a year, it's unusual historically. Nearly every movie ever made has been forgotten. Pick an epic classic from the "good old days", whenever that is to you. Now go look up the year it came out and see if you recognize ANY of the other movies. There are a few years with a lot of good stuff (around the mid 70s) , but it's pretty rare.

So I'm pretty tired of hearing "oh well we got this one mega-oscar winning epic for the ages, but besides that this year was awful," since by that standard, the entirety of the AFI top 100 was made in "bad years"

Further, hundreds of movies come out per year now. "look at this pile of bad movies" no longer even BEGINS to constitute a bad year.

That does sum it up pretty much perfectly. Well said sir

Rented Tritium wrote:People need to get off the ol' declension model about film. Every year we get all the handwringing about how this is a baaaad year for fiiiiiilm.

Guys, if you get 3 really good movies in a year, it's unusual historically. Nearly every movie ever made has been forgotten. Pick an epic classic from the "good old days", whenever that is to you. Now go look up the year it came out and see if you recognize ANY of the other movies. There are a few years with a lot of good stuff (around the mid 70s) , but it's pretty rare.

So I'm pretty tired of hearing "oh well we got this one mega-oscar winning epic for the ages, but besides that this year was awful," since by that standard, the entirety of the AFI top 100 was made in "bad years"

Further, hundreds of movies come out per year now. "look at this pile of bad movies" no longer even BEGINS to constitute a bad year.

Wrong.

1962
Lawrence of Arabia (classic)
The Longest Day (good)
To Kill a Mockingbird (decent adaptation)
Mutiny on the Bounty (Mel Gibson one is better)
Dr. No

1963
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World (I personally love this film)
Cleopatra (dislike it, but it is considered a classic)
The Great Escape
Jason and the Argonauts

1964
A Fistful of Dollars
Goldfinger
From Russia with Love
Mary Poppins (meh)
Dr. Strangelove
Zulu

1965
For a Few Dollars More
The Sound of Music
Dr. Zhivago
Thunderball

1966
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Fahrenheit 451

1967
The Jungle Book
The Graduate
The Dirty Dozen
Valley of the Dolls
You Only Live Twice
Cool Hand Luke

1968
2001
Planet of the Apes
Barberella (eh...)
Hang Em High

1969
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Midnight Cowboy

1970
Patton
Tora! Tora! Tora!
Beneath the Planet of the Apes (I thought it was a decent film, rest after this not so much)
MASH

1971
Diamonds Are Forever
Dirty Harry
A Clockwork Orange
The Andromeda Strain

1972
The Godfather
Way of the Dragon

1973
The Exorcist
American Graffiti
Robin Hood
Serpico

1974
Young Frankenstein
Blazing Saddles
The Godfather Part II
The Great Gatsby
Murder on the Orient Express
The Taking of Pelham 123
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
(best comedy year ever?)

1975
Jaws
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

1976
Rocky
All the President's Men
The Omen
Carrie
Assault on Precinct 13

1977
Star Wars
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Saturday Night Fever
A Bridge Too Far

1978
Grease
Animal House
The Deer Hunter
Halloween
Force 10 From Navarone
The Lord of the Rings (lulz)

1979
Apocalypse Now
Rocky II
Alien
Max Max
Zulu Dawn

1980
The Empire Strikes Back
Brubaker
Raging Bull

1981
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Chariots of Fire
The Evil Dead
Mad Max 2

1982
ET
The Wrath of Khan
Conan the Barbarian
Gandhi
Blade Rudder
Tron
First Blood


1983
Return of the Jedi

1984
Temple of Doom
The Search for Spock
1984
The Terminator

1985
Back to the Future
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

1986
Top Gun
A Voyage Home
Aliens
Platoon

1987
Good Morning, Vietnam
The Last Emperor

1988
Rain Man
Beetlejuice
Akira

1989
The Last Crusade
Batman
A Time to Kill

1990
Total Recall
Edward Scissorhands
The Hunt for Red October

1991
Terminator 2
The Silence of the Lambs
Boyz n the Hood

1992
Last of the Mohicans
A Few Good Men
Malcom X

1993
Jurassic Park
The Fugitive
Schindler's List
The Firm
The Pelican Brief

1994
Forrest Gump
Interview with the Vampire
Pulp Fiction

1995
Toy Story
Apollo 13
Goldeneye
Se7en

1996
Mission: Impossible
The Rock

1997
Men in Black
Tomorrow Never Dies
The 5th Element
Good Will Hunting

1998
Saving Private Ryan

1999
The Sixth Sense
The Matrix
The Mummy (first one is decent)

2000
Gladiator
The Perfect Storm
Cast Away
Unbreakable

2001
Fellowship of the Ring
Monsters Inc
Shrek
A Beautiful Mind
Training Day

2002
The Two Towers
Signs
Minority Report
The Mothman Prophecies (underrated)
We Were Soldiers

2003
Return of the King
The Last Samurai

2004
bleh

2005
Revenge of the Sith
Batman Begins

2006
Casino Royale

2007
300
There Will Be Blood
No Country For Old Men

2008
The Dark Knight
Wall-E

2009
feth Avatar
Watchmen
Star Trek

2010
Shutter Island
Inception
Iron Man 2

2011
What's been outstanding so far?

I've heard X-Men First Class was good. Thor was better than any of the other X-Men movies, but it is nowhere near Batman, Batman Begins, or the Dark Knight.


I know I missed a TON of films, on that list. I was just quickly glancing through it and highlighting films that I considered to be notable or good. I missed films I like such as the Bourne series, A Fish Called Wanda, Predator, Firefly, The Shawshank Redemption, The Machinist, Full Metal Jacket, etc. The 2000s was by no means a bad decade for movies, but this year just seems meh to me.

Wow, way to sandbag recent years, dude.

Well, I've now watched True Grit, X-Men: First Class, Thor, and Captain America.

True Grit. It was good mainly due to the amazing performance by the girl. Wouldn't watch it again.

Thor, X-Men: First Class, and Captain America were all good. I think Captain America was the weakest of those three. Thor and X-Men had excellent leads with Thor, Magneto and Xavier. The villains in the first two were much better than the Red Skull.

Looking forward to the Avengers movie.


There have been enjoyable films this year, but not good ORIGINAL films from Hollywood.

Amaya wrote:
1967
Valley of the Dolls

I'm guessing you just picked up a list of films given as classics, and you haven't actually seen this movie. It's a very boring, fundamentally silly movie. Films almost exactly like this are made by Hallmark weekly, at about the same level of quality.


Meanwhile, in addition to the pretty solid set of superhero movies we've had this year, there was also the classic Japanese action film 13 Assassins, the great fun of coming of age story the Submarine. For less mainstream fair (much less mainstream, that is) there's The Tree of Life. And if you're interested in seeing a couple of British personalities just talking, travelling the countryside and doing impressions of various celebrities, you'll likely enjoy The Trip.

I don't think it's been the strongest year, but it's hardly an unusually weak one, either.

sigh

So many movies on the big screen missed this year (so far). I need to get out more.

Was Winnie the Pooh really good? I would have loved to have seen that on the big screen... I'd even tolerate a certain emo donkey.

djphranq wrote:sigh

So many movies on the big screen missed this year (so far). I need to get out more.

Was Winnie the Pooh really good? I would have loved to have seen that on the big screen... I'd even tolerate a certain emo donkey.

Well, apparently it got widespread critical acclaim.

Wikipedia wrote:Winnie the Pooh received widespread critical acclaim. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 91% of 111 critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 7.2 out of 10.[17] Its consensus states "Short, nostalgic, and gently whimsical, Winnie the Pooh offers young audiences – and their parents – a sweetly traditional family treat."[17] Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 74 based on 26 reviews.[18] CinemaScore polls reported that the average grade moviegoers gave the film was an A minus on an A plus to F scale.[19]

Gary Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times says the film "proves a fitting tribute to one of the last century's most enduring children's tales."[20] The film has been praised for not only being able to charm the children audience but the parents as well.[21] Roger Ebert, giving it 3 stars out of 4, said in his review "In a time of shock-value 3-D animation and special effects, the look of the film is gentle and pleasing. It was hand-animated, I'm told, and the backgrounds use a subtle and reassuring watercolor style. It's a nightmare-proof experience for even the youngest viewers."[22]

While Platform Online stated that Winnie the Pooh's "handdrawn animation is such a welcome relief", it found the film's runtime length to be more of an issue, which it stated "At just 70 minutes, even aiming at kids this could have been longer – Pixar have been pushing films well over 90 minutes for years now, and it’s clear the children can handle it. Just as you really get into the film it's over, and you’re left wanting more."

sebster wrote:

Amaya wrote:
1967
Valley of the Dolls

I'm guessing you just picked up a list of films given as classics, and you haven't actually seen this movie. It's a very boring, fundamentally silly movie. Films almost exactly like this are made by Hallmark weekly, at about the same level of quality.


Meanwhile, in addition to the pretty solid set of superhero movies we've had this year, there was also the classic Japanese action film 13 Assassins, the great fun of coming of age story the Submarine. For less mainstream fair (much less mainstream, that is) there's The Tree of Life. And if you're interested in seeing a couple of British personalities just talking, travelling the countryside and doing impressions of various celebrities, you'll likely enjoy The Trip.

I don't think it's been the strongest year, but it's hardly an unusually weak one, either.

I saw the Trip, it was funny but for some reason the film was really weird for me maybe because there was no resolution in the story.

djphranq wrote:sigh

So many movies on the big screen missed this year (so far). I need to get out more.

Was Winnie the Pooh really good? I would have loved to have seen that on the big screen... I'd even tolerate a certain emo donkey.

I enjoyed Winnie the Pooh.

2012 will be awesome though. The Hobbit, World War Z, Prometheus(movie set in the Aliens universe),