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.

 Sigur wrote:
I got the Deluxe DVD set of that lying around. I watched it once, I was not too impressed, but it's what you get when you ask for a small-budget animated film about Space Marines (after shooting down properly filmed fan projects). Add 200 times the budget, you get 200 times of what Ultramarines was, plus 'made broadly appealing'. I was always very critical of wishing for a big-budget 40k film (or even worse: tv show).

Sit down one day and try to think about all the plot holes and obvious 40k lore errors in the Ultramarines movie. Just don't make it a drinking game, because you wont survive.

The Never Ending Story

Right, OK. I know the author entirely disowned this, and fair enough as it was his creation.

But see if you’re not him? If you don’t enjoy this film, there’s something wrong with you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The Never Ending Story

Right, OK. I know the author entirely disowned this, and fair enough as it was his creation.

But see if you’re not him? If you don’t enjoy this film, there’s something wrong with you.

Was this movie originally in German, because on my copy, the old man's book has a German title on it.

It's a proper European co-production as far as I know. Friend of mine's step-dad worked on the dragon. As for the UM film - I don't care much about plot holes to be honest. It's 40k. It's not made for big screens or big budgets.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The Never Ending Story

Right, OK. I know the author entirely disowned this, and fair enough as it was his creation.

But see if you’re not him? If you don’t enjoy this film, there’s something wrong with you.

I didn't enjoy this film, but I saw it during my 'adaptions should be faithful to the source material' era, and I was outraged that Atreyu wasn't green.

It's in the list of movies to check out with the kids, though.


Also finally got around to watching the first Hobbit movie all the way through, something I had somehow managed to not do yet. We're planning on working through the three Hobbit movies and then the LotR over the school holidays. I'm looking forward to rewatching the LotR again... And also looking forward to never having to watch the Hobbit again...

It's extra disappointing because the book was such a favourite when I was a kid. It was the first full novel I can remember reading, and constantly re-read through primary school. I don't mind the changes, that's part of making a movie... But it's a disjointed mess, and the oddly inconsistent looks on the Dwarves are constantly jarring. I get what they were going for, but it just didn't work.

Gollum remains outstanding, though, and the riddle scene was absolutely perfect.

 insaniak wrote:

I didn't enjoy this film, but I saw it during my 'adaptions should be faithful to the source material' era, and I was outraged that Atreyu wasn't green.

The older I've got the more I realise that many of the films I like I like are in part because at the time of seeing I often had no clue about the source material. Therefore I never knew what the films changed or kept or got wrong or altered or anything to have that as a critical point. It lets the films stand very much on their own as their own thing.

Adaptations where I know the source material always have the extra layer of "did they get it right". Personally I'm also in the camp of "they really should get it right in the film". I'm open to changes because of the medium and because of the nature of squishing what are often much longer stories into the short timeframe films have. Eg Lord of the Rings is one of my favoured books and the films I feel get almost everything right*. And I also agree The Hobbit adaptations got it wrong; which is doubly odd because The Hobbit is a much shorter, simpler and should be easier to adapt to film story. It felt very much like whilst LotR was allowed to "do its thing"; The Hobbit got hit with the "Hollywood 'how to make a film;" formula for Producers. So it got a love interest; and a named bad guy; and themepark attraction event and so forth.


*my biggest grump is not having the scouring of the Shire which I always felt made the world feel more real because it made Hobbiton part of the world; not just this ideal place just off to one side. It was harmed by the war. It was also great because it really showed that, for as peaceful as they were, Hobbits were no pushovers. Sure they needed help organising and rallying to free their lands, but they weren't just weaklings with no sense

 Overread wrote:
And I also agree The Hobbit adaptations got it wrong; which is doubly odd because The Hobbit is a much shorter, simpler and should be easier to adapt to film story. It felt very much like whilst LotR was allowed to "do its thing"; The Hobbit got hit with the "Hollywood 'how to make a film;" formula for Producers. So it got a love interest; and a named bad guy; and themepark attraction event and so forth.

Jackson didn't want to make it in the first place and only took it on when (IIRC) Guillermo Del Toro dropped out and nobody else would do it. And then, despite the success of LotR, the studio wouldn't leave him alone to do it his way, and insisted on it being another trilogy. Hence all the padding and jumping about. And the appalling CGI would suggest it was all on either a much lower budget or a much tighter schedule... I don't remember for sure, as I wasn't following it all that closely when it happened as it all sounded like a dog's breakfast.

Yeah and its a shame because if they'd left it alone a director like Guillermo could have done wonders with that material.

I don't think the trilogy aspect was as big an issue, but certainly you can tell there wasn't the same magic/impact behind it like there was with the first 3. Which is really odd because you'd think the "suits" would have gone the other way and let the director and team go wild rather than restrain and time constrain them.

Also, some idiot cast James “Jimmy” Nesbit. An actor of little talent and negative charisma.

Making it a trilogy absolutely was the problem with the Hobbit. Two films would have been the best I think. Take out the random Chase scene bloat and the terrible romance sub plot and the rest is pretty close to the book.

And in three films of bloat they couldn't find the space to keep the fun little sequence where Bilbo carefully introduces the dwarves to Beorn via the recounting of their adventures. Argh.

I sat through most of the first Hobbit, and apart from the boredom, I think what bothered me the most was the look. It just looked fake and wrong somehow. Extremely digital, extremely colour-graded and such. Say what you will about the LotR films - it looks like people are where they are, the people (including dwarves, elves and orcs) look like people.

Moana 2

We did a nice family cinema trip for this one, and watched the first one in normal movie night last night.

It’s entirely entertaining, but it will not change anyone’s world.

The characters introduced in the first film are brought back, but don’t get any more development. A bunch of new characters get introduced, but with no real development.

The songs are nice, but not as catchy as the first film. It feels a bit more disjointed as well.

However it’s all good brightly coloured fun.

 Necroagogo wrote:
And in three films of bloat they couldn't find the space to keep the fun little sequence where Bilbo carefully introduces the dwarves to Beorn via the recounting of their adventures. Argh.

Does anybody actually want a "last time on The Hobbit" sequence in a movie? I suppose the second movie could have started like that, but still. That kind of thing already feels excessive to me on a six episode show/season.

Besides, what even happened in the first movie? They met some trolls. Then some elves. Then some goblins. I guess orcs and eagles, too. You're making it out like you can spin some two hour tale out of that.

 Geifer wrote:
You're making it out like you can spin some two hour tale out of that.

Not quite. it was more to do with the fact that all that additional unnecessary crap was added to the films but they decided to cut this interaction (which is a nice character piece for both Beorn and Bilbo) .... maybe 5 minutes of screen time? Just seems like a missed opportunity.

Just a note, it was Gandalf who was telling Beorn the story, not Bilbo.

D'oh! My bad.

The Hobbit is like... half the length of Fellowship. Turning it into a trilogy was absolutely a problem.

Christmas at the Chalet

Oh, Terri Hatcher? I am interested.

This is exactly what you would expect from a Christmas movie with the premise that a divorced, minor celebrity has to work as a "chalet girl" over the Holidays to spend time with her son. You get exactly what you would expect out of this.

I think my favorite part of the ridiculousness is that the Chalet Girl's room is a fething suite+. I have seen the accommodations that hotels and resorts put temp workers in..... they are nothing like what we see in this film. That maybe the understatement of understatements.

Smile 2

Finally had time to sit and watch. Decent enough horror flick. Some genuinely disturbing scenes. My only complaint, as in all movies where a monster can control time/perception is that it starts to get old fast. There’s a certain point where you can start calling it out before the reveal and it destroys all tension and lowers the stakes in a way.

Worth a rent. I liked the first one better, but this does exceed it in some ways.

The Babadook

What a dreadfully dull "horror" film. I had a friend who talked it up like I was going to love it... gonna have a talk with him tomorrow.

Not casting aspersions, or doing an “aCkShUaLlY”, but as someone who suffers from depression, I found the Babadook a prettt interesting take on things.

After checking out The Babadook's IMDB page I'm convinced checking out The Babadook's IMDB page is as close as I'll come to experiencing the movie.

One of the special features of psychological horror is that you have to be receptive to it in a way that genres with a more visual approach or lighter themes avoid. If you're not, there's usually not much else to hold your interest and the whole experience becomes incredibly tedious and boring. Very much a special interest genre, that one.

Not that I can conclusively say that's true of this movie, but it sure sounds like it and I'm just as sure not going to spend any time verifying my suspicion.

 Necroagogo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
You're making it out like you can spin some two hour tale out of that.

Not quite. it was more to do with the fact that all that additional unnecessary crap was added to the films but they decided to cut this interaction (which is a nice character piece for both Beorn and Bilbo) .... maybe 5 minutes of screen time? Just seems like a missed opportunity.

I should have ended that sentence with a smiley.

Yeah, I’d agree with that.

I have all the parental instincts of a paper bag, and so stuff around loss of a child or parenting and that can seem like no big shakes to me, because I just don’t have that frame of reference.

Which may be why people doing dumb things in horror movies just to advance the plot annoy me. Not when they’re actively terrified like, but when the baddie is down and the hero just runs away. At least tie them up or put them down permanently. Hence I didn’t get on with Terrifier at all.

My issues weren't so much with the psychological part of the tale, just the terrible pacing, rhe introduction of paper thin characters who did nothing for the story except add a few more pages to the script.

The monster isn't real, it's not something you can kill or defeat because it's the grief and the trauma and the resultant mental illness in the mother and her child as a result of their shared loss.

It never truly goes away, you just learn to coexist with it, learn to manage it. You can't just ignore it, repress it down, because it will just grow and fester and break out. You have to "feed" it, that is let yourself feel the pain and hurt and process those feelings every now and then, accept that it is part of you and your life.

Phantasm V: RaVager

The one where every character is old and tired.



Reggie is back, badass as ever. Follow him as he shoots and quips his way through the deserts of San Bernardino county to the foothills of San Bernardino county to the cityscapes of San Bernardino county to the actor’s actual house in San Bernardino county to a green screened hellscape (in San Bernardino county). But also, follow Reggie through the doubt and confusion of advancing dementia as he struggles to answer the age-old question: it was all a delusion—or was it??

Along for the ride are his old friends from the first movie as well as the menacing Tall Man. Also, n a nice bit of inclusion for a series that hired a lot of little people to play the monsters, a little person who gets to show his face and shoot a gun and quip.

As a stand alone movie, it’s good fun. As a conclusion to the Phantasm series, it doesn’t work.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Phantasm V: RaVager
...

Oooh, nice pick. I should watch something interesting again as well.



Instead, I watched Anchorman and Anchorman 2. I'm not a big fan of Will Ferell's act, but Anchorman works for me. Because there's an ensemble of people. Anchorman 2 is alright as well, but basically a redo of the first one with too much time spent on Carrell (whom I'm perfectly OK with. Safest leading man this side of Tom Hanks, but the character isn't very funny or original) and Kristen Wiig, who does the same.

Major props to Christina Applegate (whom I last saw in the pretty intense 21 Jump Street episode "I'm ok, you need work"!) on both those films. Other actresses would have just gone under among these people being ridiculous. Anyway. It's both funny films, first one better than the second.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Big Trouble in Little China is an all time classic and one of my favorite movies. It’s also one that I can throw on anytime, in joyous mood or deepest depression, for a needed escape.

And yet, I show that to nieces and nephews today and they are bored and disinterested. Films like Back to the future have stood up, but films like big trouble don't seem to have crossed gnerations.

I think some films just work fully on their own as a thing; others kind of need the support of a certain attitude to really get into them.

So you kind of have to get into the genre/style of the film itself before getting into some specific films.