|
Good movie, loved the visuals and 3d. Definitely suffered from some pacing issues that affected the "epicness" at times. The movie was definitely stretched too thin. Besides that, I like it. Highly recommend and can't wait for the next two.
|
Stretched too thin like too little butter over bread?
|
I really liked the movie and thought the HFR looked amazing! I've been super annoyed by 24fps movies ever since I got a 100Hz TV.
|
Overall I loved the film. Amazing visuals, loved the HFR which sometimes made it feel like a rollercoaster trip (seriously those camera shots in the caves...) and great story. I enjoyed that new scenes like the White Council (which does not really appear in the movie if I recall correctly?) were added. My only criticisms are for the Wilhelm scream (nitpicking I know...) and that the Nazgul theme from Lord of the Rings was used.
|
On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread  people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers
My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults.
I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho.
Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable.
|
On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable.
4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale.
So amusing, us plebes.
|
On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes.
I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten.
|
On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes.
10 points for grinfindor!!!! got me a nice laugh
|
As tolkien fan, it was quite a dissappointment for me.
Too many things were done differently and probably worse. No wow moments 
|
On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten.
Hey, we got it, you don't like the movie. We got that after your first 12 posts in this thread. No need to reiterate for a 13th time, really.
|
On December 20 2012 06:56 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten. Hey, we got it, you don't like the movie. We got that after your first 12 posts in this thread. No need to reiterate for a 13th time, really.
Hey I'm answering someone who is not exactly trating me nicely. This is my third post in here since I saw the movie. What is your problem ?
|
On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten.
There is quite a gap between a four and a ten. The movie certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd like your rating systems rubric. How could a movie possibly earn a ten exactly?
|
On December 20 2012 07:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten. There is quite a gap between a four and a ten. The movie certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd like your rating systems rubric. How could a movie possibly earn a ten exactly?
Movies I have rated 10 on imdb and that I wouldn't rate 9.5 if possible : Sunrise, Persona, Wild Strawberries, Monika, M, Barry Lindon, City Lights, Bycicle Thieves, Eve, Cries and Whispers, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, Solaris, Stalker, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, It's A Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Mauvais Sang, Le Trou, A Man Escaped, Le Plaisir, The Earrings of Mme de, Vertigo, The Virgin Spring, Once Upon a Time in the West, Seven Samurai. I wrote a 3 blogs on my favourite movies, and I'm pretty sure I could give 150 movies between 9 and 10, and even a few more recent one 
|
Canada11607 Posts
I saw the film twice on the weekend and I've now had a bit of time to process my thoughts on it.
I think if I were to think of this strictly in storytelling terms and I were writing this as a story, then I would think the story is very cluttered and needing of heavy editing. Way too much exposition and backstory and overall very indulgent.
However, I came in wanting to be indulged. As much as people dislike the changes from the original book, many of the changes aren't the strictly the sort of book adaptation changes that you would expect from a exec (the sort where they were trying to pare LotR's down to one film and wanted to cast Arnie has Aragorn.) Many of the changes and the cluttering could only come from a creator that has read every scrap of Tolkien's writings and wondered "what was the White Council really?" "Who was Radagast?" "Wouldn't it be cool to see the Battle of Azanulbizar", etc, etc. And the second film will no doubt is part of the "What was the White Council battle at Dol Guldur like?"
So it certainly bogs down the story and for awhile makes it feel very scattered. But so many of the things visualized are things that I kinda wanted visualized and so it's very hard to separate that desire from critiquing the film on its own merit.
Knowing Hollywood, no doubt 3 years after Jackson is done his Hobbit trilogy, the series will be rebooted again. But I doubt we will get a film so intent on making parallel connections between the Hobbit and LotR's that Tolkien was making. If it reboots, it would probably be more in line with the cartoon that was faithful to only The Hobbit, perhaps to a fault. But this is The Hobbit-LotR's hybrid version.
Maybe it's indulgent, but I rather expected it would be and rather wanted it.
One thing I absolutely loved was Gandalf and Bilbo's first scene. It played so close to the original text... so good.
|
On December 20 2012 07:32 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten. There is quite a gap between a four and a ten. The movie certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd like your rating systems rubric. How could a movie possibly earn a ten exactly? Movies I have rated 10 on imdb and that I wouldn't rate 9.5 if possible : Sunrise, Persona, Wild Strawberries, Monika, M, Barry Lindon, City Lights, Bycicle Thieves, Eve, Cries and Whispers, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, Solaris, Stalker, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, It's A Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Mauvais Sang, Le Trou, A Man Escaped, Le Plaisir, The Earrings of Mme de, Vertigo, The Virgin Spring, Once Upon a Time in the West, Seven Samurai. I wrote a 3 blogs on my favourite movies, and I'm pretty sure I could give 150 movies between 9 and 10, and even a few more recent one
I have never even heard of any of those movies XD, how do movies that would be considered popular in most movie theaters usually rate on your scale?
Edit: i may have heard of vertigo, it sounds familiar
|
On December 20 2012 07:38 Parametric wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:32 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 07:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten. There is quite a gap between a four and a ten. The movie certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd like your rating systems rubric. How could a movie possibly earn a ten exactly? Movies I have rated 10 on imdb and that I wouldn't rate 9.5 if possible : Sunrise, Persona, Wild Strawberries, Monika, M, Barry Lindon, City Lights, Bycicle Thieves, Eve, Cries and Whispers, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, Solaris, Stalker, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, It's A Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Mauvais Sang, Le Trou, A Man Escaped, Le Plaisir, The Earrings of Mme de, Vertigo, The Virgin Spring, Once Upon a Time in the West, Seven Samurai. I wrote a 3 blogs on my favourite movies, and I'm pretty sure I could give 150 movies between 9 and 10, and even a few more recent one I have never even heard of any of those movies XD, how do movies that would be considered popular in most movie theaters usually rate on your scale? Edit: i may have heard of vertigo, it sounds familiar
I just thought of something. My favourite movies you have very likely seen are two Disney classics (Bambi and Snow White), who both get a ten. An excellent blockbuster like Die Hard or Terminator 2 would get an 8 I guess. Something good, but not exceptionnal like the Avenger would get a 6.
|
On December 20 2012 07:44 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:38 Parametric wrote:On December 20 2012 07:32 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 07:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten. There is quite a gap between a four and a ten. The movie certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd like your rating systems rubric. How could a movie possibly earn a ten exactly? Movies I have rated 10 on imdb and that I wouldn't rate 9.5 if possible : Sunrise, Persona, Wild Strawberries, Monika, M, Barry Lindon, City Lights, Bycicle Thieves, Eve, Cries and Whispers, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, Solaris, Stalker, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, It's A Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Mauvais Sang, Le Trou, A Man Escaped, Le Plaisir, The Earrings of Mme de, Vertigo, The Virgin Spring, Once Upon a Time in the West, Seven Samurai. I wrote a 3 blogs on my favourite movies, and I'm pretty sure I could give 150 movies between 9 and 10, and even a few more recent one I have never even heard of any of those movies XD, how do movies that would be considered popular in most movie theaters usually rate on your scale? Edit: i may have heard of vertigo, it sounds familiar I just thought of something. My favourite movies you have very likely seen are two Disney classics (Bambi and Snow White), who both get a ten. An excellent blockbuster like Die Hard or Terminator 2 would get an 8 I guess. Something good, but not exceptionnal like the Avenger would get a 6.
I'm pretty sure Die Hard and Terminato r2 are by most people considered two of the very best action movies ever made. If you find those mildly amusing and can just about stretch to give them 8/10 then you probably shouldn't be watching action movies. Much less reviewing them.
I'm sure some of the movies you listed I wouldn't enojy, but I would certainly never claim that they are bad movies based on that. You should judge the movie on it's own rights. I find it hard to believe that on an absolute scale of fantasy movies, you'd have The Hobbit in the bottom 40%.
if you don't like fantasy movies that doesnt mean The Hobbit is a bad fantasy movie, when you don't like it. If I sent my mother to a machine Head concert she would say they played loud and awful.
|
On December 20 2012 08:01 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:44 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 07:38 Parametric wrote:On December 20 2012 07:32 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 07:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote:I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten. There is quite a gap between a four and a ten. The movie certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd like your rating systems rubric. How could a movie possibly earn a ten exactly? Movies I have rated 10 on imdb and that I wouldn't rate 9.5 if possible : Sunrise, Persona, Wild Strawberries, Monika, M, Barry Lindon, City Lights, Bycicle Thieves, Eve, Cries and Whispers, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, Solaris, Stalker, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, It's A Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Mauvais Sang, Le Trou, A Man Escaped, Le Plaisir, The Earrings of Mme de, Vertigo, The Virgin Spring, Once Upon a Time in the West, Seven Samurai. I wrote a 3 blogs on my favourite movies, and I'm pretty sure I could give 150 movies between 9 and 10, and even a few more recent one I have never even heard of any of those movies XD, how do movies that would be considered popular in most movie theaters usually rate on your scale? Edit: i may have heard of vertigo, it sounds familiar I just thought of something. My favourite movies you have very likely seen are two Disney classics (Bambi and Snow White), who both get a ten. An excellent blockbuster like Die Hard or Terminator 2 would get an 8 I guess. Something good, but not exceptionnal like the Avenger would get a 6. I'm pretty sure Die Hard and Terminato r2 are by most people considered two of the very best action movies ever made. If you find those mildly amusing and can just about stretch to give them 8/10 then you probably shouldn't be watching action movies. Much less reviewing them. I'm sure some of the movies you listed I wouldn't enojy, but I would certainly never claim that they are bad movies based on that. You should judge the movie on it's own rights. I find it hard to believe that on an absolute scale of fantasy movies, you'd have The Hobbit in the bottom 40%. if you don't like fantasy movies that doesnt mean The Hobbit is a bad fantasy movie, when you don't like it. If I sent my mother to a machine Head concert she would say they played loud and awful.
You don't get it. I rate all my movies on the same scale, I'm not sure why I shouldn't. I have nothing against action movies. In fact I have tons of fun watching Die Hard. But if I rate it a 10, how am I suppose to rate a film like Persona, a movie which moves me a lot more and is much more complex and deep ? So I take Die Hard for what it is, a really very well-made, fun action movie. Nothing more, nothing less.
8/10 is not insulting at all, I don't get why you seem to think so.
|
On December 20 2012 08:11 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:01 Vorenius wrote:On December 20 2012 07:44 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 07:38 Parametric wrote:On December 20 2012 07:32 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 07:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:
[quote]
people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste"
i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with.
in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR.
cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten. There is quite a gap between a four and a ten. The movie certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd like your rating systems rubric. How could a movie possibly earn a ten exactly? Movies I have rated 10 on imdb and that I wouldn't rate 9.5 if possible : Sunrise, Persona, Wild Strawberries, Monika, M, Barry Lindon, City Lights, Bycicle Thieves, Eve, Cries and Whispers, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, Solaris, Stalker, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, It's A Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Mauvais Sang, Le Trou, A Man Escaped, Le Plaisir, The Earrings of Mme de, Vertigo, The Virgin Spring, Once Upon a Time in the West, Seven Samurai. I wrote a 3 blogs on my favourite movies, and I'm pretty sure I could give 150 movies between 9 and 10, and even a few more recent one I have never even heard of any of those movies XD, how do movies that would be considered popular in most movie theaters usually rate on your scale? Edit: i may have heard of vertigo, it sounds familiar I just thought of something. My favourite movies you have very likely seen are two Disney classics (Bambi and Snow White), who both get a ten. An excellent blockbuster like Die Hard or Terminator 2 would get an 8 I guess. Something good, but not exceptionnal like the Avenger would get a 6. I'm pretty sure Die Hard and Terminato r2 are by most people considered two of the very best action movies ever made. If you find those mildly amusing and can just about stretch to give them 8/10 then you probably shouldn't be watching action movies. Much less reviewing them. I'm sure some of the movies you listed I wouldn't enojy, but I would certainly never claim that they are bad movies based on that. You should judge the movie on it's own rights. I find it hard to believe that on an absolute scale of fantasy movies, you'd have The Hobbit in the bottom 40%. if you don't like fantasy movies that doesnt mean The Hobbit is a bad fantasy movie, when you don't like it. If I sent my mother to a machine Head concert she would say they played loud and awful. You don't get it. I rate all my movies on the same scale, I'm not sure why I shouldn't. I have nothing against action movies. In fact I have tons of fun watching Die Hard. But if I rate it a 10, how am I suppose to rate a film like Persona, a movie which moves me a lot more and is much more complex and deep ? So I take Die Hard for what it is, a really very well-made, fun action movie. Nothing more, nothing less. 8/10 is not insulting at all, I don't get why you seem to think so.
I just don't find that system logical. I don't want to be moved by an action movie and it doesn't need to have a deep meaning. That isn't the point of an action movie and as such I'm not going to take off points for such a thing.
|
On December 20 2012 08:11 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:01 Vorenius wrote:On December 20 2012 07:44 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 07:38 Parametric wrote:On December 20 2012 07:32 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 07:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 20 2012 06:50 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 06:47 BliptiX wrote:On December 20 2012 06:25 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote:
[quote]
people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste"
i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with.
in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR.
cheers My film taste have nothing to do with the rest of TL, I'd know lol. My review has nothing to do with being a Tolkien fan, in fact it's probably the reason I gave t a 4 instead of a 3. You're just blinded because you disagree. There's nothing sad with my mark, or at least try to contradict me instead of making half baked insults. I don't mind though, people in the TDKR thread called me troll and hipster, pretty amusing imho. Edit : and the notion that tl is particularly mean with movies is really laughable. 4 out of 10 sounds about right. That places it in line with Piranha 3DD (but only because you're a Tolkien fan, phew). I think you need to seriously rethink your rating scale. So amusing, us plebes. I haven't seen Piranha 3D, so I don't get your point. I was bored or annoyed during a good 2/3rd of the movie, I don't really get how it should get a ten. There is quite a gap between a four and a ten. The movie certainly wasn't perfect, but I'd like your rating systems rubric. How could a movie possibly earn a ten exactly? Movies I have rated 10 on imdb and that I wouldn't rate 9.5 if possible : Sunrise, Persona, Wild Strawberries, Monika, M, Barry Lindon, City Lights, Bycicle Thieves, Eve, Cries and Whispers, The Ghost and Mrs Muir, Solaris, Stalker, The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, It's A Wonderful Life, 8 1/2, Mauvais Sang, Le Trou, A Man Escaped, Le Plaisir, The Earrings of Mme de, Vertigo, The Virgin Spring, Once Upon a Time in the West, Seven Samurai. I wrote a 3 blogs on my favourite movies, and I'm pretty sure I could give 150 movies between 9 and 10, and even a few more recent one I have never even heard of any of those movies XD, how do movies that would be considered popular in most movie theaters usually rate on your scale? Edit: i may have heard of vertigo, it sounds familiar I just thought of something. My favourite movies you have very likely seen are two Disney classics (Bambi and Snow White), who both get a ten. An excellent blockbuster like Die Hard or Terminator 2 would get an 8 I guess. Something good, but not exceptionnal like the Avenger would get a 6. I'm pretty sure Die Hard and Terminato r2 are by most people considered two of the very best action movies ever made. If you find those mildly amusing and can just about stretch to give them 8/10 then you probably shouldn't be watching action movies. Much less reviewing them. I'm sure some of the movies you listed I wouldn't enojy, but I would certainly never claim that they are bad movies based on that. You should judge the movie on it's own rights. I find it hard to believe that on an absolute scale of fantasy movies, you'd have The Hobbit in the bottom 40%. if you don't like fantasy movies that doesnt mean The Hobbit is a bad fantasy movie, when you don't like it. If I sent my mother to a machine Head concert she would say they played loud and awful. You don't get it. I rate all my movies on the same scale, I'm not sure why I shouldn't. I have nothing against action movies. In fact I have tons of fun watching Die Hard. But if I rate it a 10, how am I suppose to rate a film like Persona, a movie which moves me a lot more and is much more complex and deep ? So I take Die Hard for what it is, a really very well-made, fun action movie. Nothing more, nothing less. 8/10 is not insulting at all, I don't get why you seem to think so.
My point was, that if the highest an action movie can score is 8, then you are rating action movies on a scale of 1 to 8.
Based on the movies you listed as ones you really enjoyed, I doubt there are many fantasy movies that would even score higher than 6-7 in your book. So now you are giving The Hobbit a score of 4 out of the possible 6 it could achieve as a movie in the fantasy genre.
And you still claim that you use the same scale for all films. :s
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
