I just recently watched Iron Sky, i.e. the Finnish space-nazi comedy. It was alright. Some jokes were funny, but many of them were not. It would probably have been better if they actually had focused more on space-nazis. 

Anyone else see Oz this weekend? Here's a review I posted at another forum about it:

OZ The Great and Powerful: 4/10-

I had hopes for this movie, but it was just all over the place. It didn't look, nor "Feel" like an Oz movie imo, hell even the older sequel from Disney back in the 80's , Return to Oz, was better imo.

 First off -
CGI - As I figured, CGI ruins yet the look of another film. So many thing scould have EASILY been accomplished with a good set/designer that would have gave the film a more natural look and tone, and allowed it to be viewed years from now and not seem "outdated" however they had to CGI up the wazoo on it and in a few years it'll look outdated, if not already in some places. It just had this "cartoony" feeling to the CGI.  There' sa reason you don't have many CGI - classics, aside from films like Jurassic Park, where they knew WHEN to use CGi and when to go with real props/effects. This movie just went full CGI when they could have accomplished the same shots without CGI easily.

Acting - Medicore, pretty much everyone in this movie seemed to "Ham" it in, there was no one that seemed to really get into their character and chew it up. The 30's Oz with Garland had so many great and memorable characters and the actors played their parts so well, there was no one in this movie that stood out above any generic summer blockbuster acting.

Casting - Going with part of the acting above, the only two that I found fit their parts were Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz.  I think both Kunis and Franco were just not right for the parts. Franco just didn't do much....but act like James Franco, same as in Your highness, etc, there was nothing unique to his character/acting. I think even Johnny Depp would have fit the part a LOT better , at least being able to get into the character and pull something out rather then the usual.

Kunis on the other hand, she just did not fit the part at all.
Spoiler AlertShe just looks NOTHING like the classic Wicked Witch, when she "Changes" in the movie she bears little resemblance aside from a prosthetic chin/nose, her face is just too wide and doesn't "fit" that classic look that Margaret Hamilton made the Wicked Witch of the West so memorable. Plus her "voice," well it's Mila Kunis, you know what she sounds like, nothing even close to that kind of voice. There had to be so many toerh actresses better fit for the role out there, and they just wanted her to bank on her name. 

Fault for the movie being so poor has to also lie at the writers feet, It just had no flow , or "adventure" to it, no journey really , no surprises or anyhting. Everything was just to the point, cliche. I mean:
Spoiler AlertFranco lands in Oz, first person he sees is Kunis and look at that, he's right near the Emerald City! Then he leaves to fight the "wicked Witch" and what's that? Bam, first person he comes across, Wicked Witch. Then they attack the Emerald city, film over. There was just ZERO build up, no character Arcs really, no "journey/adventure" feeling, which is what made both the classic film and books great. It seems the Writer didn't even READ any of Baum's books (the movie is an original story, not based on the books if anyone didn't know).

There are a couple Rami trademark moments (vines/plant attacks and jokes, and some Wicked Witch scenes that remind you of the evil dead  and of course a Bruce Campbell cameo).

Overall just a big disappointment for anyone who was hoping the movie would capture, or at least ASPIRE to go toward what the Wizard of Oz did back in it's day, it doesn't even come close.

I'm a great fan of the LoTR books and films. I've also read The Hobbit several times.

Recently, I rented An Unexpected Journey for 48 hours and watched it three times.

The first time, I didn't like it very much. This rather horrified me. I've loved the three LoTR movies since the first time I saw them and I wanted to love An Unexpected Journey.
 
The second time, I had to stop around halfway through. I just couldn't seem to get into it. My mind kept wandering and, at one point, I nearly drifted off. Oh, no! How could this have been happening?

I finished watching it the following day, then watched the whole thing again.

I did like it better the third time. But for me, it's nowhere near as good as the LoTR trilogy (which I consider a masterpiece).  

I think one of the problems inherent in making movies such as the LoTR is the issue of topping them in subsequent films. With An Unexpected Journey, I almost feel as though PJ is (forgive me) trying too hard.

He clobbers the viewer with an excessive amont of CGI. IMO, much of it is inferior to the CGI in LoTR. In this case, more is not better.

He also pads the story in order to stretch the novel into two more films after this one. I really wish he hadn't done that.

I have no problem with changes made when turning a book into a movie, as long as the changes make sense. The LoTR movies aren't 100% faithful to the books but they do retain the spirit of the trilogy, IMO. I don't feel that spirit in An Unexpected Journey.

For me, the best part of the movie is Riddles in the Dark. The acting, dialog and pacing are great, and it's wonderful to see Gollum (and hear Andy Serkis) again. Gollum is more real to me than almost all of the main characters in this movie (with the exception of Gandalf), maybe because I have a history with Gollum that's missing with the others. Or maybe Gollum is just a fabulous character.

The worst part is the whole Radagast thing. Let's see...Spoiler Alerthair full of bird poop and a stick insect in his mouth. How appealing.

I'll probably get the Extended Edition in hopes that whatever is added will improve things. Also, perhaps my feelings will change for the better after I see The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again.

After my triple-header with An Unexpected Journey, I watched the LoTR trilogy for about the 93rd time. Ahhhhh. Now *that's* great movie-making.

I almost wish PJ had started with The Hobbit then moved on to LoTR. The events in An Unexpected Journey take place before those of LoTR, so returning characters are supposed to look younger even though the actors who play them have aged 10 years.

I do believe there's some CGI trickery going on with the faces of Ian Holm, Elijah Wood and Hugo Weaving to make them appear younger. Not sure about Cate Blanchett (although she appears to be thinner than in LoTR).

Ian McKellan, on the other hand, looks every one of his 73 years to me. I kept worrying about him over-exerting himself. Christopher Lee (whom I truly love and who's an unbelievable 91 years old and still acting!) looks older to me too, despite them making his beard a darker color.

And now, I have an observation that probably means nothing. It seems that ever since PJ lost weight, started wearing contacts and got rid of the "sloppy" look, his movies haven't been all that great. I want the old PJ back.

I agree about the CGI.

I think part of the problem is that in LOTR, they used Make-up and real-world effects and only resorted to CGI when neccessary and they couldn't do the effects another way (IE the huge dragons, treants, ghosts, etc).

Things like the orcs? In the LOTR trilogy they are all REAL people with make up/prostethics on, and it helps ground them in reality more then CGI.

CGI is best used as a LAST resort imo, not as a "crutch" or such, which I found the Hobbit to rely more on CGI for almost every bloody thing they could think of.

It seems once PJ finished the LOTR movies he fell in love with CGI, just like George Lucas, he wants to use it in everything possible (just watch King kong and you'll see what I mean).

George Lucas is the perfect example of "how not to" use CGI.

CGI to this day just doesn't stand the test of time. This is something if you go back and watch some of the 90's era's film, when CGI was taking off, and how smart film makers like Spielberg/Stan Winston studios used it very wisely.

Jurassic Park is probably the best example of "how to/when to" use CGI. They ONLY used CGI when they absolutely needed to, showing the scenes of the "herds" of dino's running around, etc. For up-close shots? Animatronics. That classic "T-Rex" attack scene witht he jeep? That wasn't CGI, it was a GIANT animatronic dinosaur made by the excellent Stan Winston.

I wish more film makers used that kind of appproach these days.

Seaking of Jurassic Park, I just saw the 3D version yesterday.The movie still holds up after 20 years, 3D or not. I loved it in '93, and the magic was still there last night. "Clever girl" !

@Stiler
Concerning the CGI in An Unexpected Journey: Very well put -- my thoughts exactly!

I'm unable to compare what George Lucas did with the Star Wars franchise (I've only seen the first movie) to what Peter Jackson is doing with The Hobbit. Plenty of others have made the comparison, though, and it hasn't been meant as a compliment.

I definitely miss the live-action Orcs, Uruks, Goblins, etc. from LotR. What those stunt people endured was incredible (several straight weeks of cold and rainy overnight shooting in heavy armor and prosthetics for Helm's Deep, for instance), but their presence gives the trilogy an authenticity I don't feel with An Unexpected Journey.

By the end of the trilogy, I'd become convinced that Gollum is not CGI at all. I think he's real.

Incidentally, Tolkein's son Christopher is not at all happy with Peter Jackson.

Awwww, Stan Winston. IMO, one of the greatest Fx artists of all time (along with Doug Trumble and Rick Baker). I sure do miss him.

This isn't a movie review; instead, it's about a movie.

If you've seen Inception and your brain isn't sufficiently scrambled, here's a 43-minute video called Inception and Philosophy that should finish the job.

The guy giving the presentation is rather hyper and some of what he says is a little far-fetched, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

Last night I saw Iron Man 3.  Great fun.  It had me actually wondering how it was going to end.  Did they dare.....?

And in the credits they listed Stan Lee as a consultant.  If it weren't for The Big Bang Theory I wouldn't have known who he was. 

What a week!  I barely go to the cinema nowadays and this week I've been twice!.

Star Trek: Into Darkness is a spectacular fast-paced explosion-fest.  I enjoyed it, saw the 3D version as I will watch it in 2D when I buy the blueRay version.

What I like most about this new reboot of the story is the young characters.  I think they got all the key players absolutely spot on - their voices and their attitudes.   That said, it's fun watching Uhura kiss Spock - that was my girly girly fantasy.  lol

I think setting them in an altered time line allows them to write what they want while leaving the canon untouched.  I'm just hoping though, that they create original content and don't limit themselves to the familiar plots of yesteryear.  I guess this depends on the brief the writers have from the franchise owners. 

But I really enjoy the sets - the whole movie looks great.

So they changed it for this movie?

In the show that was quite a famous kiss. It was the first time interracial kiss on US television.

I'm planning to go see the Great Gatsby this weekend. Star Trek isn't out here until next week  but I'm looking forward to it.

Stiler - didn't you watch the previous Star Trek movie?  It was quite clear that Uhura and Spock were an item.  Kirk was interested in her but had no chance and they get a few laughs from that. 

Just saw Iron Man 3 this week. It was pretty good thanks to the performance of Robert Downey Jr., but falls short of the bar set by The Avengers. The villians were so-so. And I feel they've covered Tony Stark's struggle with his personal problems sufficently now. He's grown tremendously as a character, and I hope the next film can move beyond his internal struggles and focus on bigger and badder supervillians.

Also saw 42. It was a nice tribute to what Jackie Robinson did, but I couldn't help feeling like there was something keeping it from being a great movie instead of just fairly decent.

Originally Posted By Caroline (12 MAY 2013 1:33am)

Stiler - didn't you watch the previous Star Trek movie?  It was quite clear that Uhura and Spock were an item.  Kirk was interested in her but had no chance and they get a few laughs from that. 

I haven't seen it since it was released so I had forgotten about that lol.

Originally Posted By Andromus (12 MAY 2013 2:20pm)

Just saw Iron Man 3 this week. It was pretty good thanks to the performance of Robert Downey Jr., but falls short of the bar set by The Avengers. The villians were so-so. And I feel they've covered Tony Stark's struggle with his personal problems sufficently now. He's grown tremendously as a character, and I hope the next film can move beyond his internal struggles and focus on bigger and badder supervillians.

 

Also saw 42. It was a nice tribute to what Jackie Robinson did, but I couldn't help feeling like there was something keeping it from being a great movie instead of just fairly decent.

42 was actually shot partially just about an hour from wheore I live here in TN, at Engel Stadium in Chattanooga, TN.  Wish I had the time to be an extra in it (they had extra casting calls but I couldn't make it

Originally Posted By Stiler (10 MAR 2013 5:33pm)

Anyone else see Oz this weekend? Here's a review I posted at another forum about it:

OZ The Great and Powerful: 4/10-

I had hopes for this movie, but it was just all over the place. It didn't look, nor "Feel" like an Oz movie imo, hell even the older sequel from Disney back in the 80's , Return to Oz, was better imo.

 First off -
CGI - As I figured, CGI ruins yet the look of another film. So many thing scould have EASILY been accomplished with a good set/designer that would have gave the film a more natural look and tone, and allowed it to be viewed years from now and not seem "outdated" however they had to CGI up the wazoo on it and in a few years it'll look outdated, if not already in some places. It just had this "cartoony" feeling to the CGI.  There' sa reason you don't have many CGI - classics, aside from films like Jurassic Park, where they knew WHEN to use CGi and when to go with real props/effects. This movie just went full CGI when they could have accomplished the same shots without CGI easily.

Acting - Medicore, pretty much everyone in this movie seemed to "Ham" it in, there was no one that seemed to really get into their character and chew it up. The 30's Oz with Garland had so many great and memorable characters and the actors played their parts so well, there was no one in this movie that stood out above any generic summer blockbuster acting.

Casting - Going with part of the acting above, the only two that I found fit their parts were Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz.  I think both Kunis and Franco were just not right for the parts. Franco just didn't do much....but act like James Franco, same as in Your highness, etc, there was nothing unique to his character/acting. I think even Johnny Depp would have fit the part a LOT better , at least being able to get into the character and pull something out rather then the usual.

Kunis on the other hand, she just did not fit the part at all.
Spoiler AlertShe just looks NOTHING like the classic Wicked Witch, when she "Changes" in the movie she bears little resemblance aside from a prosthetic chin/nose, her face is just too wide and doesn't "fit" that classic look that Margaret Hamilton made the Wicked Witch of the West so memorable. Plus her "voice," well it's Mila Kunis, you know what she sounds like, nothing even close to that kind of voice. There had to be so many toerh actresses better fit for the role out there, and they just wanted her to bank on her name. 

Fault for the movie being so poor has to also lie at the writers feet, It just had no flow , or "adventure" to it, no journey really , no surprises or anyhting. Everything was just to the point, cliche. I mean:
Spoiler AlertFranco lands in Oz, first person he sees is Kunis and look at that, he's right near the Emerald City! Then he leaves to fight the "wicked Witch" and what's that? Bam, first person he comes across, Wicked Witch. Then they attack the Emerald city, film over. There was just ZERO build up, no character Arcs really, no "journey/adventure" feeling, which is what made both the classic film and books great. It seems the Writer didn't even READ any of Baum's books (the movie is an original story, not based on the books if anyone didn't know).

There are a couple Rami trademark moments (vines/plant attacks and jokes, and some Wicked Witch scenes that remind you of the evil dead  and of course a Bruce Campbell cameo).

Overall just a big disappointment for anyone who was hoping the movie would capture, or at least ASPIRE to go toward what the Wizard of Oz did back in it's day, it doesn't even come close.

Maybe you're too nostalgic, Stiler.  I went into it with no preconceptions and I enjoyed it more than i thought I would . 

Anyone ever see a Finnish movie called Imaginaruem 2012 that is now available on DVD?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1959409/

I was supposed to see Star Trek this past weekend but some things came up, I however did get a chance to see a movie I didn't expect to be able to see (as my nearest theaters usually NEVER get Independent/smaller movies).

That movie was Mud, my small non-spoiler review:

Mud - 9/10

I really enjoyed this movie. I read a review that mentioned it being this generations "stand by me" and while I wouldn't go that far (it's not quite as similar, not as much comedy nor a large group of friends) it is still very much a good solid coming of age movie with some quite tragic characters and meanings.

The acting all around was pretty good, even the two young kids. Matthew McConaughey did excellent in his role as well, he's really growing on me as an actor, pretty much have enjoyed almost all of his latest movies from an acting standpoint.

The movie itself to me had more in common with a movie like say, Sling Blade. While the character Billy Bob played was vastly different then the one Matthew McConaughey plays the "style" of the film, southern setting, the emphasis on character study, that's the closest movie that it reminded me of.

If you enjoy coming of age movies, dramas, with a bit of a southern gothic style, then I'd highly recommend it.

I just watched the 2009 Star Trek film in preparation for the the sequel. It's not quite as bad as I remembered, it would be a moderately entertaining film if it had been been just a generic film without the Star Trek labeling. Unfortunately it was a Star Trek film, and with that I expect a lot more than what was delivered.

Most of the plot elements felt terribly contrived and extremely rushed, particularly in how everyone ends up on the Enterprise and in command positions. I hate that they've ditched the typically mature Star Trek cast and gone back to a bunch of kids from the Academy. And while Star Trek films are certainly action films, the best ones have a thoughtfulness to them that is largely absent from this film. I have a slim hope that as the cast grows up so will future films, but I'm not holding my breath. As far as I'm concerned, the only Star Trek universe is the original one.