Info and forum posts by 'chewie'
Joined on: Wednesday, 17th October 2001, 21:45, Last used: Sunday, 16th June 2013, 08:20
Access Level: Elite
About this user: I was born. I am currently living. I might die, although probably not.
This user has posted a total of 6264 messages. On average, since joining, this user has posted 0.92 messages a day, or 6.44 messages a week. In the last 30 days, this user has posted 0 messages, which is on average 0 messages a day.
Recent Messages Posted:
Saw midnight screening. It was ok. Lots of good, lots of strange decisions. They've tried to please everyone and ended up with a messy film that has far too many references to the older films, some of which are downright lazy.
Ultimately my final verdict on it will depend on how much the events of Ep 8 and 9 affect certain characters, as there are a lot of unanswered questions.
I'd give it a solid 3/5. In terms of ranking among the franchise, it's not as good as any of the originals. Better than the prequels though (I'm not a prequel hater).
Hey all, long time.
Midnight tickets booked. Since 2005 when Revenge of the Sith came out, I've been a bit muted on Star Wars in terms of excitement. I enjoyed the prequels as they were released, but not without being aware of their flaws. They haven't aged well, although are still watchable (I've watched them once on Bluray). I think Sith felt like the end of the journey, and I suppose it was for Lucas. Now we are all in the hands of the geeks, a generation who were inspired by Star Wars during the first run.
This is also the first Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi where we don't know the endgame, and that's a wonderful thing. Lots of fresh faces, but familiar ones as well. Seeing the characters and vehicles from the original trilogy updated with today's visual effects isn't jarring because they're rightly being used only when needed, and much of what is on show in that trailer is remarkable for it's non-reliance on computer effects. The evolution of the Stormtrooper:
77-83: Folk in costumes
2002-2005: Motion captured/animated, fully computer generated.
2015: Folk in costumes.
The fact that one of the main characters appears to be an ex-Stormtrooper could be seen as a way that deals with the over-reliance the prequels had on digital effects. I'm not sure over-reliance is correct, I think Lucas was genuinely just pushing boundaries and seeing what was possible at the time, but at the gamble/expense of what would benefit the film he was trying to make.
Anyway, this trailer is doing big things for me. I'm a little worried at the approach of having so many parallels with A New Hope and that it might seem like a semi-reboot, not unlike Abrams Star Trek (which I think is fantastic, but I understand why some Trekkies don't like it).
Now, to watch that trailer just one more time...
This item was edited on Wednesday, 21st October 2015, 02:05
Love the original and found this remake perfectly acceptable. Nowhere near as good as the 1987 flick, but it updates everything to make a nice little sci-fi action romp with just enough brains to justify its own existence.
Found the scene where it is revealed to Murphy how much of his body remains to be very effective.
I also sniggered at the dildo thing. The Krypton opening is spectacular, I loved Crowe in this role. Shannon is great, Zimmer`s score is relentlessly stirring. Film of the summer so far.
I had a few niggles, I think the flashbacks are so brief and he gets his suit on way too early that I don`t think we get to spend enough time with Clark in the same way we did with a young Bruce in Batman Begins. I don`t think Snyder`s necessarily at fault, more that there is just too much in this film so some things just don`t get time to breathe. It really is a very intense mood piece crossed with a surprisingly focused action film narrative. It definitely allows Clark to be fleshed out in a sequel.
Also, the devastation on display here is like nothing seen before in a superhero film. General Zod doesn`t mess about and it`s quite scary how fast **** hits the fan. They`ve really created a big playground for Superman.
Prometheus was easily the worst film I saw in the cinema this year. Dreadful.
There hasn`t really been a standout for me. The Raid was awesome action cinema. Really liked Silver Linings Playbook, even if it did get a bit cliched towards the end. Dredd was a surprise even if it did have the same plot as The Raid. Beasts of the Southern Wild was good too, although I think I admired it more than I enjoyed it. Argo, Sightseers and Seven Psychopaths are all films I saw recently and enjoyed. Skyfall was great too, really surprised how much I enjoyed it given I`m not really a Bond fan. Avengers was great fun, and I liked Dark Knight Rises with some pretty big reservations. The Hobbit was nice too, but I was far too distracted by the 48fps novelty to fully appreciate it.
I missed my foreign quota this year, need to catch Amour, Rust & Bone and a few others.
This item was edited on Thursday, 20th December 2012, 19:38
I got my Blu Ray on Saturday, the Imax shot stuff is just as stunning as you`d expect. And the audio, whoa, when "The Bat" takes off it just about shook the entire building down.
The film is still full of plot holes and things that annoy me slightly, but it is a lot of fun and has some awesome moments.
Thing is, the UK is the only place where the title is "Avengers Assemble", so it is more of a general balls-up than a penny-saving exercise.
Still pretty poor for this day and age, especially since other Euro countries have confirmed uncensored. And as you point out the way it has been handled is pretty shocking, and shows a complete lack of respect for their customers.
This item was edited on Tuesday, 18th September 2012, 17:24
I was fairly underwhelmed by TDKR. It isn`t a bad film, but it is Nolan`s worst movie. I would definitely say I enjoyed The Avengers more.
I don`t see why anyone should like these films, but I like them because of the intellectual/emotional connection Nolan manages to create without resorting to Spielberg-like manipulation of the audience. But then I like Terrence Malick because of the vibe his films have, and the fact they`re all based on philosophy that I`m quite well read in (phenomenology, existentialism, etc), and I like Michael Mann films for much the same reason (Mann being to the urban environment what Malick is to nature). It is a style of filmmaking that I like because it mixes pure entertainment with just enough intellectual energy to give them a longer life and rewards on repeat viewings. Nolan`s mastery of narrative is his strongest asset, as proved by Memento and The Prestige, and I love how he plays with time and editing: Inception being his most showy example yet. But I wouldn`t get too annoyed with someone not liking Nolan since we all have different tastes.
As for Dark Knight Rises? It`s really just a mess. Still highly enjoyable and has some great moments, but tonally it is all over the place. There`s no suspense and considering how high the stakes get that`s actually quite shocking (considering how incredibly intense The Dark Knight was, despite the stakes never being as high as in the other 2 films). The story was there, they just didn`t structure it very well, leaving too much information for the last 20 minutes which sadly turns out to be too little too late. The first hour is pretty decent, Batman`s first appearance is tingly-hairs-on-back-of-neck stuff. Lots of really stupid stuff though, the police "in the sewers" thing was ludicrous, and they just didn`t capitalize on Gotham City`s citizens as a device to show the impact of what happens in the middle section of the film.
Anyway, it was ok, but something tells me Nolan didn`t really make this film because he wanted to, but more because he felt obliged to.
Yeah, very true. Although I think Vertigo and Citizen Kane are both very accessible films that have clearly had a long lasting influence on mainstream film making, with the only real hurdle for potential viewers being their `age` and whether they adapt to the rougher presentation and style of performance and direction. Citizen Kane always surprises me by how modern it feels, whereas Vertigo`s style feels very much a product of the time.
I don`t think it`s a bad thing this being reported and while I`m sure you`re right about some people instantly dismissing these films, it will be worth it for the few that use this to discover unseen classics and broaden their cinematic education.
The problem with that "bums-on-seats" theory is that Avatar, Titanic and The Avengers are then classed as among "the best films ever made".
But you`re right, it is pointless. best/worst, good/bad... like morality it is all arbitrary.
I thought this was very average. Quite a poor script. Fassbender was awesome though. I`m not the biggest Alien fan but this really felt like a mash-up of an Alien film and something completely different.
It doesn`t feel like a complete narrative and a lot of what happens feels superfluous. And all the big ideas it throws out are largely ignored in favour of schlock thrills.
A big "MEH!" from me.
Saw it for 2nd time today, this time in 2D. First off, it just looks so much better in 2D its unreal (and this is one of the better post-converted 3D films that I`ve seen).
Holds up well to second viewing. Not much more to say other than I love that Whedon managed to get a certain naughty word into a 12A
Roll on the bluray.
This item was edited on Sunday, 29th April 2012, 17:49
Best of the Marvel films. I watched this entire film with my jaw on the floor. Actually can`t believe they did it, not just making an Avengers films, but making an Avengers film that is a sequel to four individual franchises. If The Avengers was crap it would destroy Marvel`s movie studio.
I really enjoy the two Iron Man films. They`re fairly conventionally structured but Downey Jr is having a hoot and I actually dig Iron Man 2 for putting Nick Fury/Black Widow in supporting roles because it does pay off. Captain America is awesome as they nailed the character and his origin (even if some of the design choices were a little too camp for the WW2 setting). Thor was heaps of fun and if anything is the most important film leading into The Avengers because its the one that opens up the universe (literally). The Incredible Hulk is solid work and does get referenced in The Avengers even though Banner was recast (Ruffalo is awesome though).
There is just one problem facing Marvel now... what Joss Whedon has done is not only a great comic book movie... it is without a doubt one of the best ever made and Marvel will not be able to top this easily. No other film compares in terms of intensity and scale in the genre. These are all big, strong characters performed perfectly by genuinely great actors. And Whedon balances them all so no one feels left out. The film jam-packed with memorable scenes and from the opening moment it takes off after the opening logos it doesn`t stop. The other big surprise for me is how funny it was. And I`m not talking about Stark`s humour or a few witty lines here or there, but maybe 3-4 genuine laugh out loud moments that had the entire cinema in stitches (2 of which involve Hulk).
This is about as entertaining as popcorn cinema gets. It does have some substance too, giving all characters problems to get over and rub against each other, and also some bigger stuff (Nick Fury gets a great moment that shows what he`s willing to do).
It`s not perfect, and I`m sure Loki`s plot could be picked apart, but on first viewing it just all so overwhelming that its hard to see beyond the greatness.
Needless to say I loved it. I`m giddy and I haven`t been like this for a film in a long time. It`s like being a kid again.
You could try widening your approach a little bit. Of the ones you mentioned that I`ve seen, X-Men First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes both surprised me as they`re really solid films, particularly the latter. I really liked Captain America but I`m a fan of the character and never thought I`d see the WW2 origin done so faithfully considering the earnestness of the character and our cynical modern world... but Joe Johnston and co did it (and yes, I love The Rocketeer). Super 8 is pretty good, but there was something missing I can`t quite put my finger on. Thor is good fun. Green Lantern is terrible, unfortunately as I was really looking forward to that one. I really enjoyed Transformers 3 (liked the first one a lot, hated the 2nd) and would say it`s the best of that particular franchise (the action and stunts are insane, easily out-doing any other action film this year... and it tries hard to add some substance... tries...)
Terrence Malick`s latest The Tree of Life is worth a watch just because, well, you could watch all his films in a day and still get a good night of philosophically enriched sleep. I`m a huge Malick fan, but I did have some problems with it (and it had the most walkouts I`ve ever seen at the cinema). But the film is an experience, hypnotic and ambitious on a level that is rarely seen.
A bit safer is The Guard with Brendan Gleeson, very funny Irish comedy (from the brother of the guy who brought you In Bruges).
Submarine is also pretty great, British (or Welsh?) film too so you`re supporting homegrown talent. Has a Wes Anderson influence about it.
If you stick exclusively to blockbusters I can see why you`d start getting bored as very few have anything to engage with. Don`t get me wrong, I love big silly pictures and I`m not bored with the Superhero films simply because I never dreamed we`d get anything approaching this quality (before Blade and X-Men just over 10 years ago, all we had were Burton`s Batman movies, a crappy 1990 Captain America and Spider-Man TV movies from the 70s). Marvel are playing a smart game hiring directors suited to the material.
I like Iron Man 2. It`s a bit messy for sure, but I don`t think it takes a dip in quality at all from the original (except for one lazy piece of story writing, but it`s easy to overlook, think triangle...). It`s definitely more of the same in a good way, but is definitely unambitious (probably a result of quick turnaround, Iron Man 3 has Shane Black directing so that will be interesting).
I just ordered Captain America on blu ray from the States, really enjoyed it in the cinema (although I saw the pointless 3D version). I hate 3D with a passion, hope I can see The Avengers in non-3D form (It`s not 2D, I feel like a dick asking to see 2D versions of movies).
First proper trailer. Looks good. I`m excited.
This item was edited on Tuesday, 11th October 2011, 17:05
Not been about here much recently, but thought I`d add my two cents on the last two films I saw at the flicks which I thought were mostly exceptional experiences. And I mean experiences. I`m not gonna go into either film in much detail, just that I highly recommend both.
Warrior will get compared to last years The Fighter which I suppose aesthetically it isn`t too far away from. One big difference is Warrior`s story is fictional, and the story is fairly ludicrous but because it`s approached at a character level and shot with grainy film stock with a fairly dull colour palate, not to mention excellent performances from Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy and Nick Nolte, you just get immersed in this world. Ultimately it`s equally a family drama about two estranged brothers and their father and an MMA tournament. I`ll confess I haven`t actually watched UFC fighting before, but ****-me it`s pretty shocking what these guys do to each other, more exciting and unpredictable/technical than boxing. What it doesn`t do is offer anything new, and it does cover most of the fighting movie cliches, but it does so fleetingly and a lot of the scenes are tweaked just enough from what you`d expect to really ramp up the drama. It really is a case of the journey being more important than the destination and I will be picking up the blu ray for sure.
Drive shares some similarities to Warrior in that it doesn`t do anything groundbreaking, but it`s an exceptionally well directed, shot, edited and acted film. The soundtrack is also amazing, if you like 80s style synth (think Tangerine Dream with a hint of Daft Punk). The cinematography in this film is mesmerizing, not since Michael Mann`s Collateral have I seen LA`s essence captured so perfectly. Ryan Gosling is part-time stunt driver, sometimes getaway driver. He doesn`t say much but he`s a character that will get a cult following. It really does feel like a film from the 80s and there are so many great moments, some thrilling, some beautiful, shocking and bloody.
Anyway, keeping it short I was wowed by these two after a fairly average summer. Anyone else seen them?
Not one to be cynical, but did you hear how many references there were to Mars in that trailer? You`d have thought with previous films featuring Mars bombing that Disney would have opted to avoid mentioning it...
Haha quite interesting, I love the idea of these "what if" scenarios. Of course Mark is right, The Phantom Menace wouldn`t have caught on like the original 1977 Star Wars did. Who is the hero in TPM? The two main characters are Qui-Gonn Jinn and Anakin, and the latter doesn`t appear until 40 odd minutes into the film. What are the themes? Regardless of it being a prequel, it is the 4th film in a franchise and as written the story is insular to Star Wars and doesn`t really have universal appeal or relatable themes or characters. Don`t get me wrong, I don`t hold this against it as most frachise become more purely about story as they progress than grand themes and artistic/political commentary (the bad dialogue and silly humour on the other hand...). But the film isn`t written as an introduction to the Star Wars universe. Even the politics of TPM are taken from scattered history, unlike A New Hope where the influence was a little more contemporary. And Luke`s journey is one of the most universal of all, leaving home and going on an adventure of discovery and becoming a hero in the process. Luke Skywalker is the protagonist, no mistake. Star Wars 1977 is simply masterful filmmaking, presenting a simple story in a complex world. The Phantom Menace just doesn`t have this and even ignoring all the fluff and nonsense the story just isn`t there.
Had TPM been written first, maybe Obi Wan Kenobi would have been the protagonist and Qui Gonn wouldn`t have existed as if I remember right he was a late addition. Although lets be honest, Liam Neeson is the only actor able to pull off his dialogue in that film and Qui Gonn is actually a pretty good character.
The cynic in me isn`t very good at being annoyed with Star Wars. I find the changes more jarring than ever and the prequels really haven`t fared well with time, but it is still Star Wars and A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back will always be high points of American cinema. Those that want the original originals can get them by other means (and in pretty awesome quality too). I think the only problem I have is things like Vader`s lightsaber is still off in ESB in some shots, I could fix that myself in After Effects. The films all look good (even the DNR of TPM doesn`t ruin it) and the deleted scenes are quite nice. The extras don`t feel fulfilling, but I guess that doesn`t matter as what else could they cover?
I`ll look forward to watching them properly when I get time. The last two times I`ve watch the original trilogy have been the unaltered versions. Haven`t seen Attack of the Clones or The Phantom Menace all the way through since Revenge of the Sith was out in 2005. How time does fly...
haha the first one... and the last one part-time ;)
Did anyone go to Tron Night last week, the free 20 something minute preview showing at Imax cinemas around the country?
I went to the Glasgow Imax (would have been rude not to, I work less than a minutes walk from it) and it was only 1/3 full, bit disappointing really as the Avatar preview was packed. The presentation looked great, although I`d still rather see it in `2D`. I`m quite excited though, Daft Punk`s score sounds immense. I don`t think the buzz is there to justify what is apparently an enormous budget.
Oh yeah I`d agree on CS5, it`s a very stable system (and has everything you need with exception of a 3D program, although I use 3D Studio Max when needed). Even Premiere Pro is pretty good now, especially with handling stuff that comes out of DSLRs. Basic After Effects skills are invaluable, and if you know Photoshop it doesn`t take long to get to grips with it... a lifetime to master though haha.
BBC use Avid so I have to keep on top of it.
I don`t get time to post much these days, family and work and stuff takes up all my time too, but it`s nice to see the familiar names still about ;)
Just wanted to say AWESOME JOB on that trailer. I`m an Editor too and therefore appreciate the work that goes into something like this, and also nice to see you doing it in your spare time, the passion is still there. I don`t know your circumstance but I`m sure your average week is a `bit` longer than the standard 37.5 hours, so anything you do in your spare time has to be for a good purpose (this being as good a reason as any :D ). I still do music vids and short films in my spare time, but it`s a strain on the old social life.
And I`ve only just recently started using FCP, I`ve been Avid most of my time. If I was a smarter person, I`d create a hybrid of the two for the perfect editing software. My general rule is FCP is great for short things such as trailers, music vids, short documentaries. Avid I use for fiction filmmaking, always, don`t know why but I feel more in control of it.
Saw Monsters at EIFF. It`s really good and was apparently shot with just the Director on camera (a Sony EX3) a Sound Recordist and Producer. The Director did most of the CGI himself.
It works more as a sort of apocalyptic road movie romance (the chemistry is real, the two actors got married just this year). It`s a stunning example of ultra low budget filmmaking. Whether the figure of $15,000 budget is true or not, it was filmed with next to no money (I`d guess it got a boost in post-production somewhere down the line).
So yeah, well worth a watch, it never feels like anything less than a well produced sci-fi film, leagues ahead of a lot of TV stuff.
Why do people find the need to name drop / show of their iphone? Why not just say you mainly use it on your phone?
Because I`m conditioned. My iPhone is rarely used as a mobile phone, it`s for email and Internet! To me it`s more like a computer, and I don`t think it`s the norm yet to call it just a phone or mobile. I also get lots of sex but don`t tell my other half ;-)