Last movie you saw

Saw Little Ashes at the Melb Queer Film Fest saturday.
First - ACMI (Aust Centre for the Moving Image at Fed Sq), a great venue for festivals, cool little festival bar and snacks place and allround a really cool place, and boy Melb was buzzing with this festival packed and the grande prix people all about and the Comedy Festival Crowd.

The film is stunning to look at, story of young Dali and the poet Lorca meeting at Uni, during the Spanish facist period. A lovely film I really enjoyed it. Good performances, the lead playing Lorca is especially wonderful, it's mainly Lorca's story.
Go see it limited release at Palace theatres at the moment - at the festival it was sold out with people waiting for any no shows!
 
I'm going to watch Jennifer's Body with Megan Fox tonight! My hand is ready.... to write out a review about this later on.
 
kxk said:
Saw Little Ashes at the Melb Queer Film Fest saturday.
First - ACMI (Aust Centre for the Moving Image at Fed Sq), a great venue for festivals, cool little festival bar and snacks place and allround a really cool place, and boy Melb was buzzing with this festival packed and the grande prix people all about and the Comedy Festival Crowd.

The film is stunning to look at, story of young Dali and the poet Lorca meeting at Uni, during the Spanish facist period. A lovely film I really enjoyed it. Good performances, the lead playing Lorca is especially wonderful, it's mainly Lorca's story.
Go see it limited release at Palace theatres at the moment - at the festival it was sold out with people waiting for any no shows!
Click to expand...

I'm interested in the Melbourne Queer Festival, and actually this movie too after reading your summary above. Blast it, the one other time I tried to go to the Queer Fest (on opening night, about 2 years ago) it was sold out.
 
pawlini said:
I'm going to watch Jennifer's Body with Megan Fox tonight! My hand is ready.... to write out a review about this later on.
Click to expand...



Films many shades of terrible.

Megan Fox looks way hotter in the transformers films than anything else. She's not enough to make this film worth watching.



I watched that Ben still, Owen Wilson Starsky and Hutch
Yeah wasn't very good. I had never seen it, so was curious, but it was just eh, whatever. Not terrible, just kind of dull, not that funny. It was one of these films where they had the idea to do a Stasky and Hutch film, but then never created a good story around it. Maybe it's on a level like "A Very Brady Sequel" where everything is a direct reference back to the original series, so if you're a fan of that, the film is amazing, but if not, it probably is far from it.
It was clearly a film made to make a modern film throw back, but they did nothing with it but dress the lead stars up as the characters. So it's just pointless.
Also using camera moves from old TV shows doesn't work in creating an old feel when that authenticity isn't used elsewhere. Maybe i'm spoiled from the OSS117 films that acurately and brilliantly re-create past filming styles, but yeah these old fashion camera moves didn't work.

Also what was with the end ripping off the end of 2 Fast 2 Furious. I think the sequence clearly showed any lack of style in the film and the level of nothingness from the script. Where they take the ending from a car film that came out a year before. Probably because in 2 Fast 2 Furious one of the characters goes, "this is some real starsky and hutch shit"

Just a whole pile of, why did they bother?
 
Last edited:
Howcome the yanks put out so many dumb films during the year.... There's one with this family and all you hear is swearing and people dropping "F bombs" and it's supposed to be some kind of comedy? Then there is that super hero movie Kick Ass which though fun looks like they made it on a really cheap budget just to make cash..... Oh oh and that's got little kids dropping "F bombs" all through the movie blimey.... it's not funny guys it's tired and old.....

Oh and as for the Bounty Hunter Eeewww not even the inclusion of Jennifer Anniston would make me want to see it I find her repulsive.
 
I find Gerald/Gerard(?) Butler rather repulsive, Bounty Hunter sounds like utter crap.

Goldenberry, my friend went to about 20 films at the Queer Film Fest, I only saw this and some shorts, but next year I'm intending to join her for more - I really enjoyed my limited time at the festival, the venue is just great and really nice experience allround, go see Little Ashes I loved this movie.
(You know who is in it don't you???:) )
 
Mud Cake said:
Howcome the yanks put out so many dumb films during the year.... There's one with this family and all you hear is swearing and people dropping "F bombs" and it's supposed to be some kind of comedy? Then there is that super hero movie Kick Ass which though fun looks like they made it on a really cheap budget just to make cash..... Oh oh and that's got little kids dropping "F bombs" all through the movie blimey.... it's not funny guys it's tired and old.....

Oh and as for the Bounty Hunter Eeewww not even the inclusion of Jennifer Anniston would make me want to see it I find her repulsive.
Click to expand...



There's always a mix of films, made for different people. A lot of films sound good on paper, in a script but don't turn out well.

There is manufactured stuff like The Bounty Hunter which is a cheap quick starring vehicle for the stars. I'd like to know the percentage of these type films which are purely made as part of multi-film deals actors sign with studios before that expires.


I am really just commenting on you saying Kick Ass looks cheap. Nothing wrong with cheap, and cheap with in reason and limit.. ie.. not cheap but cheap for movies is the future. While there's always room for giant blockbusters as Avatar shows, cheaper movies are the most exciting new development. Better technology means you can do a lot more impressive stuff on the cheap.
District 9 for instance was considered a cheap film.
It's in the came category of cheap $30 million dollar films. It's expensive enough you can do something good, but way cheap for big movies. It's so exciting because way more risks can be taken, way less studio control and freedom for the talent. The studio will let someone make the movie they want for this budget. They only will do that for blockbusters when it's a proven director. As something like Spiderman 3 shows, even then the directors often won't be left alone.

Kick Ass currently has 95% on rotton tomatoes. While this will drop when more reviews come in. One bad review out of 20 is very good.

It's the future and it's good for creative talent and story telling.
 
up_all_night said:
There's always a mix of films, made for different people. A lot of films sound good on paper, in a script but don't turn out well.

There is manufactured stuff like The Bounty Hunter which is a cheap quick starring vehicle for the stars. I'd like to know the percentage of these type films which are purely made as part of multi-film deals actors sign with studios before that expires.


I am really just commenting on you saying Kick Ass looks cheap. Nothing wrong with cheap, and cheap with in reason and limit.. ie.. not cheap but cheap for movies is the future. While there's always room for giant blockbusters as Avatar shows, cheaper movies are the most exciting new development. Better technology means you can do a lot more impressive stuff on the cheap.
District 9 for instance was considered a cheap film.
It's in the came category of cheap $30 million dollar films. It's expensive enough you can do something good, but way cheap for big movies. It's so exciting because way more risks can be taken, way less studio control and freedom for the talent. The studio will let someone make the movie they want for this budget. They only will do that for blockbusters when it's a proven director. As something like Spiderman 3 shows, even then the directors often won't be left alone.

Kick Ass currently has 95% on rotton tomatoes. While this will drop when more reviews come in. One bad review out of 20 is very good.

It's the future and it's good for creative talent and story telling.
Click to expand...



It might be good for the industry and I am all for new stories and creative ideas but the notion that one of your lead characters is a foul mouthed little kid doesn't turn on my curiosity and make me want to see the film. It makes me want to bypass till the DVD comes out.
 
Yeah i don't know about foul mouthed kid. There is a trend of, people doing high school kids, to appeal to 20-30 something reflecting back on them at that age, but over the top.
 
up_all_night said:
Yeah i don't know about foul mouthed kid. There is a trend of, people doing high school kids, to appeal to 20-30 something reflecting back on them at that age, but over the top.
Click to expand...


Oh and "She's too good for you" or something...... That movie is full of F bombs.... It's not funny.
 
It can work, but it has to be clever.

Oh for people like me who really want to see "Clash of the Titans"
just read some reviews, apparently do not see the film in 3d. As you know it was converted in post in 10 weeks or something? Which is incredibly quick for such a normally time consuming process. Apparently it basically ruins the film. As it's so poor that a lot just looks odd. Especially with how the film was made as a 2d film, which requires different editing, different compositions, different lighting ect. Things like in a 3d film you can't have as quick edits as a lot of modern films do or your eyes don't really register the 3d. Because this was made as a 2d movie, there's lots of that style. Also they didn't re-grade(colour) the film so it's especially dull.

I for one will see it in 2d now. I may see it in 3d again if I like the film and have time to waste. When the first review I read spent half the time complaining how bad the 3d is, and what I know of the process and tech.. enough for me to bypass it.
 
up_all_night said:
It can work, but it has to be clever.

Oh for people like me who really want to see "Clash of the Titans"
just read some reviews, apparently do not see the film in 3d. As you know it was converted in post in 10 weeks or something? Which is incredibly quick for such a normally time consuming process. Apparently it basically ruins the film. As it's so poor that a lot just looks odd. Especially with how the film was made as a 2d film, which requires different editing, different compositions, different lighting ect. Things like in a 3d film you can't have as quick edits as a lot of modern films do or your eyes don't really register the 3d. Because this was made as a 2d movie, there's lots of that style. Also they didn't re-grade(colour) the film so it's especially dull.

I for one will see it in 2d now. I may see it in 3d again if I like the film and have time to waste. When the first review I read spent half the time complaining how bad the 3d is, and what I know of the process and tech.. enough for me to bypass it.
Click to expand...


3D never works for me properly. It gives me a headache. Didn't work for Avatar and has never worked.

Is this just a stupid gimmick that Hollywood can't let go of?

Why make a 2D film then have it converted to 3D and promote it that way when they did the process all wonky?
 
Mud Cake said:
3D never works for me properly. It gives me a headache. Didn't work for Avatar and has never worked.

Is this just a stupid gimmick that Hollywood can't let go of?

Why make a 2D film then have it converted to 3D and promote it that way when they did the process all wonky?
Click to expand...


Comes down to studios can charge a premium and make more money in 3d and they think it's still a gimmick so want to push it.

It's the sort of thing that'd be ok, if planned or at least done a head of time so the film could be edited with it in mind. It's a worry for things like the next harry potter films which are being converted to 3d.

Hollywood wants it because there's little you can do new. Look how 3d animated films took off. It started with quality films like toy story, but then all these other studios started releasing shit but they made a fortune. Although now from what I gather, as it's become less the case of everything makes a fortune, the non disney/pixar 3d animated films are generally getting better.

3d is that. Also it's seem as a bit piracy proof. It's not for everyone and every film. There will be a rush, but I think the limitations will hold it back. There's so many advantages to shooting in 2d.

Like with clash, these things are made for 2d, sets aren't designed or decorated to look good in anything other than 2d. So the dimension has to be cheated. If you're wondering how they do the 2d to 3d. They super impose a rough 3d geometry on top of the two 2d image. A very right 3d geometry. Then match the camera moves. Problem is, if anything doesn't have nice defined borders, like hair, plants, ect.. it is then really hard.

I don't mind 3d, but it should be keep sparingly. The next bond film will be shot in 3d apparently. Like why???
 
With the billions 3d is making - well it's going to keep growing, and the TVs will expand it more.

Read a really interesting article last week about how it's the porn industry that propels new technology in film these days, 3d included ...............eww imagine that 3d porn 'coming' (tee hee) at ya!
 
kxk said:
With the billions 3d is making - well it's going to keep growing, and the TVs will expand it more.

Read a really interesting article last week about how it's the porn industry that propels new technology in film these days, 3d included ...............eww imagine that 3d porn 'coming' (tee hee) at ya!
Click to expand...


Eeeewww gross

If 3D is such a holy grail why not just start trying to develop something truly immersive like a holodeck? Imagien a cinema with holographic emitters all over the walls and ceiling and floor and when you start the movie you are sitting right in the middle of it...... Fantastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top