pitry: (cat_overlord)
So, turns out you don't need to read the books or watch the first movie in order to understand the second. I wonder how does that work to people who actually did bother with the above? Does it feel like an unnecessary introduction? Hmmm.
Anyway, good parts = Jennifer Lawrence is ♥. Also Woody Harrleson. And Lenny Kravitz and Elizabeth Banks although there isn't enough of them in the movie. Actually, there isn't enough Woody, either. Instead we have two guys with the charisma of a dead shoe. Dear lesser Hemsworth - even your brother has more charisma than you do, and I thought he had no charisma at all. As for Josh Hutcherson, don't get me started.

Movie-wise... omg. Why is no one trying to make YA movies actually movies? It's something that plagues most of HP as well, although I did feel 5 and 7 (as in DH part one, definitely not part 2) managed to transcend that, especially DH1. But seriously. The scenes are disconnected. Everything that isn't about the hero is shut out - and it's frustrating in a movie like Hunger Games, because the world actually has a crucial role in both the plot and the message. Well... show the world, then, don't just paint some broad strokes and be done with it! Grrr. Make us care about the world. Stop hinting then cutting away to some uninteresting nonsense. That's the thing. At 2.5 hours, it both felt too long and too short, because they decided to focus on all the wrong things (Josh Hutcherson. Honestly. Josh Hutcherson). It's time YA adaptations stopped being afraid of being movies and departing from the source material, in favour of actually being movies.

Don't get me wrong, it was actually quite quite entertaining, just frustrating because you can see there's stuff beneath the surface that they don't dare touch because, apparently, someone has decided that it's not that kind of a movie. Exactly the same problem as Goblet of Fire and DH2. Sometimes you need to care less about your hero and more about their surroundings.

Also, when that hero is Jennifer Lawrence, I'm okay. ♥ Although, really, if charimas-less Peeta would have let Woody take his place, I would have been so much happier.
pitry: (philosophy)
"Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology." - Isaac Asimov

This post isn't about how Elysium fails as a movie, although I could write a loooooot about that too. No, it's about how it fails, specifically, as a science fiction movie. It probably comes not just because I spent 90% of the movie going 'really?!', but a) if you remember my reaction to Star Trek Into Darkness, the mishandling of science fiction lately really is starting to get on my nerves, and b) because, like when often is the case when people who are not interested in science fiction are exposed to science fiction, I heard a lot of good things about Elysium, which not only caused my disappointment, but made me think about how it fails as science fiction specifically.

Reasons 5-to-1 on why this is very bad science fiction, also, spoilers. )
pitry: (Kira)
I think I'm the easiest person to convert in the world, or: Okay, Nolan completely convinced me about the whole IMAX thing, and he wasn't even trying (well, he wasn't trying me specifically, I suspect he's trying to convince the world in general).

Here's the thing about 3D - it doesn't work too well for me. My glasses have a very high number (like, really high number. I'm pretty much blind without them). So putting on 3D glasses a) annoys me and is uncomfortable like hell, b) gives me headache and c)my eyes/brain/whatever can't catch up with the action when the camera is moving fast so I see half the movie blurry.

IMAX manages to give me the effect that's supposed to come with 3D, without the headache and the blurryness.

Also... it's incredible how easily you see what was shot on IMAX and what was converted. And he's right - what was shot on IMAX simply looks better. The focus is a lot smaller, which makes the whole background unfocused by the bits that are in focus are so incredibly sharp and look so gorgeous. So, TDKR on IMAX - looks gorgeous!!

As for the film... *sigh of relief*. When I rewatched the Avengers I was really disappointed - it doesn't hold up on second viewing. Once you're out of the SHINY!! zone, you realise the scenes are barely connected and it's completely the "and then and then and then" type of storytelling which I just hate so much. TDKR - holds its ground on second viewing. In a way, it's even better. Now that we got the annoying plothole out of the way, I'm not sitting there pissed off about it and how it undermines the entire fucking story they've been telling for 2.5 movies (!!! okay. I'm still a little bit pissed off about that ;) ) and I could enjoy the second half of the film for what it was. I still think the first half is so much better, but I enjoyed the second half much more. And whoa... Bruce/ Selina. ♥ Seriously, the entire film lifts up in every scene they're together. And there aren't enough of those :((((

TDKR

27/07/2012 13:33
pitry: (minion)
The Dark Knight Rises is a very good film. This is not a compliment.

Holy spoilers, Batman! )
Page generated 26/09/2017 03:44
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios