Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Saw Lincoln. It's terrific. Daniel Day-Lewis is, of course, great as the eponymous character. The other actors are also amazing. It's dramatic, it looks great, and there's even moments of comedy. I wasn't laughing much, although these moments did get laughter from other audience members. The only issue I have is that the film's kinda hard to follow, but it's always engaging.

At 12/8/12 01:16 PM, Auz wrote: All that said, I'm not sure if everyone will love this film. It could be a typical "hit and miss", but it seems to be getting lots of positive reviews so I suppose most people do enjoy it. Anyway, I strongly recommend it to everyone here. For me it'll go into my top favourite films of 2012.

I've been wanting to see it. I know one critic actually named it the worst film of the year, although the year isn't over yet. That pick has also gotten a backlash.

Twilight: Eclipse was on TV tonight and I felt obligated to watch it after having seen 1, 2 and 4 (and now that 5 is out in the theatre).

It started out being fairly watchable I have to admit, but after 45 minutes or so the film got really long winded and boring. In the end, I came to the conclusion that they might as well have skipped this film entirely. They could've just gone from the ending of 2 straight to the beginning of 4 and the series would still have been coherent.

Also, the soundtrack is once again God awful. In none of the scenes with music did the music actually fit and it was so incredibly distracting.

It's not worth your time, but you guys probably already know that.

At 12/9/12 01:33 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 12/8/12 01:16 PM, Auz wrote: All that said, I'm not sure if everyone will love this film. It could be a typical "hit and miss", but it seems to be getting lots of positive reviews so I suppose most people do enjoy it. Anyway, I strongly recommend it to everyone here. For me it'll go into my top favourite films of 2012.

I've been wanting to see it. I know one critic actually named it the worst film of the year, although the year isn't over yet. That pick has also gotten a backlash.

I think Mary Pols was just trying to provoke reactions there. It might be one of the biggest flops of the year (having grossed only half of its budget so far), but of course that doesn't immediately make a film terrible. I can imagine some people think the film is a mess, but you still have to give the creators credit for trying to come up with something original.

There were far worse films released this year, trust me.

At 12/9/12 05:07 PM, Auz wrote:

At 12/9/12 01:33 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 12/8/12 01:16 PM, Auz wrote: All that said, I'm not sure if everyone will love this film. It could be a typical "hit and miss", but it seems to be getting lots of positive reviews so I suppose most people do enjoy it. Anyway, I strongly recommend it to everyone here. For me it'll go into my top favourite films of 2012.

I've been wanting to see it. I know one critic actually named it the worst film of the year, although the year isn't over yet. That pick has also gotten a backlash.

I think Mary Pols was just trying to provoke reactions there. It might be one of the biggest flops of the year (having grossed only half of its budget so far), but of course that doesn't immediately make a film terrible. I can imagine some people think the film is a mess, but you still have to give the creators credit for trying to come up with something original.

Mary explained her opinion on Time and she's been Tweeting about the film, recently. I don't think she's lying. With The Fountain, a film that's apparently similar to Cloud Atlas, film critic Richard Roeper called it one of the worst films of 2006. When it comes to a film's originality or uniqueness, I'd say Gummo falls into those categories. That hasn't stopped people from hating the film. Personally, I love it and I've seen it several times. I think it all goes back to the old saying: To each his (or her) own.

I watched The Cabin In The Woods recently. It's great fun. There are some spectacular sequences, the characters are likeable at the same time as being deconstructions of genre-movie archetypes, and the plot is refreshingly unpredictable. Also, thankfully, there are a few genuinely scary and tense moments, which I've been missing lately.

I don't think it's as good as some have made it out to be, it wasn't really game-changing like Scream for the genre, but I really enjoyed it nonetheless.

I recently watched a Norwegian thriller called Headhunters. It was really good. I recommend it.

At 12/11/12 08:36 PM, SG3 wrote: I watched The Cabin In The Woods recently. It's great fun.

hah. That one was fun.

Serious point here. Who is worried that the stupid Mayan apocalypse will ruin the release of The Hobbit?

At 12/9/12 08:12 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 12/9/12 05:07 PM, Auz wrote: I think Mary Pols was just trying to provoke reactions there. It might be one of the biggest flops of the year (having grossed only half of its budget so far), but of course that doesn't immediately make a film terrible. I can imagine some people think the film is a mess, but you still have to give the creators credit for trying to come up with something original.

Mary explained her opinion on Time and she's been Tweeting about the film, recently. I don't think she's lying. With The Fountain, a film that's apparently similar to Cloud Atlas, film critic Richard Roeper called it one of the worst films of 2006. When it comes to a film's originality or uniqueness, I'd say Gummo falls into those categories. That hasn't stopped people from hating the film. Personally, I love it and I've seen it several times. I think it all goes back to the old saying: To each his (or her) own.

Yeah I guess so. Still, I can not believe anyone truly thinks it is THAT bad.

At 12/11/12 10:28 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: I recently watched a Norwegian thriller called Headhunters. It was really good. I recommend it.

I remember wanting to see that film earlier this year. It was released here around April or so apparently, but I think it had a very short run as I completely missed it.

At 12/12/12 02:58 AM, hostileburritos wrote: Serious point here. Who is worried that the stupid Mayan apocalypse will ruin the release of The Hobbit?

Wasn't The Hobbit released yesterday? It premièred at my local cinema yesterday night at least, so that's still ten days before the supposed apocalypse.

At 12/12/12 11:15 AM, Auz wrote: I remember wanting to see that film earlier this year. It was released here around April or so apparently, but I think it had a very short run as I completely missed it.

heh. The bad guy happens to be from the Dutch military.

It's a really good movie. You should check it out. It's a bit more gory than necessary, which may cause you to scoff, but it's still really good.

Wasn't The Hobbit released yesterday? It premiÃf¨red at my local cinema yesterday night at least, so that's still ten days before the supposed apocalypse.

There might have been a premier, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't get a wide release until Friday.

I went to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey today.

I think the film lives up to expectations and Lord of the Rings fans will probably not be disappointed with this. It's a good portrayal of the book as far as I could tell (though it's been a long time since I last read the book). Of course there are a few parts which they've added from other Tolkien books, but they blended in quite nicely.

There's just one thing that concerned me a bit and that's the inclusion of The Necromancer. I'm a bit worried that The Necromancer might take the wind out of Smaug's sails when it comes to the role of the major villain.

Anyway, I strongly recommend this film for the upcoming holidays. It's very enjoyable.

By the way, I went to see the version in 3D and with this new technology called HFR. Basically it's just that the film is played with 48 FPS instead of 24 FPS. It's kinda odd in the beginning as you have the feeling that the film is on fast forward. You'll quickly get used to it though, but whether it makes much difference I couldn't really tell.

At 12/12/12 06:56 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 12/12/12 11:15 AM, Auz wrote: I remember wanting to see that film earlier this year. It was released here around April or so apparently, but I think it had a very short run as I completely missed it.

heh. The bad guy happens to be from the Dutch military.

He can't be that menacing then :p

It's a really good movie. You should check it out. It's a bit more gory than necessary, which may cause you to scoff, but it's still really good.

Well I don't mind gory films, so that won't be a problem.

Wasn't The Hobbit released yesterday? It premiÃffÃ'¨red at my local cinema yesterday night at least, so that's still ten days before the supposed apocalypse.

There might have been a premier, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't get a wide release until Friday.

Perhaps it hasn't been released in the US yet, but it already had its release here and I'm sure it's been released in lots of other countries as well yesterday (and today).

The Hobbit was okay. The CGI orks look fucking awful compared to the ones done with makeup in Lord of the Rings. Especially their one-armed leader. Whenever it cuts to a closeup of him it feels like you've stepped into an animated film. It really, really doesn't work.

It is too long, as many have suggested, but not hugely so. Maybe 15-20 minutes longer than it should have been. Sequences like the stone giants could be removed completely because all they do is drag this shit out without advancing the plot, but I have no problem with the addition of Radaghast or the White Council stuff.

Also, Bilbo is a fucking quick author. Sits down to write his book on the day Lord of the Rings starts, which means he rattled the whole thing off in that afternoon before leaving the Shire in the evening.

I really enjoyed The Hobbit, but the high FPS really, really bugged me. For the first fifteen minutes or so, I almost considered walking out, but I eventually developed a tolerance for it.

There seemed like more character development for the dwarves than in the book, which was nice, though the pacing suffered because of it. There were a lot of moments when details and were included that seemed pretty unnecessary, though I enjoyed them anyway. How they're going to pull off an extended edition for this trilogy, I have no idea.

One thing that really pleased me was the inclusion of the necromancer sub-plot. I re-read the book over summer and the thing that struck me most was how casually it was brought up at the end. Naturally, I hoped it would get some expansion in the films and I wasn't disappointed.

I can't say it levelled or exceeded the greatness of the original trilogy, but I didn't expect it to. The story just isn't as expansive and, fun as it is, there's no way it could rival the scale of LOTR. Still, I'd definitely recommend it, and I'm considering it's place on my favourite movies of the year list.

Is HFR the standard for The Hobbit screenings, then? My local cinema is mostly showing it in 2D 24fps, which I saw it in, with a couple of 3D screenings scattered around, also in 24fps. No HFR at all.

I'd probably have gone for HFR 2D if they'd offered it, just to see what it looks like. I'm more interested in Doug Trumball's new tech, though, since it looks like it could do away with many of the complaints that have been levelled against higher frame rates so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkWLZy7gbLg

So I saw Cloud Atlas. I wasn't blown away, but I think it's very good. It's emotionally engaging, unpredictable, visually interesting, and well-acted, though I had some trouble understanding the dialogue in the post-apocalyptic story. My favourite story is probably the Neo Seoul one, which has particularly fascinating visuals. The makeup isn't very realistic when actors play different races and genders, like Jim Sturgess as Hae-Joo Chang, but it's still decent. Maybe it's not suppose to be realistic. As an editor, I have to say some of the editing transitions are top notch. The pacing became a bit too slow after awhile, but it picked up again, though I can't remember why. For such an ambitious film, Cloud Atlas definitely succeeds.

At 12/14/12 01:38 PM, TheMaster wrote: Also, Bilbo is a fucking quick author. Sits down to write his book on the day Lord of the Rings starts, which means he rattled the whole thing off in that afternoon before leaving the Shire in the evening.

And in perfect handwriting too!

At 12/14/12 04:42 PM, SG3 wrote: One thing that really pleased me was the inclusion of the necromancer sub-plot. I re-read the book over summer and the thing that struck me most was how casually it was brought up at the end. Naturally, I hoped it would get some expansion in the films and I wasn't disappointed.

Oh I completely forgot about that. I thought the Necromancer was something from The Silmarillion that they included in this film.

I can't say it levelled or exceeded the greatness of the original trilogy, but I didn't expect it to. The story just isn't as expansive and, fun as it is, there's no way it could rival the scale of LOTR.

Not sure yet, but I might like the Hobbit better. It's not as epic as the Lord of the Ring of course, but I thought the book was more fun.

At 12/14/12 06:29 PM, TheMaster wrote: Is HFR the standard for The Hobbit screenings, then? My local cinema is mostly showing it in 2D 24fps, which I saw it in, with a couple of 3D screenings scattered around, also in 24fps. No HFR at all.

I don't know if it's standard. My cinema offered a regular 2D version, 3D + HFR, 3D and IMAX.

At 12/17/12 03:06 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: So I saw Cloud Atlas. I wasn't blown away, but I think it's very good. It's emotionally engaging, unpredictable, visually interesting, and well-acted, though I had some trouble understanding the dialogue in the post-apocalyptic story.

I liked that they actually paid some attention to the fact that language changes too through the ages. I had no trouble at all understanding the dialogues, but I had subtitles to help me. I was wondering whether those parts would be subtitled in English speaking countries as well. I guess not.

My favourite story is probably the Neo Seoul one, which has particularly fascinating visuals.

That was my favourite story too. I thought the floating motorbike chase scene looked awesome.

The makeup isn't very realistic when actors play different races and genders, like Jim Sturgess as Hae-Joo Chang, but it's still decent. Maybe it's not suppose to be realistic. As an editor, I have to say some of the editing transitions are top notch. The pacing became a bit too slow after awhile, but it picked up again, though I can't remember why. For such an ambitious film, Cloud Atlas definitely succeeds.

I'm glad you liked it too.

At 12/17/12 03:27 PM, Auz wrote:

At 12/17/12 03:06 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: So I saw Cloud Atlas. I wasn't blown away, but I think it's very good. It's emotionally engaging, unpredictable, visually interesting, and well-acted, though I had some trouble understanding the dialogue in the post-apocalyptic story.

I liked that they actually paid some attention to the fact that language changes too through the ages. I had no trouble at all understanding the dialogues, but I had subtitles to help me. I was wondering whether those parts would be subtitled in English speaking countries as well. I guess not.

The English dialogue, which takes up most of the film, wasn't subtitled in the theatre I was at. It's probably the same for other theatres in Canada and the US.

I've been watching a lot of movies recently compared to the past few months. I saw The Road, Dear Zachary, The Prestige (again), The Perks of Being a Wallflower, The Imposter, Reservoir Dogs, A Thousand Words, American History X, Jackie Brown, Indie Game: The Movie, The Mist, Craigslist Joe, and The Lookout (again).

I started using Letterboxd again and rated all these.

My anticipation for Django Unchained is unrivalled. I cannot wait for this movie. I plan on going out to see it on Christmas when it releases, but I'm not sure if the local cinema is open then, so I'll be there the next day if it's closed.

I went to the cinema to see Wreck-It-Ralph today.

I think the plot is a bit run-off-the-mill in terms of the themes, but I just loved to see all the video game references and also how the makers created "the video game world". I got a few good laughs here and there as well. For example, I thought it was hilarious how that FPS babe cracks out all these cheesy one-liners and how Fix-It-Felix is this stereotypical goody two-shoes guy.

But most of all, I'm just happy to see another film that hooks into video game culture. I hope we'll see another one like Wreck-It-Ralph and Scott Pilgrim in the future.

At 12/22/12 12:15 PM, Auz wrote: I went to the cinema to see Wreck-It-Ralph today.

Did you notice the spray paint tags?

At 12/22/12 12:15 PM, Auz wrote: I went to the cinema to see Wreck-It-Ralph today.

I think the plot is a bit run-off-the-mill in terms of the themes, but I just loved to see all the video game references and also how the makers created "the video game world". I got a few good laughs here and there as well. For example, I thought it was hilarious how that FPS babe cracks out all these cheesy one-liners and how Fix-It-Felix is this stereotypical goody two-shoes guy.

I thought the movie was very well acted as well, it has been a while since I have seen voices that fit the character so perfectly. This move could also pull on your heart strings more than I expected and when *spoiler* Ralph has to destroy the race kart that he made for Penelope it was pretty freaking sad. They said that they are going to make a sequel which focuses more on console gaming and MMOs. This pleases me.

I saw Dredd yesterday. I've got to say, visually, it's got to be one of the most fantastic films of the year. The production design, effects and cinematography I found seriously mind-blowing. It's great to see an action movie not using gritty, muted filters to give a grey tone to the picture for a change. The over-saturated colour schemes just add to the hyper-realistic quality of the film.

While the story and screenplay weren't particularly impressive, it never felt mistranslated from the comics, which is a problem I've often heard raised about the '90s Stallone movie. I haven't read much 2000 AD, and most of what I have read isn't Judge Dredd, but it captured the tone perfectly. The dystopian setting was also expertly realised by the great set-design.

Overall, I highly recommend it, if only for its incredible visuals.

At 12/22/12 07:33 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 12/22/12 12:15 PM, Auz wrote: I went to the cinema to see Wreck-It-Ralph today.

Did you notice the spray paint tags?

Yeah, I was actually looking at them because I was sure there were going to be a bunch of references in there. However, I didn't recognize many of them.

I'm not that familiar with arcade games though so that might explain.

At 12/22/12 11:46 PM, Cootie wrote:

At 12/22/12 12:15 PM, Auz wrote: I went to the cinema to see Wreck-It-Ralph today.

I think the plot is a bit run-off-the-mill in terms of the themes, but I just loved to see all the video game references and also how the makers created "the video game world". I got a few good laughs here and there as well. For example, I thought it was hilarious how that FPS babe cracks out all these cheesy one-liners and how Fix-It-Felix is this stereotypical goody two-shoes guy.

I thought the movie was very well acted as well, it has been a while since I have seen voices that fit the character so perfectly.

Yeah, I agree. I liked Sarah Silverman the most.

This move could also pull on your heart strings more than I expected and when *spoiler* Ralph has to destroy the race kart that he made for Penelope it was pretty freaking sad.

Indeed, that scene was pretty sad. I thought there was going to be some interruption and Ralph wouldn't do it in the end, but then I was a bit surprised that he did wreck the cart.

They said that they are going to make a sequel which focuses more on console gaming and MMOs. This pleases me.

Great!

At 12/23/12 09:43 AM, SG3 wrote: Overall, I highly recommend it, if only for its incredible visuals.

The visuals are nice, but I also think it's thrilling, well-acted, and emotional. I love how the score was, in a way, inspired by Justin Bieber.

It's Django Unchained Day and it also happens to be cheap night at the theatre.

got two movies for Christmas, which were the anime, Armitage: Dual Matrix, and Mandrill, the latest film starring Marko Zaror (Undisputed 3, Mirage Man).

At 12/25/12 01:45 AM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 12/23/12 09:43 AM, SG3 wrote: Overall, I highly recommend it, if only for its incredible visuals.

The visuals are nice, but I also think it's thrilling, well-acted, and emotional. I love how the score was, in a way, inspired by Justin Bieber.

That's hilarious!

Django Unchained is going down as one of the greatest films ever made. Man, that is the best I've seen in a while and my new favourite Tarantino film. So damn good, do yourselves a favour and see it.

Watched The Passion of Joan of Arc this morning. Never thought over 90 minutes of silence, without even a score, consisting mostly of close ups of a woman's face could be so utterly compelling. Falconetti is impossibly good.

Going to rewatch it with one of the two optional soundtracks on the Blu-ray soon. Wanted to watch it in it's purest form first.

Also watched Cronenberg's version of The Fly, Citizen Kane and rewatched The Princess Bride today. All also good.

At 12/26/12 05:56 PM, Makeshift wrote: Django Unchained is going down as one of the greatest films ever made. Man, that is the best I've seen in a while and my new favourite Tarantino film. So damn good, do yourselves a favour and see it.

Better than Inglorious Basterds? Well, this may indeed be worth a look. I just got a shit load of money for Christmas, so I will probably go see it then.

At 12/26/12 11:55 PM, Cootie wrote:

At 12/26/12 05:56 PM, Makeshift wrote: Django Unchained is going down as one of the greatest films ever made. Man, that is the best I've seen in a while and my new favourite Tarantino film. So damn good, do yourselves a favour and see it.

Better than Inglorious Basterds? Well, this may indeed be worth a look. I just got a shit load of money for Christmas, so I will probably go see it then.

Inglourious Basterds was my favourite Tarantino film before this, but yes, I'm almost positive I prefer Django Unchained. Maybe I need to watch both films again back to back. I've watched Basterds at least 6 times and I've only had the one experience with Django, which was actually pretty horrible considering I was stuck in a separated section directly in front of the huge screen. I had to look straight up and I couldn't see much of anything. A certain explosion near the end was so loud I could feel it on my legs. I've never had such a bad seat at a theatre, but for some reason it was packed on Christmas and there was no way I was going back home or waiting 3 hours for this.

It was worth it.