Starrfall on 13/1/2010 at 21:48
Quote Posted by OnionBob
im seriously not even joking about this.
movies of books are never as good as the books they come from though:mad:
june gloom on 13/1/2010 at 21:49
Blade Runner would like a word with you.
CCCToad on 13/1/2010 at 22:24
Quote Posted by Thirith
It isn't a critic's job to be democratic. It isn't a critic's job to be an average viewer. It's a critic's job to have an intelligent opinion and to express this opinion well
And in my opinion, many critics have an opinion which is anything but intelligent and/or fail to express it well in most cases.
Stitch on 13/1/2010 at 22:46
That is because you have terrible taste in everything.
Vivian on 13/1/2010 at 22:58
Blade runner doesn't really count - by his own admission, Ridley wasn't really trying to make a film of the book. Both film and book are awesome, but not that similar.
SubJeff on 13/1/2010 at 23:17
Yeah, Blade Runner is a weird one. I prefer the film, despite it only using some of the great material from the book. The rest is just the overall idea and its an excellent adaptation of the concept. There is something cold and just frikking unpleasant in the book though, especially the Rachel encounters. I wouldn't have wanted to see that on film, it was a bit :eww:
Also - Stitch speaking truth itt.
Pyrian on 14/1/2010 at 00:11
Quote Posted by Starrfall
movies of books are never as good as the books they come from though:mad:
Yup - they're always either better or worse. :joke:
APMeehan on 14/1/2010 at 02:24
Quote Posted by OnionBob
im seriously not even joking about this.
You don't need to keep pointing this out; it is a perfectly good film. One of my year's top ten, probs
ercles on 14/1/2010 at 12:37
Just to steer this back towards Avatar for a sec, two other thoughts that I only remembered whilst flying home and thinking about the movie.
As far as spectacle goes, I still think the Lord of the Rings had more of an impact on me personally on the big screen, but I think this may have been due to the fact that it was shot using actual locations. I guess LOTR went for more dramatic cinematography as well, that was what impressed me about Avatar: it didn't consist of a series of aggressively spectacular shots (the audience was saying WOW outloud every five seconds) there were some crazy sequences, but I was pleased that the movie wasn't just a rollercoaster with sweet graphics.
Vivian on 16/1/2010 at 23:44
So I've seen it, and it's not shit. It's far too long, goofy as fuck and only contains one genuinely kick arse moment (the bit where captail space jumps out of his zepplin in a robosuit and lands snarling while it explodes) in the midst of a hell of a lot of garbled teeth-grittery, exploding thangs and strangely impratical war machinery. Also has one majorly stupid plot hole (right, so they're about to bomb the great deku tree. As in, they're literally kicking the bomb out the door, when our boy chucks a bunch of nades through the window and sends not only the bomb but the ENTIRE PLANE, full of bombs, straight onto whatever they were about to bomb. Surely that's worse?). The 3D is nice, I guess. District 9 cost what, a tenth as much? Was an hour shorter, and did twice as good a job at making you give a shit. Basically, it's ok. Flabby but entertaining enough, not as good as any of the films it borrows from. I though king kong did the whole wow scenery thing with more style.
