Rate the last movie you saw

[theSTEREO.]

Just wanted to comment on HFR 3D and The Hobbit..

First, the Hobbit. The movie isn't for everyone. As someone who loves The Hobbit, the original book and the cartoon movie from the 80's, I have to say Peter Jackson did a phenomenal job on this movie. I was following along with everything that was happening and was very content with his rendition of the movie. He did not bastardize the story at all.. It's really great. The only negative is that it starts off dreadfully slow, unnecessarily so, I might add. There simply isn't any reason to spend over an hour to introduce the characters. I think what Jackson did was he used the measure and tempo from the originals and simply applied a coefficient of 3 to span it over a trilogy; or, in other words, there is a great deal of filler in the beginning of the movie. This passes though.

Overall, I give The Hobbit an 8/10. It would've been a 9 had the beginning not been so drawn out - and this is coming from someone who hates singing in movies (I did eventually appreciate it though, it's The Hobbit, they sing...)

Now, HFR and 3D. I must say, if you're going to see The Hobbit (I've seen both 3D and 2D); see it in HFR 3D. The movie simply comes to life with the 3D effects and HFR makes 3D immensely more watchable. I've noticed 3D movies are often dark, lacking focus, seeming constantly dull and without detail. HFR seems to alleviate almost all of those issues. 3D gives rise to the need for even greater resolution and detail, I will admit, and we probably have room for 120fps stereoscopic video sooner or later; but HFR is a great step in the right direction.

HFR does lose the "cinematic" look. There is nothing like watching movies in 24fps, but how often do any of us really do that? Is the 24fps look worth more than the immersive 3D effect? In most cases yes. But not for The Hobbit. The 3D is the best I've seen, and yes, better than Avatar. I say that because HFR makes the difference. It is bright, vivid, sharp, without judder, and doesn't result in the usual headache from extended viewing.

If you can see The Hobbit, see it in HFR 3D.

Thanks for your take.

I agree 100% on your take of the story itself. 8/10 is pretty fair, especially since I'd say the LOTR movies are 9's or 9.5's IMO, and I'd drop Hobbit to 8 for the exact same reasons you did. For fans of these movies, it really delivered other than the slow start.

For HFR, from a pure 3D and technological standpoint, you're right that it made the 3D 1000x more watchable, clear, and in-your-face. For me though, the drop off in cinematic feel is too much too move past. I felt 100% like I was watching a play. Fake sets, fake props, and it made the acting feel a little more plastic. There were scenes where I was blown away by the realism, but in the way that you tell your buddies how cool a theme park ride because it made you feel "right there", not because it made me believe the actors or the story any better.

I saw it again on Friday, this time in regular 3D, and I loved the movie itself SOOOO much more afterwards. Felt way more connected and less distracted.

I still think the Hobbit was the wrong movie to introduce this. The sets are too fantastical and over the top to break an audience in on this and I think it's gonna hurt the brand in the long run.

Gouri, whether you agree or not, I think you'd appreciate this Gizmodo article by Vincent Laforet. He's a fairly well respected film maker, and even more respected film tech reviewer. I thought it made a lot of really good points.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why 48 FPS Fails

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbi...y-48-fps-fails

And here is a pretty brutal collection of what film critics thought of HFR

[MikeOC33]

Saw "Green Lantern". Give it a 5/10. Cute, funny. Cute- as in Blake Lively, Funny- as in Ryan Reynolds.

Accepting the scenario as truth, it still had some odd plot holes. For example, the Parallax can eat planets and cruise the universe, but a couple of air-to-air missles mess it up and scare it off? And again, it cruises the univers, but can't escape gravity? And when Reynolds "quits", they still let him keep the ring? All-in-all, decent, but not great. Good enough to watch in the middle of the day when nothing else is on to watch.

[Jack Brickman]

Saw "Green Lantern". Give it a 5/10. Cute, funny. Cute- as in Blake Lively, Funny- as in Ryan Reynolds.

Accepting the scenario as truth, it still had some odd plot holes. For example, the Parallax can eat planets and cruise the universe, but a couple of air-to-air missles mess it up and scare it off? And again, it cruises the univers, but can't escape gravity? And when Reynolds "quits", they still let him keep the ring? All-in-all, decent, but not great. Good enough to watch in the middle of the day when nothing else is on to watch.

The main problem I had with Green Lantern (aside from the fact that it was overall kind of a shitty movie) was that they hyped up Parallax as some unstoppable big bad, then Ryan Reynolds beats him in like five minutes at the end of the movie.

[MikeOC33]

The main problem I had with Green Lantern (aside from the fact that it was overall kind of a shitty movie) was that they hyped up Parallax as some unstoppable big bad, then Ryan Reynolds beats him in like five minutes at the end of the movie.

Yeah, there was that too.

Just watched "Open Range" an older cowboy movie of Kevin Costners and Robert Duvalls. Solid western, probably pretty good on the big screen. More realistic than a typical John Wayne shoot-em-up if you are into that.

[Dave K]

I honestly dont understand how Robert Duvall got any work, ever. And the guy at the 7/11 right across from me is so identical to him I think its actually robert duvall.

[BMAN]

You dont like Robert Duvall?!

[Dave K]

nossir, no I dont

[Zombie dmhtfld]

Saw Django Unchained today. Tarantino's best movie since Pulp Fiction.

[MattyIce8]

I also watched Django today. Very good. Is anyone else freaking pumped for Gangster Squad though. I think it has the potential to be an outstanding movie. If anything, I can just stare at Emma Stone for a couple hours.

[cdt]

Christmas Vacation 10/10

I love this goddamn movie...

[boxxer]

Pitch Perfect 7/10 - Yeah, I'm a dork and like these kind of movies!

[Tlyons]

Pitch Perfect 7/10 - Yeah, I'm a dork and like these kind of movies!

There was enough hot ass to keep me watching. Not a bad flick though. Fat Amy is a fucking trip.

[gourimoko]

I'm done with Tarantino. I've always felt he had some type of obsession with Black people and Black culture, but in the most negatively imaginable way. I've seen every Tarantino film. The scene in Pulp Fiction where Tarantino plays the guy (of course with a Black wife) who uses the word "nigger" over, and over, again. "Dead nigger," this and "dead fucking nigger" that.

The entire scene is absurd...

Samuel L. Jackson's character is completely emasculated by Tarantino's, even though we see him as a cold blooded killer, and he is armed and accompanied. The scene is beyond belief. No Black man, a gangster with a gun mind you, would tolerate that... At the very least, it seems next to impossible to believe that Jackson's character, the character Tarantino masterfully constructs for the audience before this scene, would accept this. It's baloney, it's expositional, and it's sole purpose is to gratuitously expose the audience to racial vulgarity. It seems perverse, almost in the way that one might feel if one's friend were to show you his nonstandard porn collection in hopes of understanding and approval. Honestly I've always thought the scene was absurd, and I love Pulp Fiction.

Now, Tarantino decides to make an entire movie that is perverse in it's intent, it's message, and it's delivery. I understand when White people fill the audience to see Django Unchained because there simply is no emotional connection to slavery, Jim Crow, or anything whatsoever to do with the African-American struggle over 400 years of oppression. But to make a mockery of one of the worst holocausts in the history of man is beyond me.

Imagine if Tarantino made a comedy about Nazis and the Holocaust, and went out of his way to be vulgar and offensive. It wouldn't be shown... Period. Seriously, think about watching a 2-hour movie about the hilarity of the Holocaust. Think Hollywood would be okay with that? But because African-Americans have become so complacent, so docile, and so ignorant, they don't vehemently stand-up and defend themselves in the same way the ADL would had the subject matter been directed towards Jews and not Blacks.

I don't begrudge anyone who sees this movie.. Dude, trust me, I've deliberately watched "A Serbian Film," among others, so I've seen much worse. I'm just a little disgusted that our American holocaust, the genocide perpetrated against African slaves, is now the butt of a fucking joke. I blame African-Americans more than anyone. We let shit like Boondocks go on the air, so how on Earth can we be surprised a comedy comes out using the word "nigger" 100+ times.

p.s.
I know a lot of people get all bent out of shape when a Black guy starts talking about actually being Black in America and that it's not all fun and games. I know people tend to get hyper-defensive, etc.. But this thread is about movies, and I just thought I'd add my two cents... Fuck that movie.

[gourimoko]

Thanks for your take.

I agree 100% on your take of the story itself. 8/10 is pretty fair, especially since I'd say the LOTR movies are 9's or 9.5's IMO, and I'd drop Hobbit to 8 for the exact same reasons you did. For fans of these movies, it really delivered other than the slow start.

Yeah, the slow start was painful. I'm like, "come the fuck on!" But once they got into it, I was hooked..

For HFR, from a pure 3D and technological standpoint, you're right that it made the 3D 1000x more watchable, clear, and in-your-face.

For me, that's worth the ticket. It was marvelous, literally. I loved how bright, and vivid the scenes were without a loss of contrast or color depth. When I saw it in 2D, the film looked good, but I did miss the gamut of color that was evident in HFR.

For me though, the drop off in cinematic feel is too much too move past. I felt 100% like I was watching a play. Fake sets, fake props, and it made the acting feel a little more plastic. There were scenes where I was blown away by the realism, but in the way that you tell your buddies how cool a theme park ride because it made you feel "right there", not because it made me believe the actors or the story any better.

I think these are two different issues entirely. See, I love theater. I've watched plays, I've gone to operas, I absolutely love seeing live performances especially of classical pieces. And yes, I do agree, it seemed more real, even to the point where I can see why people might say it seems like watching a play - it does. But we've been watching 60fps 2D TV for years now on many LCD and LED sets that interpolate frames. I understand the people get that "soap opera" feeling, but honestly, I think they should try to get past it and appreciate the fact that the 3D is now enjoyable. To me, this is a progression that I wouldn't want to do without..

It's like watching an 1930's B&W movie vs being on the Holodeck.

I saw it again on Friday, this time in regular 3D, and I loved the movie itself SOOOO much more afterwards. Felt way more connected and less distracted.

But maybe you'd have been less distracted if you got used to the HFR. What if you saw the HFR movie twice? Maybe your brain wouldn't be so jumpy the second time and you could enjoy it more? It's probably something people just need to get used to seeing more.

I still think the Hobbit was the wrong movie to introduce this. The sets are too fantastical and over the top to break an audience in on this and I think it's gonna hurt the brand in the long run.

I honestly think The Hobbit was the perfect movie to introduce this. I absolutely loved the outdoor sets. Now, there were many scenes, especially when they were indoors or near large stone walls where you could obviously tell the foreground objects on the sets where made of paper-mache, and the backgrounds where entirely CGI. But I really didn't care. It was distracting, but you suspend belief. I watch 1960's Star Trek and love it.. You see Spock push in a fucking square yellow building block into a slot on a desk and that's him feeding a "tape" into "the computer." It's 2012, and I still love watching the show. I just watched the 1950's "The Thing." Point being, HFR is so new that it's distracting - I don't think it's a fault in the technology, just that people need to adjust.

Gouri, whether you agree or not, I think you'd appreciate this Gizmodo article by Vincent Laforet. He's a fairly well respected film maker, and even more respected film tech reviewer. I thought it made a lot of really good points.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Masterclass in Why 48 FPS Fails

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbi...y-48-fps-fails

And here is a pretty brutal collection of what film critics thought of HFR

I understand where he's coming from entirely. He can't adjust to the film media. Perhaps because he's a filmmaker, it's simply too distracting for him to view the movie in a format that he's unfamiliar with. I saw the movie with my chick, she's anything but a videophile. She absolutely loved the HFR 3D... She didn't care about frame rate or depth of field. I do care about those things, and at first it took me awhile to adjust. But once I accepted the look and feel of the movie, I found myself enjoying it immensely. To me, the film is almost unwatchable without HFR now that I've seen it in HFR.

I've been wondering if we'll be able to re-encode the movie into a media format that would support HFR, and how would one render it onto a 120hz 3D LED? Maybe an interpolated 5th frame?

[Richard Dawkins]

Imagine if Tarantino made a comedy about Nazis and the Holocaust, and went out of his way to be vulgar and offensive. It wouldn't be shown... Period. Seriously, think about watching a 2-hour movie about the hilarity of the Holocaust. Think Hollywood would be okay with that? But because African-Americans have become so complacent, so docile, and so ignorant, they don't vehemently stand-up and defend themselves in the same way the ADL would had the subject matter been directed towards Jews and not Blacks.

Is Django is more of a comedy than a civil-war era Inglorious Basterds?


​From the trailer it looked dramatic.