I don't think you could miss the tone and genre of a movie sequel more than Ghostbusters: Afterlife.
Tragedy of Macbeth was just ok for me, tones.
Didnt help that I had a hard time understanding most of it, so had to have subtitles on which... For whatever reason were sometimes not perfectly in sync, and a few times only gave you a split second to read them.
Looked great at times, but I just wasnt very engaged in anything happening. Big come down after watching Drive My Car.
Didnt help that I had a hard time understanding most of it, so had to have subtitles on which... For whatever reason were sometimes not perfectly in sync, and a few times only gave you a split second to read them.
Looked great at times, but I just wasnt very engaged in anything happening. Big come down after watching Drive My Car.
Started a rewatch of the LotR trilogy extended editions. 45 minutes into Fellowship and Sam and Frodo have only just left Bag End. I can see why they shortened that for the theatrical cut. Lots of nice incidental details about Hobbits and their culture, but it wasn't really necessary.
One scene I wish they left in the theatrical version is the journey of the Elves to the Grey Haven and subsequently to Valinor. It's such a sad scene and would have really hammered home early in the trilogy that we're witnessing a change in epoch.
One scene I wish they left in the theatrical version is the journey of the Elves to the Grey Haven and subsequently to Valinor. It's such a sad scene and would have really hammered home early in the trilogy that we're witnessing a change in epoch.
By Cleff Go To PostStarted a rewatch of the LotR trilogy extended editions. 45 minutes into Fellowship and Sam and Frodo have only just left Bag End. I can see why they shortened that for the theatrical cut. Lots of nice incidental details about Hobbits and their culture, but it wasn't really necessary.In the book, it takes them months
By FortuneFaded Go To PostIn the book, it takes them monthsYep.
Wasn't there also like a 10 year gap from when Frodo first inherited the Ring to his eventual departure to Rivendell? In the movie the span of time is like 5 weeks.
Edit: Google says 17 years.
Jackson says his favourite cuts of the films are the theatrical for reasons like that tbf.
EE's are for the fans.
Cool and good fans who don't stan for Bombadil.
EE's are for the fans.
Cool and good fans who don't stan for Bombadil.
By Hixx Go To PostJackson says his favourite cuts of the films are the theatrical for reasons like that tbf.Jackson's right. I read the books first so I enjoy the EE a bit more than the theatrical release. The added details are excellent. But they're simply too long for a sitting in the cinema. The theatrical versions gave enough detail that I didn't mind what they left out or changed.
EE's are for the fans.
Cool and good fans who don't stan for Bombadil.
FWIW I'm glad they didn't add in Bombadil to either version. He just raises more questions than could ever be answered.
I never read the books so the theatrical versions are perfect for me. I do like more of Middle-Earth in the Extended Editions, tho I'm not sure any of it was entirely necessary.
The 4K versions, while they have some amazing HDR effects, also have some awful DNR, making faces way too smooth :(
The 4K versions, while they have some amazing HDR effects, also have some awful DNR, making faces way too smooth :(
Scream was freaking great, enjoyable and surprisingly funny.
This might be the best Horror reboot I can remember in recent times.
It’s especially surprising since Halloween sucked last year
This might be the best Horror reboot I can remember in recent times.
It’s especially surprising since Halloween sucked last year
Watched Eternals yesterday. Shit movie but it honestly looked way better than ShangChi or Spiderman.
By DerZuhälter Go To PostWatched Eternals yesterday. Shit movie but it honestly looked way better than ShangChi or Spiderman.I don't think it looked better than Spiderman, but holy moly was the 3rd part of Shang Chi just plain ugly
As an English teacher and kinosseur, Macbeth should have done gangbusters for me. My favourite Shakespeare play? Adapted by a Coen? With Denzel and McDormand? With Bruno Delbonnel photography? Unfortunately I probably brought baggage to it given I know it inside out, because Coen makes too many choices that don’t align with my interpretation of the play.
Firstly, the good. It looks incredible, the sparse sound stages lending an unearthly look to both the interiors and exteriors, the chiaroscuro lighting perfectly capturing the Expressionist aesthetic (that clause is for you Yen xoxo). This is best presented in scenes with the witch(es), where asymmetrical angles are used and the starkness of white surroundings contrast with the clever motif of the witches as ravens. Kathryn Hunter is a deeply unsettling trio of weird sisters, and chief amongst the supporting actors is a superb turn by Alex Hassell as Ross, whose presence is much emphasised and given vastly more dramatic heft than Shakespeare ever explicitly stated. This is one of the strengths of Coen’s adaptation for me; taking overly familiar roles and finding new ways to explore them.
However, the fact that Coen gives so much weight to the actions of the witches and Ross in this adaptation detracts from what I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of the play: Macbeth’s character. He is not interesting if he is not responsible for his actions, if he does not acknowledge the role he plays in fulfilling his ambitions and therefore his complicity in evil acts. Coen’s script strips too much of his motivation away - not helped by a surprisingly lacklustre Washington performance, who mumbles his way throughout Shakespeare’s verse without the lyricism that should go with it, or the arrogance and pride that best accompanies the character. He only really comes to life in the final third of the play, but by then the damage is done; key soliloquies stripped in favour of less important scenes, secondary characters given more internalised motivation than the lead, who doesn’t show any of the naked ambition that defines the character.
A handsome, noble effort, but one that I think misunderstood the best qualities of the play.
Firstly, the good. It looks incredible, the sparse sound stages lending an unearthly look to both the interiors and exteriors, the chiaroscuro lighting perfectly capturing the Expressionist aesthetic (that clause is for you Yen xoxo). This is best presented in scenes with the witch(es), where asymmetrical angles are used and the starkness of white surroundings contrast with the clever motif of the witches as ravens. Kathryn Hunter is a deeply unsettling trio of weird sisters, and chief amongst the supporting actors is a superb turn by Alex Hassell as Ross, whose presence is much emphasised and given vastly more dramatic heft than Shakespeare ever explicitly stated. This is one of the strengths of Coen’s adaptation for me; taking overly familiar roles and finding new ways to explore them.
However, the fact that Coen gives so much weight to the actions of the witches and Ross in this adaptation detracts from what I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of the play: Macbeth’s character. He is not interesting if he is not responsible for his actions, if he does not acknowledge the role he plays in fulfilling his ambitions and therefore his complicity in evil acts. Coen’s script strips too much of his motivation away - not helped by a surprisingly lacklustre Washington performance, who mumbles his way throughout Shakespeare’s verse without the lyricism that should go with it, or the arrogance and pride that best accompanies the character. He only really comes to life in the final third of the play, but by then the damage is done; key soliloquies stripped in favour of less important scenes, secondary characters given more internalised motivation than the lead, who doesn’t show any of the naked ambition that defines the character.
A handsome, noble effort, but one that I think misunderstood the best qualities of the play.
Is this the equivalent of history majors not liking the Gladiator because it's not historically accurate? Fucking dweeb
Probably lol. Didn’t think it understood Macbeth’s character well enough, quite simply. I’m not interested in a Macbeth who doesn’t recognise he is to blame rather than the witches, and I didn’t find Denzel’s interpretation interesting. Sorry guv
N8 rattled because I mocked the tactility of dune, rent free boys
Stopped reading after the mention of my name. glad you enjoyed the film 👍
Stopped reading after the mention of my name. glad you enjoyed the film 👍
By Daz Go To PostI believe the Shakespeare's verse is Iambic pentameter?
big words - smart lads
Typically, although it varies:
- by virtue of most of his characters being nobles and of high standing, they speak in iambic pentameter (mostly unrhymed, although rhyming couplets often end scenes and the rhyming is increased in comedies)
- typically, supernatural figures (e.g. the witches here or the fairies in A Midsummer Night’s Dream) speak in rhyming trochaic tetrameter (trochee is stressed then unstressed, the opposite of an iamb). The witches here also often speak in catalectic meter, meaning unfinished, which adds discordance.
- lower class characters (such as the Porter or murderers in Macbeth or the Mechanicals in AMND) speak in prose instead of verse to highlight their lack of verbosity and education
the worst person in the world is out there in 1080p now, lads. a very good film unlike this mcbath stuff
By LeonidDikapriovLung Go To Postthe worst person in the world is out there in 1080p now, lads. a very good film unlike this mcbath stuffName drop
I, for one, would like to thank n8 for his insightful review of the film adaptation that is Macbeth.
Eternals was incredibad.
Not sure I can be arsed to watch something with someone called MacDuff in it.
Not sure I can be arsed to watch something with someone called MacDuff in it.
FotR rewatch.
As if Viggo isn't a fucking smokeshow.
How do we know this Strider is even a friend of Gandalf?
I think a servant of the Enemy would look fairer, feel fouler.
As if Viggo isn't a fucking smokeshow.
None of the dark creatures or servants of Sauron look "fairer". The whole idea of this fiction is that they are fucking monsters outside and inside. Or minorities.
WB had the right idea when they made Shelob a hot babez after all.
WB had the right idea when they made Shelob a hot babez after all.
By Cleff Go To PostInko pls let me have my Viggo thirst post
By Cleff Go To PostInko pls let me have my Viggo thirst post
By Frustrated_me Go To PostOblivionCouldn't carry The Mummy (2017) though.
So bad that it's good? Tom Cruise can carry any film.
By Frustrated_me Go To PostOblivionI enjoyed it when it came out
So bad that it's good? Tom Cruise can carry any film.
By Lunatic Go To PostCouldn't carry The Mummy (2017) though.I Enjoyed that film too
Maybe I like Tom Cruise films even if they are panned critically
Cruise has a really good hit rate on decently entertaining movies.
Looking forward to Top Gun and any new MI movies.
Looking forward to Top Gun and any new MI movies.
By reilo Go To PostIs this the equivalent of history majors not liking the Gladiator because it's not historically accurate? Fucking dweebHappens when I see anything with Japanese history😂
if you don’t understand then you arent allowed to watch kino
the eternals was a movie
bad boys ii is kino
the eternals was a movie
bad boys ii is kino