RE: Fairly decent family film (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


The Shadows -> RE: Fairly decent family film (25/10/2011 1:23:53 PM)

I really enjoyed it.

Edited - Link removed.




NinjaShortbread212 -> RE: Fairly decent family film (25/10/2011 5:31:05 PM)

Really, really loved this. I sat in awe at the quality of the CGI and would very happily go back and see it again... Soon!
[:)]




dolfinack -> RE: Fairly decent family film (25/10/2011 11:39:31 PM)

Pretty top notch effects apart from Tin Tin's face unfortunately. The scenes were pretty zippy, although some were way too long to hold the attention of a child or fidgety adult. The whole thing - camera angles, action, haphazard bouncing about and slapstick comedy - was just a big nod to (or copy of) the Spielberg direction of the Indy films. I personally think thats a good thing but it did kind of distract me all the way through.




Herr Schnitzel -> RE: Fairly decent family film (25/10/2011 11:55:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dolfinack

Pretty top notch effects apart from Tin Tin's face unfortunately.


I thought he was the only character that worked in terms of design and animation.




Deviation -> RE: Fairly decent family film (27/10/2011 1:44:29 AM)

Well aside from Tintin's intentionally bland character, I loved this. It was fun and silly and I was never bored watching it. Also, a certain chase is up there with Spielberg's greatest moments.




skeletonjack -> RE: horrific writing (27/10/2011 10:58:33 AM)

I saw this in IMAX 3-D.
Tintin is a technical marvel. The gorgeous visuals combined with supremely directed action setpieces (the one shot motorbike chase is a joy to behold) cannot be argued with.
The problem however is that the film has no heart, no emotion, and as a result you get a series of (beautiful) images that you simply don't care about.
The comparisons to Raiders are way off. We CARED about Indy and Marion, were menaced by the the bad guys, not so in Tintin.
A great shame because with a bit more work in the script stage Tintin could have genuinely up there with Spielbergs finest adventures. As it is, it's merely a visually spectacular disappointment.
3 stars.




Deviation -> RE: horrific writing (27/10/2011 11:40:39 AM)

That's cause Tintin is totally different from Indy though. he's meant to be rather neutral and the important things are who and what is around him.




skeletonjack -> RE: horrific writing (27/10/2011 12:35:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

That's cause Tintin is totally different from Indy though. he's meant to be rather neutral and the important things are who and what is around him.



Who were also rather unengaging, unless childish slapstick is your thing?
I'm not the one who has been comparing this to Indy BTW, I am stating why those who compare the films are wrong to do so.




Deviation -> RE: horrific writing (27/10/2011 12:39:42 PM)

Well childish slapstick is part of Tintin from what I remember from the toons and they were never that many or too distracting to take away from the overall pleasure of the film (imo obviously)

Also, you were still comparing them. Negatively or positively, it's still a comparison and a comparison which makes sense considering the fun, innocent nature of the film. Actually Raiders wasn't that innocent...




skeletonjack -> RE: horrific writing (27/10/2011 1:46:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Well childish slapstick is part of Tintin from what I remember from the toons and they were never that many or too distracting to take away from the overall pleasure of the film (imo obviously)

Also, you were still comparing them. Negatively or positively, it's still a comparison and a comparison which makes sense considering the fun, innocent nature of the film. Actually Raiders wasn't that innocent...



I've never seen a cartoon or read the stories, just going off what I saw yesterday. If that's the case, eg childish slapstick is part of it then it succeeeds, and I have no doubts that kids will love it. For me personally though, a little bit of character and emotion goes a long way. Tonally it seemed all over, one second you have people being shot/ whacked over the head with bottles, then the next you wallets on rubber bands slapping people in foreheads. The switch didn't work for me, and I've far rather done away with the silliness and concentrated on the adventure.
I made the comparison between Indy and Tintin because it seems every review I've read likened the two films. I don't agree as Indy has a massive emotional heartbeat running all of the way through it, something Tintin is glaringly missing, and this is what I was pointing out.




The Shadows -> RE: The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (27/10/2011 2:14:48 PM)

Make Believe

I don't think I have gone into a Blockbuster movie with as much good will towards the characters or the fictionanal universe being portrayed since I went to see J J Abrams' Star Trek reeboot in 2009, nostalgia stemming from a clear childhood recollection of the reruns of the 1960s TV series that used to be broadcast on BBC2 on a Friday night. My affection for Tintin, on the other hand, is derived from a more hazy childhood memory of the cartoon series that used to be broadcast on Channel Four, very early on Saturday mornings. In my, possibly inaccurate rememberences, the 1990s cartoon series about the bequiffed Belgian boy reporter and his dog called Snowy was a perfect mix of styles and tones, with just enough adventure to keep things exciting, just enough humour to keep things light, just enough mystery to draw you further into the narrative and just enough threat to keep the action exciting. It was perfectly pictched.

In my particular case, however, I probably have more of an affinity for the earlier films of Steven Spielberg. Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade was the first film I ever fell head over heels in love with, prompting my five year old self to hang off of the end of our sofa as if I were Indy, about to be thrown from the grill of a rapidly swerving truck. Films produced by Steven Spielberg, such as the Back to the Future series and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, also played an important part in forming my boyhood imagination. These films, which I still love, share the tone of playful seriousness I remember from the Tintin cartoon serial - 'we are not taking ourselves so seriously that we cannot laugh at our ourselves and our peculiar predicament, but, ultimately, the quest upon which we have embarked is important and the outcome matters, good should triumph over evil'.

So it was with hope that I noted Spielberg would helm a new Tintin project. But with some trepidation also. Isn't Tintin a bit of a retrograde step for a director who has made important films about heavyweight subject matter such as World War Two and the Holocaust? Shouldn't an artist of his stature and talent be working on films that are less to do with escapism and more to do with overcoming the inequities of a cruel and lonely universe?

Moreover, I was worried about whether or not a major Hollywood studio, or Spielberg himself, for that matter, would have sensitivity enough to faithfully recreate the old fashioned, romping, and distinctly Euopean sensibility of the orginal source material, on the silver screen. The early trailers were not particularly promising, I thought. But then I saw the latest American trailer and decided I would be going to watch the film on its opening day.

I need not have worried. Spielberg won over my inner cynic in moments and, I am happy to report, his first foray into animation is an undiluted pleasure. From opening titles to closing credits, I was captivated by The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn, a sugary, caffeinated concotion, with sweet-waffles on the side, which leaves you hungry for more.

Few directors understand how to manipulate cinematic space as well as Steven Spielberg. The film is a masterclass in action movie directing and how to tell a story with a camera. Spielberg's use of 3D is excellent, his natural tendency to make use of both foreground and background suiting the medium perfectly. Almost every shot has multiple threads running through it, whether it is a visual gag, an easter egg or an important story point.

Furthemore, the freedom enabled by the digital animation and motion capture process means Spielberg's camera has never been more mobile. Panning around foggy Parisian streets, taking in perfect Lawrence of Arabia-inspired vistas, and rushing around bustling Morrocan souqs and market stalls, showing us sights we could never experience in any other way. No one else directs action with the same sense of kinetic energy without disrupting the viewer's sense of geography or geometry. It is a joy to behold Spielberg indulging in such unashamed showmanship, streching his legs, running out of breath, tripping over himself, as he rushes headlong at the boundary of his own talent. There is more visual ingenuity in Tintin than many a jobbing director manages in their entire career.

For a long stretch in the middle of the film I was thrilled by the spectacle, gripped by the peril and laughing at the slapstick, all at the same time. Tintin is inquisitive and full of daring-do, but by no means is he a conventional hero - how many American action films will you watch this year in which the hero announces with gusto, 'I know exactly the place I can find out!' before the film cuts to a scene in a library? Haddock is a gutsy trier who keeps getting it wrong and is full of pathos - surprisingly the film never shys away from the fact that he is a drunkard. Daniel Craig clearly relishes the chance to play a baddie, replete with villainous falcon sidekick. And Pegg and Frost are great fun as the identical English nincompoops, Thompson and Thompson, who, when they are not bickering like a pair of Star Wars robots, are falling over, while still managing to come out on top.

I am curious to know what my fellow Europeans will make of the film, and more especially what any Belgians will make of the film. There is a very strong British contingent, both in the film's cast - Jamie Bell as Tintin, Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock, Daniel Craig as Saccharine, Toby Jones as Aristides Silk, and Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as the Thompson Twins - and behind the scenes - the film was co-written by Steven Moffat (Dr Who), Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block). Has the character and the style of the story been overly Angelcised? It is very hard for me to judge.

The one criticism I have is that John Williams does not give us a recognisable theme to walk out whistling. But that is a minor gripe. For pure spectable and popcorn-munching entertainment - the kind that only Hollywood makes - Tintin beats all comers. Bring on the next one!




tysmuse -> not great (29/10/2011 5:25:19 PM)

Quite fun first hour gives way to a relentlessly boring second. From the moment the Haddock 'family' flashback begins, it's all rubbish. Daft set-pieces and lame writing. Looks gorgeous though, but that is slightly ruined by 3D.




GCH -> RE: The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (29/10/2011 7:49:22 PM)

I watched this in 2D as I'm far too meam to pay the extra for 3D. There are several shots that look as if they are specially made to look good in 3D, but therefore look a bit weird in 2D.
Basically its a kid's film (check out the trailers), though not pre-school kids as were at the screening I went to. The mood is not helped when they start to cry because its dark or there are bangs. The characters lacked something so that the plot and action sequences have to keep the interest, and they are well up to SS's usual standard.
I have a 'cramp in the bum' test that tells me if I'm enjoying a film (Troll hunter was a pain after about 30 mins) and this just about made it through even though its quite long. Can't say I'm desperate for the sequel though.
On balance I should have gone to see Contagion




spilsburt -> Dump the 3D and remake in live action (29/10/2011 8:53:18 PM)

Wanted to love this film, it has echoes of Spielberg and raiders, but I am afraid it doesn't hit the mark for three reasons:
1) 3D simply ruins the quality of the picture to the point of distraction, it far too dull!
2) The script is very weak; taking 20 minutes too long to get going and then fizzles out.
3) The film would have been much better in live action, especially the set pieces





Ciaran McDaid -> (29/10/2011 10:40:33 PM)

Tat film was UNREAL MUST SEE!!!!




spilsburt -> RE: horrific writing (29/10/2011 11:21:24 PM)

Live action would have made us care




demoncleaner -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 12:06:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tysmuse

Quite fun first hour gives way to a relentlessly boring second. From the moment the Haddock 'family' flashback begins, it's all rubbish. Daft set-pieces and lame writing. Looks gorgeous though, but that is slightly ruined by 3D.


quote:

I watched this in 2D as I'm far too meam to pay the extra for 3D. There are several shots that look as if they are specially made to look good in 3D, but therefore look a bit weird in 2D.
Basically its a kid's film (check out the trailers), though not pre-school kids as were at the screening I went to. The mood is not helped when they start to cry because its dark or there are bangs. The characters lacked something so that the plot and action sequences have to keep the interest, and they are well up to SS's usual standard.
I have a 'cramp in the bum' test that tells me if I'm enjoying a film (Troll hunter was a pain after about 30 mins) and this just about made it through even though its quite long. Can't say I'm desperate for the sequel though.
On balance I should have gone to see Contagion


quote:

Wanted to love this film, it has echoes of Spielberg and raiders, but I am afraid it doesn't hit the mark for three reasons:
1) 3D simply ruins the quality of the picture to the point of distraction, it far too dull!
2) The script is very weak; taking 20 minutes too long to get going and then fizzles out.
3) The film would have been much better in live action, especially the set pieces


quote:

Live action would have made us care


An impressive succession of fatuousness here...can we get all you ill-thought, reasonless cunts together in some kind of Russian Roullette Royal Rumble where there doesn't necessarily have to be a winner?   




demoncleaner -> RE: The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (30/10/2011 12:09:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Shadows

Make Believe

I don't think I have gone into a Blockbuster movie with as much good will towards the characters or the fictionanal universe being portrayed since I went to see J J Abrams' Star Trek reeboot in 2009, nostalgia stemming from a clear childhood recollection of the reruns of the 1960s TV series that used to be broadcast on BBC2 on a Friday night. My affection for Tintin, on the other hand, is derived from a more hazy childhood memory of the cartoon series that used to be broadcast on Channel Four, very early on Saturday mornings. In my, possibly inaccurate rememberences, the 1990s cartoon series about the bequiffed Belgian boy reporter and his dog called Snowy was a perfect mix of styles and tones, with just enough adventure to keep things exciting, just enough humour to keep things light, just enough mystery to draw you further into the narrative and just enough threat to keep the action exciting. It was perfectly pictched.

In my particular case, however, I probably have more of an affinity for the earlier films of Steven Spielberg. Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade was the first film I ever fell head over heels in love with, prompting my five year old self to hang off of the end of our sofa as if I were Indy, about to be thrown from the grill of a rapidly swerving truck. Films produced by Steven Spielberg, such as the Back to the Future series and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, also played an important part in forming my boyhood imagination. These films, which I still love, share the tone of playful seriousness I remember from the Tintin cartoon serial - 'we are not taking ourselves so seriously that we cannot laugh at our ourselves and our peculiar predicament, but, ultimately, the quest upon which we have embarked is important and the outcome matters, good should triumph over evil'.

So it was with hope that I noted Spielberg would helm a new Tintin project. But with some trepidation also. Isn't Tintin a bit of a retrograde step for a director who has made important films about heavyweight subject matter such as World War Two and the Holocaust? Shouldn't an artist of his stature and talent be working on films that are less to do with escapism and more to do with overcoming the inequities of a cruel and lonely universe?

Moreover, I was worried about whether or not a major Hollywood studio, or Spielberg himself, for that matter, would have sensitivity enough to faithfully recreate the old fashioned, romping, and distinctly Euopean sensibility of the orginal source material, on the silver screen. The early trailers were not particularly promising, I thought. But then I saw the latest American trailer and decided I would be going to watch the film on its opening day.

I need not have worried. Spielberg won over my inner cynic in moments and, I am happy to report, his first foray into animation is an undiluted pleasure. From opening titles to closing credits, I was captivated by The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn, a sugary, caffeinated concotion, with sweet-waffles on the side, which leaves you hungry for more.

Few directors understand how to manipulate cinematic space as well as Steven Spielberg. The film is a masterclass in action movie directing and how to tell a story with a camera. Spielberg's use of 3D is excellent, his natural tendency to make use of both foreground and background suiting the medium perfectly. Almost every shot has multiple threads running through it, whether it is a visual gag, an easter egg or an important story point.

Furthemore, the freedom enabled by the digital animation and motion capture process means Spielberg's camera has never been more mobile. Panning around foggy Parisian streets, taking in perfect Lawrence of Arabia-inspired vistas, and rushing around bustling Morrocan souqs and market stalls, showing us sights we could never experience in any other way. No one else directs action with the same sense of kinetic energy without disrupting the viewer's sense of geography or geometry. It is a joy to behold Spielberg indulging in such unashamed showmanship, streching his legs, running out of breath, tripping over himself, as he rushes headlong at the boundary of his own talent. There is more visual ingenuity in Tintin than many a jobbing director manages in their entire career.

For a long stretch in the middle of the film I was thrilled by the spectacle, gripped by the peril and laughing at the slapstick, all at the same time. Tintin is inquisitive and full of daring-do, but by no means is he a conventional hero - how many American action films will you watch this year in which the hero announces with gusto, 'I know exactly the place I can find out!' before the film cuts to a scene in a library? Haddock is a gutsy trier who keeps getting it wrong and is full of pathos - surprisingly the film never shys away from the fact that he is a drunkard. Daniel Craig clearly relishes the chance to play a baddie, replete with villainous falcon sidekick. And Pegg and Frost are great fun as the identical English nincompoops, Thompson and Thompson, who, when they are not bickering like a pair of Star Wars robots, are falling over, while still managing to come out on top.

I am curious to know what my fellow Europeans will make of the film, and more especially what any Belgians will make of the film. There is a very strong British contingent, both in the film's cast - Jamie Bell as Tintin, Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock, Daniel Craig as Saccharine, Toby Jones as Aristides Silk, and Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as the Thompson Twins - and behind the scenes - the film was co-written by Steven Moffat (Dr Who), Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block). Has the character and the style of the story been overly Angelcised? It is very hard for me to judge.

The one criticism I have is that John Williams does not give us a recognisable theme to walk out whistling. But that is a minor gripe. For pure spectable and popcorn-munching entertainment - the kind that only Hollywood makes - Tintin beats all comers. Bring on the next one!



I'm starting to like you Shadows [sm=happy34.gif]




Spaldron -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 12:15:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

An impressive succession of fatuousness here...can we get all you ill-thought, reasonless cunts together in some kind of Russian Roullette Royal Rumble where there doesn't necessarily have to be a winner?   



Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean you have to call them all "reasonless cunts". Bit harsh and uncalled for.




demoncleaner -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 12:30:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

An impressive succession of fatuousness here...can we get all you ill-thought, reasonless cunts together in some kind of Russian Roullette Royal Rumble where there doesn't necessarily have to be a winner?   



Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean you have to call them all "reasonless cunts". Bit harsh and uncalled for.


"Bit harsh and uncalled for" was my absolute response to the rootless, inconsiderate and unconcerned bitching that came before, and to the untrained eye this might amount to a litany of negative "criticism".  This shallow thought-lessness might give people the wrong idea about the movie.   This quick-and-easy and ill-considered consensus proves that opinion is indeed cheap.  And if openly calling these "people" cunts stops the rot, even for a bit.... then...let's do that. 




demoncleaner -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 12:35:48 AM)


Thank you Adam[:D] 

O/T AdamBatman at the LFF... what did you think of Shame? Will Fassbender pip Oldman for the Oscar?  (As an Irish person I can honestly say I'm whole-heartedly on for Gary[:D]).




adambatman82 -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 2:00:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner


Thank you Adam[:D] 

O/T AdamBatman at the LFF... what did you think of Shame? Will Fassbender pip Oldman for the Oscar?  (As an Irish person I can honestly say I'm whole-heartedly on for Gary[:D]).


Fassbender is amazing in Shame, probably my favourite performance of 2011. He's also great in A Dangerous Method too, which is a tad more academy friendly! I fear that Shame will be overlooked due to its subject matter.




Deviation -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 1:26:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: tysmuse

Quite fun first hour gives way to a relentlessly boring second. From the moment the Haddock 'family' flashback begins, it's all rubbish. Daft set-pieces and lame writing. Looks gorgeous though, but that is slightly ruined by 3D.


quote:

I watched this in 2D as I'm far too meam to pay the extra for 3D. There are several shots that look as if they are specially made to look good in 3D, but therefore look a bit weird in 2D.
Basically its a kid's film (check out the trailers), though not pre-school kids as were at the screening I went to. The mood is not helped when they start to cry because its dark or there are bangs. The characters lacked something so that the plot and action sequences have to keep the interest, and they are well up to SS's usual standard.
I have a 'cramp in the bum' test that tells me if I'm enjoying a film (Troll hunter was a pain after about 30 mins) and this just about made it through even though its quite long. Can't say I'm desperate for the sequel though.
On balance I should have gone to see Contagion


quote:

Wanted to love this film, it has echoes of Spielberg and raiders, but I am afraid it doesn't hit the mark for three reasons:
1) 3D simply ruins the quality of the picture to the point of distraction, it far too dull!
2) The script is very weak; taking 20 minutes too long to get going and then fizzles out.
3) The film would have been much better in live action, especially the set pieces


quote:

Live action would have made us care


An impressive succession of fatuousness here...can we get all you ill-thought, reasonless cunts together in some kind of Russian Roullette Royal Rumble where there doesn't necessarily have to be a winner?   


While the rest of the comments are total rubbish, I do agree with the bolded part. It dimmed the wonderfully colored visuals and made the look of the thing look rather bland, dark and lifeless.




demoncleaner -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 1:33:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner


Thank you Adam[:D] 

O/T AdamBatman at the LFF... what did you think of Shame? Will Fassbender pip Oldman for the Oscar?  (As an Irish person I can honestly say I'm whole-heartedly on for Gary[:D]).


Fassbender is amazing in Shame, probably my favourite performance of 2011. He's also great in A Dangerous Method too, which is a tad more academy friendly! I fear that Shame will be overlooked due to its subject matter.


You're such a foooking show-off, dropping the fact that you've seen Method casually into the conversation, were you at Venice or what???[:D].....And is Method good?

I think it's Oldman's year [sm=51.gif].   They're fond of giving it to people with a sense of belated timeliness (if that isn't a contradiction)....the total plus is that Oldman totally deserves it and has discovered acting again, and gives a bit of a masterclass. If acting is naturalism he deserves it for his naturalism[:D].

To bring this back on topic....who do you think is in the running for best director? If it was up to me Almodovar, and if it was really up to me...Peter Mullan.   Tomas Alfredson should be in there I think and...to really bring this back on topic Spielberg....who brought the audience completely on side by choice identification of the  money-shots in the script and palpably rendered them with a great deal of love and expertise.  




Spaldron -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 1:45:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner


"Bit harsh and uncalled for" was my absolute response to the rootless, inconsiderate and unconcerned bitching that came before, and to the untrained eye this might amount to a litany of negative "criticism".  This shallow thought-lessness might give people the wrong idea about the movie.   This quick-and-easy and ill-considered consensus proves that opinion is indeed cheap.  And if openly calling these "people" cunts stops the rot, even for a bit.... then...let's do that. 


I'm not defending the above reviews (and I certainly don't agree with them) but I should point out for your benefit that a user has already been banned this year for calling another user a cunt, and the mods tend to disapprove of that word in particular.

If you really want to attack someone's stuck up opinion of Tintin then clicky.




demoncleaner -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 1:54:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: tysmuse

Quite fun first hour gives way to a relentlessly boring second. From the moment the Haddock 'family' flashback begins, it's all rubbish. Daft set-pieces and lame writing. Looks gorgeous though, but that is slightly ruined by 3D.


quote:

I watched this in 2D as I'm far too meam to pay the extra for 3D. There are several shots that look as if they are specially made to look good in 3D, but therefore look a bit weird in 2D.
Basically its a kid's film (check out the trailers), though not pre-school kids as were at the screening I went to. The mood is not helped when they start to cry because its dark or there are bangs. The characters lacked something so that the plot and action sequences have to keep the interest, and they are well up to SS's usual standard.
I have a 'cramp in the bum' test that tells me if I'm enjoying a film (Troll hunter was a pain after about 30 mins) and this just about made it through even though its quite long. Can't say I'm desperate for the sequel though.
On balance I should have gone to see Contagion


quote:

Wanted to love this film, it has echoes of Spielberg and raiders, but I am afraid it doesn't hit the mark for three reasons:
1) 3D simply ruins the quality of the picture to the point of distraction, it far too dull!
2) The script is very weak; taking 20 minutes too long to get going and then fizzles out.
3) The film would have been much better in live action, especially the set pieces


quote:

Live action would have made us care


An impressive succession of fatuousness here...can we get all you ill-thought, reasonless cunts together in some kind of Russian Roullette Royal Rumble where there doesn't necessarily have to be a winner?   


While the rest of the comments are total rubbish, I do agree with the bolded part. It dimmed the wonderfully colored visuals and made the look of the thing look rather bland, dark and lifeless.



You know, watching a film with glasses does draw a thin veil of colour-bleach over it.  And I blame 3-D for not being able to take in all of the action and the anarchic knock-on consequences of kinetic impact (I thought the film was really good in suggesting practical effects like the queasy see-saw of moving bunk-beds and conjoined twin ballet of two burning ships mid-squall) . But....do you know what? Not taking it all in the first time added to the want of seeing it again and again and again.  I'm cynical about 3-D (I know why this HAD to be done in 3-D) but I also know I'll jump on this in 2-D Blu-Ray when it comes out.  And watch it again and again and again.  For me, it's first and fore-most a great film....worries about what the medium did or didn't do for it can be completely ironed out when I get it home on disc.  3D's for the event.  DVD is for forever.




demoncleaner -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 2:00:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner


"Bit harsh and uncalled for" was my absolute response to the rootless, inconsiderate and unconcerned bitching that came before, and to the untrained eye this might amount to a litany of negative "criticism".  This shallow thought-lessness might give people the wrong idea about the movie.   This quick-and-easy and ill-considered consensus proves that opinion is indeed cheap.  And if openly calling these "people" cunts stops the rot, even for a bit.... then...let's do that. 


I'm not defending the above reviews (and I certainly don't agree with them) but I should point out for your benefit that a user has already been banned this year for calling another user a cunt, and the mods tend to disapprove of that word in particular.

If you really want to attack someone's stuck up opinion of Tintin then clicky.


No, I'm pretty confident I won't get banned for calling someone a cunt. 

The trick is...and maybe this could be for your benefit...to use it for the right people.[;)]




Herr Schnitzel -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 2:27:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
If you really want to attack someone's stuck up opinion of Tintin then clicky.



Finally a review of the worst film I've seen all year that I can agree with. Thanks ! I don't think it's stuck up, I genuinely believe that anybody who likes the Spielberg film doesn't actually get the Tintin comic books and what's really great about them.




Spaldron -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 2:39:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Herr Schnitzel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
If you really want to attack someone's stuck up opinion of Tintin then clicky.



Finally a review of the worst film I've seen all year that I can agree with. Thanks ! I don't think it's stuck up, I genuinely believe that anybody who likes the Spielberg film doesn't actually get the Tintin comic books and what's really great about them.


No its an incredibly pompous and pretentious non-review of a great film. Bollocks to the supposed intricacies of the comics and the sad rantings of Herge fanboys, the film is wonderful.




demoncleaner -> RE: not great (30/10/2011 2:47:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herr Schnitzel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
If you really want to attack someone's stuck up opinion of Tintin then clicky.



Finally a review of the worst film I've seen all year that I can agree with. Thanks ! I don't think it's stuck up, I genuinely believe that anybody who likes the Spielberg film doesn't actually get the Tintin comic books and what's really great about them.
 

I ignored you up board, but you really are purposefully going out of your way to be a contrary prick aren't you?  Edify me (as the actress said to the Bishop)....what's great about the comics?  I don't doubt they are but I want to see you think, articulate and formalise it for me....and while you're googling, cutting and pasting that response tell me where the glaring omissions are in the film?  I don't doubt there are glaring omissions (it was certainly bereft of blacked-up un-political correctness for instance....which might be sorely missed...by purists...like you). But yeah... don't be snide or shy...qualify your under-hand, snide, malingering little statement. 

Or Google, cut-and-paste. Just you know...hop to it.   




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1875