So I watched a bunch of Wes Anderson stuff this week.
Life Aquatic: Had it's moments. The under water stop motion stuff was neat, Willem Dafoe was fun character, constantly on the verge of crying, but I never quite connected to Bill Murry's character and the story really meanders.
Rushmore: I really couldn't get in to this movie. The main character was a complete prick and again a bunch of meandering around not really doing anything, I had just a complete lack of connection to anything in this film.
Then I watched The Grand Budapest Hotel. Oh man, that broke the streak of sub par Anderson movies! Ralph Fiennes is amazing and hilarious, he really should do more comedies, and even though most of the characters are still the same Wes Anderson cut and paste jobs, they worked well with the quirky comedy and capers. It's definitely more like Fantastic Mr Fox then a lot of his other movies.
Can someone explain to me what's going on with Noah? I glance at it and see a throwaway big-budget spectacle flick with Russell Crowe and a giant boat that I can safely ignore, except then it's directed by Darren Fucking Aronofsky and now I don't know what to think.
It takes the Biblical story of the last family of good people in a world that has turned it's back on God (which it insists on referring to as "The Creator") and overlays a thick environmentalist theme on it. The Creator is sending the flood not just because mankind is sinful, but because civilization has already laid waste to most of creation.
Noah himself becomes convinced that mankind isn't meant to survive the flood at all; not even his family's descendants. Mankind's punishment is to be completely destroyed, and his family is only meant to save the rest of creation and die as the last of humanity. When the wife of one of his sons becomes pregnant (despite supposedly being barren) he vows to kill the child if it is born a girl.
So after seeing some of the reactions to Noah here and elsewhere on the web, I think I need to see it. Apparently it's pissing off a whole lot of Christians, so it's probably at least somewhat interesting.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Many of those pissed off Christians were preloading their negative reviews to their blogs before the first scene of the movie was filmed. I know this because of my Facebook friends. A couple in particular always make that effort to let everyone know they are waiting to see the movie before casting judgements. But before they have time to make it to their car after the movie they have posted links to several displeased Christian bloggers.
I saw Noah today, and found it to be thoroughly enjoyable. Word of warning though, it was a super-packed house and you're likely to be watching it with a lot of people who haven't been to the theater since The Passion of the Christ and therefore don't really know how to behave accordingly. Lots of loud question asking among various pockets of the audience, a couple "that's not how it happened" stage whispers. People gathered in the hallway afterward making it difficult to leave, and I overheard a handful of conversations that started with "If you look in your Bible..." while I made my way through the crowds. I can best compare it to the experience of seeing The Dark Knight Rises, but with a different brand of nerd.
It really is something worth seeing though. Beautifully shot, well-cast, mostly cool effects, and a handful of thought-provoking points are made. Best of all it makes a valiant effort to poke holes in the incredibly dangerous "everything on Earth was put here for our use" rhetoric.
I saw Noah today, and found it to be thoroughly enjoyable. Word of warning though, it was a super-packed house and you're likely to be watching it with a lot of people who haven't been to the theater since The Passion of the Christ and therefore don't really know how to behave accordingly. Lots of loud question asking among various pockets of the audience, a couple "that's not how it happened" stage whispers. People gathered in the hallway afterward making it difficult to leave, and I overheard a handful of conversations that started with "If you look in your Bible..." while I made my way through the crowds. I can best compare it to the experience of seeing The Dark Knight Rises, but with a different brand of nerd.
It really is something worth seeing though. Beautifully shot, well-cast, mostly cool effects, and a handful of thought-provoking points are made. Best of all it makes a valiant effort to poke holes in the incredibly dangerous "everything on Earth was put here for our use" rhetoric.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the whole story of Noah like only a few sentences long? How would they know?
Internet is out, so it's movie night. Popped in Commando for some old school hilarity, and holy shit I was not wrong.
Commando is quite simply the second best Arnold movie ever. Conan the Barbarian is first. But Commando. Deeply hilarious and such fun. Popcorn and dead guys.
I saw Noah today, and found it to be thoroughly enjoyable. Word of warning though, it was a super-packed house and you're likely to be watching it with a lot of people who haven't been to the theater since The Passion of the Christ and therefore don't really know how to behave accordingly. Lots of loud question asking among various pockets of the audience, a couple "that's not how it happened" stage whispers. People gathered in the hallway afterward making it difficult to leave, and I overheard a handful of conversations that started with "If you look in your Bible..." while I made my way through the crowds. I can best compare it to the experience of seeing The Dark Knight Rises, but with a different brand of nerd.
It really is something worth seeing though. Beautifully shot, well-cast, mostly cool effects, and a handful of thought-provoking points are made. Best of all it makes a valiant effort to poke holes in the incredibly dangerous "everything on Earth was put here for our use" rhetoric.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the whole story of Noah like only a few sentences long? How would they know?
The entire flood story is about 40 verses in the King James Bible.
The entire Noah story is about 100 verses. It starts when he's six hundred and ends with his death at the age of 950.
There's not a lot of detail there. Though it does spend about twenty verses talking in detail about Noah getting drunk and laying naked in front of his sons.
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
Noah is good, but not perfect. If you're going in expecting any amount of wacky animal caretaking adventures, you're going to be disappointed. The ending drags too much; Russle Crowe being this intense should not come in such large doses.
I saw Noah today, and found it to be thoroughly enjoyable. Word of warning though, it was a super-packed house and you're likely to be watching it with a lot of people who haven't been to the theater since The Passion of the Christ and therefore don't really know how to behave accordingly. Lots of loud question asking among various pockets of the audience, a couple "that's not how it happened" stage whispers. People gathered in the hallway afterward making it difficult to leave, and I overheard a handful of conversations that started with "If you look in your Bible..." while I made my way through the crowds. I can best compare it to the experience of seeing The Dark Knight Rises, but with a different brand of nerd.
It really is something worth seeing though. Beautifully shot, well-cast, mostly cool effects, and a handful of thought-provoking points are made. Best of all it makes a valiant effort to poke holes in the incredibly dangerous "everything on Earth was put here for our use" rhetoric.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the whole story of Noah like only a few sentences long? How would they know?
Like I said, it was like hearing people heatedly debate what the real Batman would or would not do. Except there's way more literature to back up a solid stance on Batman.
There's something so funny about people debating the merits of fiction based on other fiction that is about a 600+ year old man putting a pair of all the animals on earth on a boat because humans suck, and a flood is going to wreck the whole planet but then go away so they can rebuild.
There's something so funny about people debating the merits of fiction based on other fiction that is about a 600+ year old man putting a pair of all the animals on earth on a boat because humans suck, and a flood is going to wreck the whole planet but then go away so they can rebuild.
"The whole thing was ridiculous, everyone knows Angels are flying type, not Rock/Ground."
We finally saw the Veronica Mars movie yesterday. Good fun, a lot of great lines, but there were a few things I didn't particularly like:
1) The Ultraviolet version desperately needed subtitles, because setting several scenes in places that have loud music makes it quite difficult to follow witty banter unless it's delivered in the most crisp voice. I'm especially looking at you, Logan "Mumbles" Echolls.
2) I've never minded Piz, in fact I always quite liked him, but I was okay with his exit. I was less okay with the film's over-emphasis on Veronica/Logan. Of course their will-they-won't-they relationship is important to the characters, but it shouldn't be to the extent that...
3) ... other characters such as Wallace, Mac and especially Keith Mars are given short shrift. The relationship I care about most is the Veronica/Keith one, and her friendships. The film pretty much dumped them in favour of the 'shipping.
4) They still have one problem with the Veronica Mars character: they want to make her complex and ambiguous, but they like her too much to fully commit to her darker side. For all her voiceovers about addiction, the film desperately *wants* her to give in to Logan, Neptune and being pulled back in. So do I, to a large extent, but then don't spend several minutes of voiceover giving lip service to how this might actually not be such a good thing after all - and if you have the voiceovers then don't drop the ambivalence quite so easily. It feels like the film wants to have its cake and eat it, and it doesn't quite pull this off. (The AV Club has a flawed but interesting article that touches on this: http://www.avclub.com/article/veronica-mars-purgatory-how-we-keep-punishing-our--202354.)
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
There's something so funny about people debating the merits of fiction based on other fiction that is about a 600+ year old man putting a pair of all the animals on earth on a boat because humans suck, and a flood is going to wreck the whole planet but then go away so they can rebuild.
"The whole thing was ridiculous, everyone knows Angels are flying type, not Rock/Ground."
Angels don't have wings in their bible descriptions. The wings were added later by various painters(Renaissance era, roughly), and the image was popularized thusly.
always makes me laugh when they freak out about bible stories being accurate in movies, makes me wonder what the ancient greeks would think about hercules and xena. (she was totally made up brainonples! herc shoulda killed her out right!)
There's something so funny about people debating the merits of fiction based on other fiction that is about a 600+ year old man putting a pair of all the animals on earth on a boat because humans suck, and a flood is going to wreck the whole planet but then go away so they can rebuild.
"The whole thing was ridiculous, everyone knows Angels are flying type, not Rock/Ground."
Angels don't have wings in their bible descriptions. The wings were added later by various painters(Renaissance era, roughly), and the image was popularized thusly.
'twas a good joke, though!
Isaiah's description of the cherubim at God's throne does give them wings: a pair to cover their faces, a pair to cover their feet, and pair for flying through the earth as God commands. When angels appear to men they are not described as having wings, though. Also, they aren't described as being babies, so yes painters did a lot anyway to form modern ideas about angelic looks. Haha
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Plane films summary
Frozen: Probably the best of the bunch. I thought it was going somewhere interesting with the sister as the villain, but that kind of feel through. It's just no Aladdin.
Escape Plan: A heist film without the clever heist so they try to become an action film instead. It's not awful, but there's no need to watch it unless you're on a plane. Or trapped somewhere similar.
Elysium: The premise doesn't make any sense. Otherwise it's about as good as a heavy handed film about the stupid state of public healthcare in the states
Inside Llewyn Davis: Directionless and singing heavy but it's well done and I enjoyed the setting
Thor 2: Better than the first, but still pretty poor. They could merge all the human characters into one and save themselves some time to spend on what they want the story to be
Nebraska was on, but I said I'd watch that with my girlfriend. So hopefully that's on DVD soon.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
I saw Noah today, and found it to be thoroughly enjoyable. Word of warning though, it was a super-packed house and you're likely to be watching it with a lot of people who haven't been to the theater since The Passion of the Christ and therefore don't really know how to behave accordingly. Lots of loud question asking among various pockets of the audience, a couple "that's not how it happened" stage whispers. People gathered in the hallway afterward making it difficult to leave, and I overheard a handful of conversations that started with "If you look in your Bible..." while I made my way through the crowds. I can best compare it to the experience of seeing The Dark Knight Rises, but with a different brand of nerd.
It really is something worth seeing though. Beautifully shot, well-cast, mostly cool effects, and a handful of thought-provoking points are made. Best of all it makes a valiant effort to poke holes in the incredibly dangerous "everything on Earth was put here for our use" rhetoric.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the whole story of Noah like only a few sentences long? How would they know?
The entire flood story is about 40 verses in the King James Bible.
The entire Noah story is about 100 verses. It starts when he's six hundred and ends with his death at the age of 950.
There's not a lot of detail there. Though it does spend about twenty verses talking in detail about Noah getting drunk and laying naked in front of his sons.
It was originally 25 verses, but they had to cut it down to get a PG-13 rating.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Can I talk about the Hobbit movies here? Because I have watched the two out so far...and...Wtf with the CGI. I know it was used a lot in the LOTR movies but except for some obvious spots didn't feel as ridiculous or unneeded like it is used in the Hobbit. Why the fuck are most of the Orcs and Goblins mostly CGI now...
They aren't bad but Peter Jackson seems to have developed a case of the george lucas'. Like, it feels he is taking a great story and doing his best to shit it up. I wonder how it would have gone if Del Toro had continued on with it. Better I think.
We finally saw the Veronica Mars movie yesterday. Good fun, a lot of great lines, but there were a few things I didn't particularly like:
1) The Ultraviolet version desperately needed subtitles, because setting several scenes in places that have loud music makes it quite difficult to follow witty banter unless it's delivered in the most crisp voice. I'm especially looking at you, Logan "Mumbles" Echolls.
2) I've never minded Piz, in fact I always quite liked him, but I was okay with his exit. I was less okay with the film's over-emphasis on Veronica/Logan. Of course their will-they-won't-they relationship is important to the characters, but it shouldn't be to the extent that...
3) ... other characters such as Wallace, Mac and especially Keith Mars are given short shrift. The relationship I care about most is the Veronica/Keith one, and her friendships. The film pretty much dumped them in favour of the 'shipping.
4) They still have one problem with the Veronica Mars character: they want to make her complex and ambiguous, but they like her too much to fully commit to her darker side. For all her voiceovers about addiction, the film desperately *wants* her to give in to Logan, Neptune and being pulled back in. So do I, to a large extent, but then don't spend several minutes of voiceover giving lip service to how this might actually not be such a good thing after all - and if you have the voiceovers then don't drop the ambivalence quite so easily. It feels like the film wants to have its cake and eat it, and it doesn't quite pull this off. (The AV Club has a flawed but interesting article that touches on this: http://www.avclub.com/article/veronica-mars-purgatory-how-we-keep-punishing-our--202354.)
I think it strikes the right balance. Of course she and the audience want her to give in to her addiction. That's why it's an addiction. Cause it's addicting and compelling. They clearly give her alot to blow up when she decides to go back to Neptune and also emphasize the danger both to her health and to any future prospects when she does so.
I always wonder if this reaction is because some people, for some reason, don't like Piz. She basically throws Piz to the curb in a truly brutal way and just ignores it because she's gotta feed that habit.
Can I talk about the Hobbit movies here? Because I have watched the two out so far...and...Wtf with the CGI. I know it was used a lot in the LOTR movies but except for some obvious spots didn't feel as ridiculous or unneeded like it is used in the Hobbit. Why the fuck are most of the Orcs and Goblins mostly CGI now...
They aren't bad but Peter Jackson seems to have developed a case of the george lucas'. Like, it feels he is taking a great story and doing his best to shit it up. I wonder how it would have gone if Del Toro had continued on with it. Better I think.
CGI was used pretty extensively in all of the LOTR films. Other than the big fight at the end of Fellowship most of the orcs and goblins in the series are CGI. There are a few people in makeup for close-ups and then ten thousand cgi extras.
The Hobbit certainly has a more cartoony feel to it overall, but given that it's much more of a children's book than The Lord of the Rings is I'm inclined to let that slide. So far each series has strengths and weaknesses. I'll just say that I like all the characters more in the Lord of the Rings, but I feel like the world as a whole is more complete in The Hobbit. Fellowship Extended is still the best out of all five films though.
Can I talk about the Hobbit movies here? Because I have watched the two out so far...and...Wtf with the CGI. I know it was used a lot in the LOTR movies but except for some obvious spots didn't feel as ridiculous or unneeded like it is used in the Hobbit. Why the fuck are most of the Orcs and Goblins mostly CGI now...
They aren't bad but Peter Jackson seems to have developed a case of the george lucas'. Like, it feels he is taking a great story and doing his best to shit it up. I wonder how it would have gone if Del Toro had continued on with it. Better I think.
CGI was used pretty extensively in all of the LOTR films. Other than the big fight at the end of Fellowship most of the orcs and goblins in the series are CGI. There are a few people in makeup for close-ups and then ten thousand cgi extras.
The Hobbit certainly has a more cartoony feel to it overall, but given that it's much more of a children's book than The Lord of the Rings is I'm inclined to let that slide. So far each series has strengths and weaknesses. I'll just say that I like all the characters more in the Lord of the Rings, but I feel like the world as a whole is more complete in The Hobbit. Fellowship Extended is still the best out of all five films though.
The cartoony look is exactly the problem and it's largely caused by the overuse of CGI in The Hobbit compared to LOTR.
It's definitely leaning towards Lucas territory. The Hobbit films are giving in more and more to excess as they go on.
Can I talk about the Hobbit movies here? Because I have watched the two out so far...and...Wtf with the CGI. I know it was used a lot in the LOTR movies but except for some obvious spots didn't feel as ridiculous or unneeded like it is used in the Hobbit. Why the fuck are most of the Orcs and Goblins mostly CGI now...
They aren't bad but Peter Jackson seems to have developed a case of the george lucas'. Like, it feels he is taking a great story and doing his best to shit it up. I wonder how it would have gone if Del Toro had continued on with it. Better I think.
CGI was used pretty extensively in all of the LOTR films. Other than the big fight at the end of Fellowship most of the orcs and goblins in the series are CGI. There are a few people in makeup for close-ups and then ten thousand cgi extras.
The Hobbit certainly has a more cartoony feel to it overall, but given that it's much more of a children's book than The Lord of the Rings is I'm inclined to let that slide. So far each series has strengths and weaknesses. I'll just say that I like all the characters more in the Lord of the Rings, but I feel like the world as a whole is more complete in The Hobbit. Fellowship Extended is still the best out of all five films though.
The cartoony look is exactly the problem and it's largely caused by the overuse of CGI in The Hobbit compared to LOTR.
It's definitely leaning towards Lucas territory. The Hobbit films are giving in more and more to excess as they go on.
Frozen: Probably the best of the bunch. I thought it was going somewhere interesting with the sister as the villain, but that kind of feel through. It's just no Aladdin.
Escape Plan: A heist film without the clever heist so they try to become an action film instead. It's not awful, but there's no need to watch it unless you're on a plane. Or trapped somewhere similar.
Elysium: The premise doesn't make any sense. Otherwise it's about as good as a heavy handed film about the stupid state of public healthcare in the states
Inside Llewyn Davis: Directionless and singing heavy but it's well done and I enjoyed the setting
Thor 2: Better than the first, but still pretty poor. They could merge all the human characters into one and save themselves some time to spend on what they want the story to be
Nebraska was on, but I said I'd watch that with my girlfriend. So hopefully that's on DVD soon.
I have been wondering about that. Public healthcare is in there, but I really think Elysium is about Hispanic immigration to America. It kind of fits if you replace Matt Damon with a poor hispanic worker and Elysium with America.
OK Sabotage made over 5 million, not less than 2, over the weekend. Still a failure sadly. I think Arnold should just go ahead and make that last Conan film before it's too late.
Huh, checking the box office of Arnold's films since coming back to acting he hasn't done too bad at least compared to the budgets he's worked with. The Last Stand and Escape Plan made decent bank.
Can I talk about the Hobbit movies here? Because I have watched the two out so far...and...Wtf with the CGI. I know it was used a lot in the LOTR movies but except for some obvious spots didn't feel as ridiculous or unneeded like it is used in the Hobbit. Why the fuck are most of the Orcs and Goblins mostly CGI now...
They aren't bad but Peter Jackson seems to have developed a case of the george lucas'. Like, it feels he is taking a great story and doing his best to shit it up. I wonder how it would have gone if Del Toro had continued on with it. Better I think.
CGI was used pretty extensively in all of the LOTR films. Other than the big fight at the end of Fellowship most of the orcs and goblins in the series are CGI. There are a few people in makeup for close-ups and then ten thousand cgi extras.
The Hobbit certainly has a more cartoony feel to it overall, but given that it's much more of a children's book than The Lord of the Rings is I'm inclined to let that slide. So far each series has strengths and weaknesses. I'll just say that I like all the characters more in the Lord of the Rings, but I feel like the world as a whole is more complete in The Hobbit. Fellowship Extended is still the best out of all five films though.
The cartoony look is exactly the problem and it's largely caused by the overuse of CGI in The Hobbit compared to LOTR.
It's definitely leaning towards Lucas territory. The Hobbit films are giving in more and more to excess as they go on.
imdb says the second movie made a quarter of a billion dollars. CGI must be what people want.
I understand that LOTR used a lot of cgi. But not on all the closeups of orcs and uruks. Hobbit feels like a seperate universe in ways. And the extended cartoony action scenes. Bleh. This feels like maybe it should have been two movies instead. And i was a person happy they were making 3. The movies have great moments. Then a dwarf does a spin attack in a barrel and leaps like a jungle cat and I groan.
I understand that LOTR used a lot of cgi. But not on all the closeups of orcs and uruks. Hobbit feels like a seperate universe in ways. And the extended cartoony action scenes. Bleh. This feels like maybe it should have been two movies instead. And i was a person happy they were making 3. The movies have great moments. Then a dwarf does a spin attack in a barrel and leaps like a jungle cat and I groan.
But then they dump 50 tons of Molten Gold on a dragon and I smile.
Posts
not out in 'merica until april 4th i think?
but don't worry, its awesome.
Life Aquatic: Had it's moments. The under water stop motion stuff was neat, Willem Dafoe was fun character, constantly on the verge of crying, but I never quite connected to Bill Murry's character and the story really meanders.
Rushmore: I really couldn't get in to this movie. The main character was a complete prick and again a bunch of meandering around not really doing anything, I had just a complete lack of connection to anything in this film.
Then I watched The Grand Budapest Hotel. Oh man, that broke the streak of sub par Anderson movies! Ralph Fiennes is amazing and hilarious, he really should do more comedies, and even though most of the characters are still the same Wes Anderson cut and paste jobs, they worked well with the quirky comedy and capers. It's definitely more like Fantastic Mr Fox then a lot of his other movies.
It takes the Biblical story of the last family of good people in a world that has turned it's back on God (which it insists on referring to as "The Creator") and overlays a thick environmentalist theme on it. The Creator is sending the flood not just because mankind is sinful, but because civilization has already laid waste to most of creation.
But America is in the name! And it doesnt even start with Death to!
Weekend plans ruined.
It really is something worth seeing though. Beautifully shot, well-cast, mostly cool effects, and a handful of thought-provoking points are made. Best of all it makes a valiant effort to poke holes in the incredibly dangerous "everything on Earth was put here for our use" rhetoric.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the whole story of Noah like only a few sentences long? How would they know?
Commando is quite simply the second best Arnold movie ever. Conan the Barbarian is first. But Commando. Deeply hilarious and such fun. Popcorn and dead guys.
The entire flood story is about 40 verses in the King James Bible.
The entire Noah story is about 100 verses. It starts when he's six hundred and ends with his death at the age of 950.
http://www.dltk-bible.com/genesis/chapter6-kjv.htm
There's not a lot of detail there. Though it does spend about twenty verses talking in detail about Noah getting drunk and laying naked in front of his sons.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Like I said, it was like hearing people heatedly debate what the real Batman would or would not do. Except there's way more literature to back up a solid stance on Batman.
"The whole thing was ridiculous, everyone knows Angels are flying type, not Rock/Ground."
1) The Ultraviolet version desperately needed subtitles, because setting several scenes in places that have loud music makes it quite difficult to follow witty banter unless it's delivered in the most crisp voice. I'm especially looking at you, Logan "Mumbles" Echolls.
2) I've never minded Piz, in fact I always quite liked him, but I was okay with his exit. I was less okay with the film's over-emphasis on Veronica/Logan. Of course their will-they-won't-they relationship is important to the characters, but it shouldn't be to the extent that...
3) ... other characters such as Wallace, Mac and especially Keith Mars are given short shrift. The relationship I care about most is the Veronica/Keith one, and her friendships. The film pretty much dumped them in favour of the 'shipping.
4) They still have one problem with the Veronica Mars character: they want to make her complex and ambiguous, but they like her too much to fully commit to her darker side. For all her voiceovers about addiction, the film desperately *wants* her to give in to Logan, Neptune and being pulled back in. So do I, to a large extent, but then don't spend several minutes of voiceover giving lip service to how this might actually not be such a good thing after all - and if you have the voiceovers then don't drop the ambivalence quite so easily. It feels like the film wants to have its cake and eat it, and it doesn't quite pull this off. (The AV Club has a flawed but interesting article that touches on this: http://www.avclub.com/article/veronica-mars-purgatory-how-we-keep-punishing-our--202354.)
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Angels don't have wings in their bible descriptions. The wings were added later by various painters(Renaissance era, roughly), and the image was popularized thusly.
'twas a good joke, though!
Isaiah's description of the cherubim at God's throne does give them wings: a pair to cover their faces, a pair to cover their feet, and pair for flying through the earth as God commands. When angels appear to men they are not described as having wings, though. Also, they aren't described as being babies, so yes painters did a lot anyway to form modern ideas about angelic looks. Haha
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Frozen: Probably the best of the bunch. I thought it was going somewhere interesting with the sister as the villain, but that kind of feel through. It's just no Aladdin.
Escape Plan: A heist film without the clever heist so they try to become an action film instead. It's not awful, but there's no need to watch it unless you're on a plane. Or trapped somewhere similar.
Elysium: The premise doesn't make any sense. Otherwise it's about as good as a heavy handed film about the stupid state of public healthcare in the states
Inside Llewyn Davis: Directionless and singing heavy but it's well done and I enjoyed the setting
Thor 2: Better than the first, but still pretty poor. They could merge all the human characters into one and save themselves some time to spend on what they want the story to be
Nebraska was on, but I said I'd watch that with my girlfriend. So hopefully that's on DVD soon.
It was originally 25 verses, but they had to cut it down to get a PG-13 rating.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Even in a movie like TMwtIF he has a super intense acting scene.
They aren't bad but Peter Jackson seems to have developed a case of the george lucas'. Like, it feels he is taking a great story and doing his best to shit it up. I wonder how it would have gone if Del Toro had continued on with it. Better I think.
I think it strikes the right balance. Of course she and the audience want her to give in to her addiction. That's why it's an addiction. Cause it's addicting and compelling. They clearly give her alot to blow up when she decides to go back to Neptune and also emphasize the danger both to her health and to any future prospects when she does so.
I always wonder if this reaction is because some people, for some reason, don't like Piz. She basically throws Piz to the curb in a truly brutal way and just ignores it because she's gotta feed that habit.
CGI was used pretty extensively in all of the LOTR films. Other than the big fight at the end of Fellowship most of the orcs and goblins in the series are CGI. There are a few people in makeup for close-ups and then ten thousand cgi extras.
The Hobbit certainly has a more cartoony feel to it overall, but given that it's much more of a children's book than The Lord of the Rings is I'm inclined to let that slide. So far each series has strengths and weaknesses. I'll just say that I like all the characters more in the Lord of the Rings, but I feel like the world as a whole is more complete in The Hobbit. Fellowship Extended is still the best out of all five films though.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The cartoony look is exactly the problem and it's largely caused by the overuse of CGI in The Hobbit compared to LOTR.
It's definitely leaning towards Lucas territory. The Hobbit films are giving in more and more to excess as they go on.
I disagree that it being cartoony is a problem.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I have been wondering about that. Public healthcare is in there, but I really think Elysium is about Hispanic immigration to America. It kind of fits if you replace Matt Damon with a poor hispanic worker and Elysium with America.
imdb says the second movie made a quarter of a billion dollars. CGI must be what people want.
But then they dump 50 tons of Molten Gold on a dragon and I smile.