Skyfall.

I quite liked Casino Royale, and thought that the Quantum Of Solace was a disappointment.

This is a none starter in my view. It lacks either humour [though there are feeble stabs at it], or any sensibly story-line. Not tension, and much too long. I fear that the director's cut would be a move to the bad. They were not editing anything very fine to start with.

And nowadays you are expected to cue for a ticket in the line of people buying pop-corn. What a horrible experience, but at least it saves me from eventually having bought the DVD, or having any particular wish to go to a cinema again!

ATB from George

DVD is probably cheaper than the popcorn anyway.

And it probably tastes better as well Howard.

 Absolutely agree, George. This really puts me off going to my local Vue cinema. What's more, if you try to avoid these slow-moving popcorn queues and buy the tickets on-line in advance the cheeky beggars charge you an admin fee! How can it be more expensive to buy on-line than employing someone to serve you? And then, just to rub salt into the wound, the machines at the cinema which dispense the pre-purchased tickets (pop your credit/debit in and out they print - which should quick) are also capable of selling you tickets there and then, so you get a bloody great queue on those as well while people phaff about choosing which film, at what time, and their seat numbers!!  I can't believe just how inept the management at these places are.  

Rant over.

MDS

I'm not very fond of the cinema - I tend to stick with my hifi and wait until the flick comes round on the television.  I sometimes accompany my wife to see something obscure, often with sub-titles.  (I suppose U-559 is a sub-title, an enigmatic reference perhaps).

Why do cinemas sell the noisiest possible sweetmeats?  Is popcorn deliberately made available to annoy as many people as possible.  Secondary rant over.

Don  cold downtown York

We enjoy the cinema experience. The crowds, the queues, the overpriced snacks - all of it. It is a social experience as much as it is a way to "consume" entertainment and it is a great night out. Part of living in the world as we now know it.

Dear Winki,

I prefered much about the world where there was a lady in kiosk selling the tickets, and an usher or two to help you find the seat in the dark!

And the films were better too!

But then I am not really of this time at all ...

ATB from George

Didn't the limelights around the stage make your eyes water, and what if the pianist was rubbish eh George?

The Rise of the Guardians

Took my godson to see this.

This is an adventure story with little in the way of humour.

OK from an adult perspective, but Connor thought it was great.

M

The Master.

Hard going but thought provoking. Tremendous acting by Joachin Phoenix - incredibly intense. 

Rust and Bone

Exploration of inner feelings and realisation (for the protagonists) that love awaits onthe other side of loss and hurt. 

SKyfall

Disappoining and humdrum.  Wonder how Bond got the Aston back from the Carribbean where he won it in the poker game - and how / when it was upgraded with the goodies before being bunged in a lock-up.  Hated the yodelling masquerading as the theme tune. The comment "Bond will be back" in the credits appeared more of a threat than an impending delight.  My feeling was - "don't hurry".

Brad - obviously, you/me/George weren't in the audience focus group which reviewed the 'cut' of Skyfall.

The more I think on this, the more I get to the word 'tedious'. The franchise is (hopefully 'was') locked in to a format it needs to break. Why it took 2h 20 mins to do this escapes me.

Casino Royale suggested a differing approach, Quantum 'got lost' and Skyfall, well.........

As to the DB5, it was the Goldfinger model (crash in to wall @ Pinewood notwithstanding) and wasn't connected to the Casino Royale model which he won @ cards (not sure about the DB5 driven by Brosnan which out-drove a Ferrrari F355 - some chance!).

The Hobbit - Part 1

Before making the following statement I want to point out a few facts:

1. Whilst I loved The Lord of the Rings as a child I didn't read The Hobbit until I was 15 and was not overly impressed;

2. I came to enjoy The Hobbit far more in reading it to my children;

3. I though that the film of The Fellowship of the Ring was a Tour de Force, and wasn't overly taken with the following two.

....so The Hobbit?

I loved it.

I can see what many critics disliked, but, if you love the world of Tolkein then this is brilliantly rendered (sic).

Is Jackson slavishly true to the book? NOT at all. He adds characters to heighten dramatic tension, but without diverting from the spirit.

The time in the cinema just flew as PJ lavished the time and love on the material that is normally reserved for the best of TV, where time is available.

Did the plot feel unnecessarily bloated? Not by me. PJ has included scenes from throughout the Tolkein canon, and it is easy to see where this is going to pay off in the following films.

If you enjoy Tolkein I would be surprised if you find anything here to dislike.

However, I DID watch this in my favoured format, glorious 2d. I will be going to see in in 48fps 3d.

M

Good news Mr Underhill!

We'll be off to see it sometime over the festive period but I think we'll go straight for the 3-D version. We bought two pairs of glasses for Avatar & haven't used them since.

Tony,

Just posted my thoughts on The Hobbit 48fps 3d, on the 48fps thread,

M

Taken 2

Always on the lookout for good bad movies, I couldn't wait to see Taken 2. The original was exploitative paranoia-inducing crap, but didn't bore for a moment and had a great role for Liam Neeson. It had all the things it had to get right, right - and didn't care a lot about the rest. I'm pleased to say that Taken 2 has turned out virtually identical to its predecessor. Same cast (minus dead villains, of course), same story, same action, and again Neeson shows that nobody plays retired CIA action man like him. In short, a brilliant night out.

Cheers,

EJ

OK EJ.

Like you I thought Taken was a good popcorn flick - but the reviews wwere poor enough to put me off, although it has done great business.

M

Hi M - I've long found I am my own favorite reviewer, not because I am any good at it, but because other reviewers tend to take things so... seriously. I generally don't.  And Taken 2 should definitely not be taken seriously.

EJ

The Hobbit 

Just came back from seeing The Hobbit, in its high frame rate 3D guise. Can't say whether the technical aspects improved on the picture or not, but it looked pretty much fantastic across the board if not a little more cartoony than the Lord of the Rings films.

That sums up the film, as well. Jackson took everything that's in the novel, then added a whole lot either from himself or from Tolkien's other sources (never read all the LOTR footnotes or the Silmarillion so can't tell for sure). Loved the additional time in Middle Earth, and also how Jackson took the opportunity to foreshadow the trilogy in a way the book never could. I would have loved to see it all a bit darker (the bickering trolls are straight out of the book but just seem out of place; as was the comically educated orc king). For the rest: brilliant. Gollum was excellent and sets new records for animated facial features. 

PS hard to miss the likeliness of Thorin and Aragorn. Anything behind that, or is it just that all Middle Earth prince-heirs are of the strong but silent type and like to walk around with unwashed long hair piercingly staring at everyone?

Cheers,

EJ

Hi EJ,

Glad you enjoyed The Hobbit - lot of middling reviews, which I think are by people locked into film technique, and miss the art of the story.

I agree with your 'cartoon' comment, which I think it takes something away from Azog, for instance.

I took my family to see it in 2D last night, two of them had not seen it before.

What you REALLY notice in 48fps is the clarity and the detail. In 2D the panning shots lose focus, and the crowd shots need extra processing by your brain - in 48 it is just there, and you seem to have more time to just look & stare.

Jackson has laid a lot of groundwork in this film, exposition that will pay off with faster paced sequels I believe.

As for Thorin ....if you don't know the story I will leave that to play out for you. As much as I always thought The Hobbit was a very different, and poorer, novel from TLOTR I have always thought the resolution of the The Hobbit is very effecting; Thorin and Aragorn are VERY different characters.

M

Just seen the Hobbit in 3D and thought it was an absolutely stunning film. A couple of scenes went on a bit too long, but I loved the whole cinema experience. Look forward to next year.

I saw "The Hobbit" in HighFramRate-3D...horrible experience...my brain imploded nearly...headache like hell.

Movie = ok-ish...

3 parts on such a small book...ridiculous.

The Hobbit 3 D not high frame rate - the only negative as far as Im concerned is a numb bum!

Music Lover,

You may find this article interesting:

The Science of High Frame Rates, Or: Why 'The Hobbit' Looks Bad At 48 FPS:

http://movieline.com/2012/12/1...edium=hobbitcoverage

M

Lincoln  Very good film.

Anna Karenina  Decent enough.

Hotel Transylvania together with my 6yr old son. First time I saw a 3D movie. Impressive. Films for children are often fun for adults too