Recent Posts by ranerdin
Comments
Fantastic! I really had my fingers crossed that this was going to be a good remake. I usually ignore horror remakes but when I heard that the director convinced the studio to not use ANY computer graphics, I started thinking that he actually had a point-of-view.
I do like Evil Dead 2. I honestly can't remember which scenes were in Evil Dead and which were in Evil Dead 2, so apparently I'm not a die-hard fan. Sam Raimi horror is sneaky because it feels so farcical that you don't get scared-scared. Then you realize that he is slowly chipping away at your ability to grasp reality.
I remember women in high school having to leave the room after the tree scene, though, and it deeply disturbed a couple of friends.
Comments
Great review! Haven't wacthed the episode yet (It's on my DVR) but am TOTALLY looking forward to it. You can get 'PSYCHO II' (https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/psycho-ii/id401499645), and 'PSYCHO III' (https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/psycho-iii/id405765787) via iTunes in HD for $14.99 each. ~Alex
Thanks! Sorry, I should have put a spoiler tag on this for people that haven't watched it yet, but I don't think I gave too much away. I didn't realize you could get Psycho II on iTunes -- I really should try to be more computer-savvy.
Comments
There seems to be this weird paradigm lately in which my friends don't actually say "Yes, it's a good movie. Go see it." Or "It's kinda boring. I'd skip it." Every time I ask someone what they thought of a movie, they wax poetically for 20 minutes and I'm left wondering if I should see the damn movie or not.
(I still grit my teeth at all my friends that told me to see "Take Me Out" on Broadway because "the writing was really good" and no one bothered to tell me that the cast was fully naked for most of the show. Good writing doesn't get me to pay for a theatre ticket. Full frontal male nudity does.)
So I really appreciate that in the middle of this review, you say that the movie is good and enjoyable and worth seeing. And I also appreciate the finer points of your review but I imagine I'll have something smarter to say about all that after I've seen the movie.
Yeah, my friends are saying the same thing. I was trying my hardest to get straight to the point, but as you see, I kind of failed at that -- for some reason this is the kind of movie that incites long rambling half-answers. I got stuck in the same pattern even though I was specifically tying to avoid doing so!
To try to answer the question more concisely, yes, if you're interested in Oz at all, go see it. If you don't really care about Oz and are just like, a casual fantasy film fan, you can wait.
Comments
Any typos and mistakes come from me having to head into work in ten minutes and trying to get it up as quickly as possible, and represent my inability to think clearly while talking about something I love.
Terrific review. I have to say that as potentially corny as the heartfelt moments in The Hobbit could have been, I was genuinely touched by Gandalf's praise of Bilbo (and other good things in small packages): the bit about everyday kindnesses being the real weapon against evil made for a really special moment (and food for thought). I love how you tied this message into your own backstory. :)
Definitely -- I wish I could say that I was more immune to contrived sentiment than that, but I was a complete mess in the theater at all the parts you just mentioned.
There's probably a lot more flaws in the film than I mentioned in my review, where I was kind of carried away with fanboyishness, but overall I stand by it. No, it's not perfect, yes, it's a mess in some ways, but I love it.
Their having Azog involved makes me want to pour hemlock extract into my ear, but otherwise it's pretty watchable. Deeeefinitely some things that made me angry; they left out my favorite part of the Time riddle "Slays king, ruins town, | and beats high mountain down." and made the darkening of Greenwood the Great run concurrently with the events of The Hobbit, which gives it no time at all to become the dark, black place that it is in the book.
As much as some of the changes they made immensely displeased me, there are some things that I really liked. Although Radagast was a spaz I enjoyed the way he was inserted into the story and he grew on me pretty quickly, I pictured him as a sort of cheerful cross between Thoreau and an old druid, and while they got the druid part (the river of dried bird leavings cracked me up) it felt a little off-balance. I also feel like they've gotten the closest yet to how I pictured Gollum at any point during the chronology of Peter Jackson's version of Middle Earth. Just the right tones of scary and funny, with a touch of loneliness. Very relatabe, haha.
Nice review, though I guess I found less flaws than others. I had no problem with Azog or Radagast or the CGI. I found the climax appropriate and fulfilling. I can't wait for the other two.
I never read the books, but I love the original trilogy and the Rankin Bass movies.
That's really interesting -- I was curious about what people that haven't read the books were thinking. Thanks for the comment -- I too am one of the few supports of the Rankin Bass version.
