Ozformers Transformers Club of Australia


Go Back   Ozformers Transformers Club of Australia (otca.com.au) > Beyond the Spacebridge (Non-Transformers Section) > Non-toy stuff

Sightings/Sales

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1401  
Old 9th May 2019, 04:33 AM
Autocon Autocon is offline
Rank 6 - Deluxe Member
 
Join Date: 9th Apr 2008
Location: WEST AUST
Posts: 4,397
Default

Dumbo. For a kids movie its not fun. Its tim burton so in vein of his alice in wonderland. Doesnt work with dumbo. Has an animal cruelty message as story plot. Good visuals. It didnt grab me.
Reply With Quote
  #1402  
Old 23rd May 2019, 02:55 PM
SharkyMcShark's Avatar
SharkyMcShark SharkyMcShark is offline
Rank 6 - Deluxe Member
 
Join Date: 5th Feb 2010
Location: Perth
Posts: 2,660
Default

John Wick 3

Action is technically good though perhaps more mechanical and joyless than the previous films in the franchise (as much as stabbing and gunning people down can be joyful I suppose).

The story is perhaps slightly too in love with its own lore. There's a real risk that it's beginning to disappear up its own arse.
__________________
I'm really just here for the free food and open bar.
Reply With Quote
  #1403  
Old 28th May 2019, 08:54 PM
shockNwave's Avatar
shockNwave shockNwave is offline
Rank 5 - Dedicated Member
 
Join Date: 23rd Jul 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,070
Default

Saw John Wick 3 as well. I'm a big fan of the previous two and am happy to see more and can't wait for number 4.
Reply With Quote
  #1404  
Old 4th June 2019, 12:11 AM
Autocon Autocon is offline
Rank 6 - Deluxe Member
 
Join Date: 9th Apr 2008
Location: WEST AUST
Posts: 4,397
Default

John wick 3. The ending spoiled it for me when he rolled down the grassy noll. Took me out of the movie. Some fight scenes are like "hes just standing there waiting for his turn." 6/10. Its good if you enjoy the other wick movies but unsure if most will get bored of the formula by movie 4.

Last edited by Autocon; 13th June 2019 at 02:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #1405  
Old 4th June 2019, 12:37 AM
Autocon Autocon is offline
Rank 6 - Deluxe Member
 
Join Date: 9th Apr 2008
Location: WEST AUST
Posts: 4,397
Default

Aladdin. Better than Dumbo for a kids movie. Runs through the same formula as the cartoon. 7/10. Will smith pulls off a good genie considering he had to follow robin williams.

Last edited by Autocon; 13th June 2019 at 02:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #1406  
Old 5th June 2019, 09:21 PM
Autocon Autocon is offline
Rank 6 - Deluxe Member
 
Join Date: 9th Apr 2008
Location: WEST AUST
Posts: 4,397
Default

Godzilla ll. More monsters less monster fighting. The fights are not as focused on as previously, some fight happens then we watch humans trying to save a girl. Back to the fighting. So the fights are not start to finish. The first is better. Only four monsters end up in the fight. 5-6ish/10. Great for a spectacle at the flicks with popcorn.
Reply With Quote
  #1407  
Old 13th June 2019, 02:36 AM
Autocon Autocon is offline
Rank 6 - Deluxe Member
 
Join Date: 9th Apr 2008
Location: WEST AUST
Posts: 4,397
Default

Dark Phoenix: an ok x men movie. 5/10. Needs a bit more meat to it but not the worst way to waste 2 hours. Not Logan but better than apocolypse. Look forward to see what mcu does with the x-men.
Reply With Quote
  #1408  
Old 15th June 2019, 01:37 PM
shockNwave's Avatar
shockNwave shockNwave is offline
Rank 5 - Dedicated Member
 
Join Date: 23rd Jul 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,070
Default

Saw Godzilla 2. Better than the first one due to more monsters despite less action. Prompted me to watch the prequel again.
Reply With Quote
  #1409  
Old 16th June 2019, 06:26 PM
GoktimusPrime's Avatar
GoktimusPrime GoktimusPrime is offline
Rank 6 - Deluxe Member
 
Join Date: 27th Dec 2007
Location: Sydney NSW
Posts: 35,644
Default

Saw Tolkien today. Quite an enjoyable and surprisingly historically accurate biopic.

But being the nitpicky guy that I am, here are some minor inaccuracies that I noticed - SPOILERS (unless you're already familiar with Tolkien's life).





* School drama
Much of the dramatic stuff that was shown during this school days was fictitious. Tolkien and his mates weren't these "teen rebel edgelords" as the film would suggest.

* Tossing sugar cubes at random strangers
Believe it or not, but this actually happened! However IRL JRR and Edith sat at a balcony seat and tossed them at passing pedestrians, not at other patrons.

* Bus theft
Also true! But there were no girls there. Just the lads being silly.

* Drunken outburst on the lawn
Never happened.

* March to War
The movie shows Tolkien going off to fight in WWI in 1914 along with his old school mates, but this wasn't entirely true. Tolkien strongly objected to the war and postponed his enlistment for nearly a year so that he could complete his university degree; so he didn't actually join the fight until 1915.

* Hallucinating about dragons, wraiths etc. at the front
Yeah nah. And I found this to be the most objectionable inaccuracies because Tolkien IRL was always adamant that The Lord of the Rings was not and allegory for WWI. I agree that it does read that way, and I personally interpret it as a WWI allegory, but as far as authorial intent is concerned, Tolkien never meant for it to be so it's most unlikely that he even had thoughts of Middle Earth floating in his mind in 1916... also he would've kind of have been distracted by, oh I don't know, trying not to die in the middle of a freakin' war! This felt forced. Yes, we get it. The man wrote The Hobbit and LOTR. You don't need to keep ramming these images to keep forcing the point down our throats. The point is more than well made in other parts of the film.

Tolkien's batman was named Sam?
In WWI a batman was an assistant to an officer. I don't know if this is true or not, but hey... why not? It doesn't detract from the film and it's obviously a reference to Sam and Frodo. This isn't nearly as forced as seeing a freakin' dragon breathing fire in France!

Other Thoughts:

* Christianity
Tolkien's Christian faith was a key influence on his writings, as well as a central theme in his life. While the film does make some references to his faith, mostly through Father Francis Xavier Morgan (who was actually Spanish IRL, not Irish), it makes little to no other references. Having said that, I agree with what the director said that it would have been a distraction to the film's narrative and apparently scenes that did shine light on his religious faith didn't rate well with test audiences. But the film doesn't portray him as being non-religious either - it just doesn't really say anything about his faith. I wouldn't call this an inaccuracy or an accuracy... it's just something that was put aside as it would've detracted from the film's entertainment potential but doesn't explicitly go against historical fact either. The film does very briefly touch upon the controversy of the Catholic Tolkien wanting to marry the Protestant Edith Bratt but never mentions it again, let alone show how this problem was resolved (Edith converted to Catholicism in order to marry Tolkien; Tolkien's mother was also a Catholic convert who was disowned by her Protestant family; this is why the Tolkien boys were left in the care of Father Morgan).

* No mention of Inklings
This is something that I would have loved to have seen happen, but the film ends as Tolkien begins writing The Hobbit, so probably just before Inklings was formed. And I suppose it's because Inklings bears little relevance to Tolkien's character development or indeed the origins of The Hobbit, but it is more significance as a cornerstone in the foundations of modern fantasy nerd culture and also arguably a successor to the Tea Club Bavarrian Society (which only had 2 surviving members after WWI), whereas Inklings had over a dozen hardcore members, including Tolkien's son Christopher and C.S. Lewis (author of The Narnia Chronicles) etc. These people basically invented table top miniature war gaming. But I guess as a movie that has to appeal to a broad general Muggle public audience, this might not have worked.

* Christopher Tolkien
Out of Tolkien's four children, Christopher is the only one mentioned by name in the film, and the epilogue does tell us that he was named after Christopher Wiseman (Tolkien's school friend and only other member of the TCBS who survived WWI). This must seem rather odd or random to audience members who aren't familiar with who Christopher Tolkien is. As mentioned before, Christopher would later join his father's fantasy nerd club at uni, but more importantly, it was Christopher who would illustrate maps for Middle Earth as well as editing and publishing much of his late father's works posthumously, such as The Silmarillion (1977), Unfinished Tales (1980) etc. Christopher was also chairman of this father's estate until just last year when he retired, but I can understand the film not including that detail as Christopher did not give this film his blessing (he also never gave his blessing to Peter Jackson's films either).

Overall Thoughts
This is a movie gives us a look into the life of an important figure in the history of modern fantasy. Be aware that this is predominantly a period drama. It's not a fantasy action movie. It's not a historical war movie. This is the story about a humble nerd who formed a club with other nerds and created among the most memorable and influential stories in the modern fantasy genre. And aside from the really minor nitpicking that I've presented here, the movie is surprisingly rather historically accurate - it certainly gets much more right than it gets wrong (even down to the meaning of Tolkien's name - it is absolutely true that "Tolkien" is Saxon for "foolhardy"). This movie was also a delight for language buffs and actors like Nicholas Hoult did pretty well in speaking dead Germanic languages with impressive phonological accuracy.
Reply With Quote
  #1410  
Old 16th June 2019, 08:07 PM
M-bot's Avatar
M-bot M-bot is offline
Rank 6 - Deluxe Member
 
Join Date: 29th Jun 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,486
Default

I refute your point that there were not dragons in France during WW1. I was there and there totally was.

In all seriousness though, it is a dramatisation of Tolkienís life, and there isnít a single biopic (at least that Iím aware of ) that doesnít take liberties for the sake of drama (whether necessary or appropriate or not), and fantasy elements arenít a new device either. Iím not sure that criticism of those things is fair considering they are so de rigueur. I do think your suggestion that the film is ďsurprisingly historically accurateĒ is high praise indeed!

As for authorial intent, thereís a whole debate there around whether an artistís
intent is relevant in criticising the work after the publication of it. Possibly noteworthy, but Iím wondering if some of the criticisms of the film could be dismissed as to whether or not certain elements of the film are or are not the writer/director/producer/etcís authorial intent? Itís a complex one.

I doubt Iím going to get this in the cinema - too time poor - but I will try and catch it on DVD/Netflix/whatever at some point.

Interesting review.
__________________

M-Bot's Customs logo by M-bot2011

To follow M's Toy Customs of Facebook, visit: https://www.facebook.com/MsToyCustoms
While you're there, click the "LIKE" button!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 03:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.