|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jmeyer2039
The Shire
Dec 9 2013, 6:16am
Post #3 of 65
(2059 views)
Shortcut
|
...for the "emotional depth of character" and not just technical aspects.
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Lorien
Dec 9 2013, 6:29am
Post #4 of 65
(2049 views)
Shortcut
|
That's the first review I've read that criticizes the Smaug/Bilbo scene.
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Dec 9 2013, 7:26am
Post #6 of 65
(1972 views)
Shortcut
|
|
He criticizes the Smaug scene for drab dialogue
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But then says: "More time is spent ogling at his appearance than focusing on what is actually being said."
Hard to offer a real critique of the scene if you weren't paying attention to what was being said!
Hello!
|
|
|
morgul lord
Rivendell
Dec 9 2013, 7:34am
Post #7 of 65
(2015 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A second Crave review, negative
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A second review from Crave, something called "Second Opinion". Looks like the guy also hated AUJ (called it a "train wreck"). Says DOS is "a little less boring" than AUJ, and spends a lot of time saying the effects are bad, including Smaug, because CGI is bad.
http://m.craveonline.com/...-desolation-of-smaug
(This post was edited by morgul lord on Dec 9 2013, 7:40am)
|
|
|
Elutherian
Rohan
Dec 9 2013, 7:41am
Post #8 of 65
(1940 views)
Shortcut
|
.... is literally the single worst thing I have ever had to read in my entire life.
What the **** is wrong with this person as an individual? I felt like I was reading an 8 year-old's review of a movie.
I am now dumber for having read it.
The Grey Pilgrim, they once called me. Three hundred lives of men I walked this earth, and now I have no time...
(This post was edited by Elutherian on Dec 9 2013, 7:43am)
|
|
|
Wordofmask
Lorien
Dec 9 2013, 7:44am
Post #9 of 65
(1882 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Does second openion counted as 1 review?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(This post was edited by Wordofmask on Dec 9 2013, 7:45am)
|
|
|
starlesswinter
Lorien
Dec 9 2013, 7:57am
Post #11 of 65
(1881 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Strange criticism about digital effects in there
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So basically filmmakers should never attempt to achieve anything resembling actual integration of effects - they should just hide effects work in the shadows because it camouflages the seams? That seems like a very safe (and not very exciting) way of making films. What happened to the suspension of disbelief inherent in fantasy and cinema in general?
Reviews like this are frustrating because it's clear the critic didn't want to write it. They'd rather be doing something else and watching something else, but they have a deadline, so ok, let's churn another one out.
|
|
|
RaoulJ
Rivendell
Dec 9 2013, 8:10am
Post #12 of 65
(1800 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What is this about Gimli? Does he make an appearance? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Dec 9 2013, 9:05am
Post #13 of 65
(1739 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gloin has a Picture of his Wife & Son...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A a small Cameo shot that may
or not be seen
when Legalos
catchs them
in Mirkwood....
Likely shown for
"Bridge effect".
Bomby
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Grey Havens
Dec 9 2013, 9:10am
Post #16 of 65
(1759 views)
Shortcut
|
this is on the bottom 5 of the reviews so far.It made me cringe. My little sister would write so much better than this woman.LOL
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Dec 9 2013, 9:19am
Post #17 of 65
(1684 views)
Shortcut
|
Bilbo is as solid as....cheese?
Hello!
|
|
|
Anduinel
The Shire
Dec 9 2013, 9:29am
Post #18 of 65
(1702 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Unimpressed with the Evening Standard review, positive or not
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I admit, I'm bristling a bit over their characterization of Arwen as "drippy". Yeah, we get it -- Tauriel is a martial badass, and that's lovely, really. But did these folks fall asleep during the first trilogy? Did they miss the bit where Arwen gave up eternity for brief happiness with the man she loved? How she put aside grace to enrich the line of Men? Did that somehow come across as a simple choice? Or if that was too subtle for them, how about the scene in the first movie where she saved the freakin' Ringbearer by summoning a thundering wall of horsey death?
Feh.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Dec 9 2013, 9:43am
Post #19 of 65
(1715 views)
Shortcut
|
The two biggest papers in Sweden, Aftonbladet and Expressen, gave DOS 4/5, which is a great score. Didn't read the review out of fear of spoilers, but I read the headlines and it's looking very good. The Aftonbladet review ranked the new characters, and their favourites were Tauriel and Bard who both got 4/5. Legolas got the lowest with 2/5.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Shagrat
Gondor
Dec 9 2013, 9:47am
Post #20 of 65
(1639 views)
Shortcut
|
This is the same guy who gave that ridiculous, attention-seeking review to AUJ: EE ("We are witnessing the dawn of a cinematic train wreck") and also gave Diana higher than it. Also, note the hypocritical nature of his Man of Steel review (which he loved, clearly being a fan of the comics):
Everything is updated to modern day graphics, which is normally an annoying cliché but here it’s a comment on what modern cinematic technology means for a Superman movie. The Phantom Zone is now an excessive CGI process, which isn’t nearly as creepy as the optical manipulation of the Donner movies, but it’s so right that they pour every piece of technology into conveying something inherently simple. Kryptonian hentai monsters, underwater baby farms, what the hell kind of Superman movie is this? An awesome one. Academy Award nominee Amy Adams fights a Kryptonian tentacle!
This movie was a CGI fest, much of it not especially convincing. But nothing bad said about CGI here.
|
|
|
Wordofmask
Lorien
Dec 9 2013, 10:25am
Post #21 of 65
(1622 views)
Shortcut
|
Total Film's review added.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Dec 9 2013, 10:47am
Post #22 of 65
(1556 views)
Shortcut
|
You are right – he does seem an ignorant, attention-seeking twit.
This is the same guy who gave that ridiculous, attention-seeking review to AUJ: EE ("We are witnessing the dawn of a cinematic train wreck") and also gave Diana higher than it. Also, note the hypocritical nature of his Man of Steel review (which he loved, clearly being a fan of the comics): Everything is updated to modern day graphics, which is normally an annoying cliché but here it’s a comment on what modern cinematic technology means for a Superman movie. The Phantom Zone is now an excessive CGI process, which isn’t nearly as creepy as the optical manipulation of the Donner movies, but it’s so right that they pour every piece of technology into conveying something inherently simple. Kryptonian hentai monsters, underwater baby farms, what the hell kind of Superman movie is this? An awesome one. Academy Award nominee Amy Adams fights a Kryptonian tentacle! This movie was a CGI fest, much of it not especially convincing. But nothing bad said about CGI here. |
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Dec 9 2013, 11:23am
Post #23 of 65
(1543 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Maybe we should copy that list by an Imdb member in here.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit:TDOS Review Thread 32 Positive 4 Negative 89% Positive
Welcome to The Hobbit:TDOS review thread. Post reviews here!
Total Reviews: 36
Total Positive:32
Total Negative:4
Percentage of Positive Reviews: 89%
Average Rating: 7.9 out of 10
Positive Reviews:31
Avg. Rating of Positive Reviews: 8.5 out of 10
Empire Magazine(5 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/n2s7nzf
Topless Robot
http://tinyurl.com/ky6bagk
The Guardian(4 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/kel6p3r
The Hollywood Reporter
http://tinyurl.com/nedszso
Variety
http://tinyurl.com/p5wwfbs
Hitfix(Rated B+)
http://tinyurl.com/kcp2p9n
The Wrap
http://tinyurl.com/mgrxkhe
Time(mini review)
http://tinyurl.com/jvkbzmr
Total Film(4 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/kdf69yk
Ripe Movies(7.5 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/n32l2mb
W.L Swarts(7 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/lp77djo
Comingsoon.net(8.5 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/lxuygwg
IGN(8.5 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/ldmqgjv
Screen Daily
http://tinyurl.com/m9o3w5l
The One Ring
http://tinyurl.com/lqfa5rc
Show Buzz Daily
http://tinyurl.com/k3efkcx
Overall Site(7.5 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/orx74ca
Coming Soon.net#2(9 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/nac8znm
Twitch Film(Rated A)
http://tinyurl.com/nc3o4tl
MSN UK(5 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/oz9oj3j
Crave Online(8 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/pgju9yg
Time Out London(8 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/mwlmv6e
Hey U Guys(4 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/k2gnkgj
Digital Spy(4 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/n2t5faw
Geek Nation(Mixed but leans positive)
http://tinyurl.com/latba6t
3 News(4.5 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/kxrewh6
DIY(4 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/kpw5yp8
Den of Geek(4 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/l4a5dt2
Forbes
http://tinyurl.com/n4n5uq5
Radio Times
http://tinyurl.com/kx57t5z
Daily Star(5 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/lqxqat4
Latinos Post
http://tinyurl.com/mked3zq
Negative Reviews: 4
Average Rating of Negative Reviews: 4.5 out of 10
Screen Crush(4 out of 10)
http://tinyurl.com/nc2v7w9
The Playlist(Rated C)
http://tinyurl.com/o4y43wg
Telegraph(2 out of 5)
http://tinyurl.com/k62zmxg
Slant Magazine(2 out of 4)
http://tinyurl.com/pb46wgm
“All good stories deserve embellishment."
Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at."
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Dec 9 2013, 11:38am
Post #24 of 65
(1451 views)
Shortcut
|
Not all of those will be on Rotten Tomatoes, but it does appear to be a complete 180 from the previous film.
Hello!
|
|
|
pulpfiction16
Rivendell
Dec 9 2013, 11:52am
Post #25 of 65
(1420 views)
Shortcut
|
I think his disdain is that the CG at hand doesn't mesh as well with the world around it as it did in Lord of the Rings, simply because of excessiveness and the manner at which it is lit in a scene.
I don't disagree though, with AUJ, there was much more virtual camera work compared to Lord of the Rings (which I just rewatched). It makes the CG backgrounds stand out as faker .. simply because it emphasizes the impossibility!
The reason though why generally filmmakers should hide effects behind shadows or filters of some kind is that the audience's imagination is far more forgiving when shadow covers up some of the visual effect. It's not new, it's pretty simply. Horror movies had been doing it for years. An epidemic now in Hollywood is that CG is put so front and centre that it very easily comes under scrutiny. Hell, one reason I believe that J.J. Abram's Star Trek reboot stands up today (four years is a lifetime in the CG world) is because those lens-flares that everyone complains about *perfectly* cover up the CG and give it a sense of happening in-camera. The Balrog to this day looks beautiful because of the shadowy nature of the character (and the Two Towers flashback actually looks *worse* because of the nature of the close-ups). CG still has a little ways to go before it will become truly ageless, and dated CG doesn't have quite the same charm as old-Hollywood puppetry and matte paintings.
Either way, claiming that someones issues with the CG in a film is simply because he can't suspend disbelief enough is a bit condescending. He's a movie reviewer! He's supposed to be critical! Hell, as a paying audience we're *supposed* to be critical!
I think he did want to write the review, as it's a second opinion. It doesn't seem like it's Crave's definitive review, so, he probably wanted to get his opinion off his chest. That's fine. Don't suggest that any bad review is just someone writing out of spite.
|
|
|
|
|
1
