-
Tranformers
Seen it tonight, action all the way, very loud still can't hear right, happy i went.
-
lil bit o trivia for my fav film board buds. i auditioned for the role of bobby bolivia. for those that have seen the movie... no, i didn't "lose out" to him haha. the role was pretty much his, but due to union regs they HAVE to audition a certain number of actors for the 'lesser' roles, even though they knew who was going to get it.
i didn't know it at the time, so needless to say when they asked me to send in an audition tape, i was incredibly psyched! when i found out, i was a tad bummed but... that's how it goes :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kam
lil bit o trivia for my fav film board buds. i auditioned for the role of bobby bolivia. for those that have seen the movie... no, i didn't "lose out" to him haha. the role was pretty much his, but due to union regs they HAVE to audition a certain number of actors for the 'lesser' roles, even though they knew who was going to get it.
i didn't know it at the time, so needless to say when they asked me to send in an audition tape, i was incredibly psyched! when i found out, i was a tad bummed but... that's how it goes :)
Pfff...Bernie Mac's got nothin' on you Kamster..
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
I liked "The Island" the most out of all the Bay movies. But I'm a sucker for that whole dystopian future "Logans Run" / "THX 1138" thing. And Scarlet. And the CA desert locations they used.
I'm a fan of those dystopian future movies as well, many are often some of my favorite movies.
In this case, Transformers was just a lot of fun. I have no trouble going to a movie and turning my brain off, I use it enough during the week anyway. The start was a big slow, but they actually didn't skip having some story line to carry it through so to me it never really felt like it dragged much and it stayed surprisingly solid all the way through.
I didn't really go in with any expectations, good or bad, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I suspect this one will be a popular show-off DVD both visually (looked good on DLP) and in terms of audio because it had some of the loudest and lowest bass I've ever experienced in a theater.
Even if it's not going to be an award winning movie for story or acting, I think that it can still keep you captivated for its relatively long running time if you're not a movie nanny who expects every movie to conform to some kind of overdramatic and artsy archetype.
-
I just came back from seeing this movie. I really enjoyed it for the first two hours and then decided that it was just toooooooooo long. If this had been less than two hours, I would have felt very entertained. As it was, I ended up just waiting for it to be over.
I have one question though...why didn't the tranformers guys just make a bid on ebay? It would have been a whole lot easier for them.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
I just came back from seeing this movie. I really enjoyed it for the first two hours and then decided that it was just toooooooooo long. If this had been less than two hours, I would have felt very entertained. As it was, I ended up just waiting for it to be over.
I have one question though...why didn't the tranformers guys just make a bid on ebay? It would have been a whole lot easier for them.
This is the way I felt about the third LORD OF THE RINGS installment. That movie had more endings than Fellini's 8 1/2 (hope someone gets this reference). It kept going and going and going and going.
-
Ok, I finally finally saw this film tonight and REALLY enjoyed it. Much to my surprise it was better than expected. I even liked the reference...."This is better than Armageddon". I only have one main gripe about the film: the special effects.
I liked the pace, the story-line, and the characters, but was not impressed with the action sequences and the special effects. Why go through all the work to make the Transformers look real and then hurry the motion to the point where you can't really see what is going on during the action scenes? It's called 'cheating the audience'. This has become a popular editing/filming technique during the past 10 or so years where the action scenes are edited in fast-paced fashion in order to make you think that you saw something that really never took place. The motion on the Transformers is so fast, which is fair because they are high-tech robots after-all, but at least make it seem realistic! This is the balance that really makes for a good film, when you can be realistic, yet unbelievable at the same time, since this is a Science Fiction film. I would have liked to see more detail in the action scenes/the transformers, and perhaps more interaction within the Decepticons and Autobots.
Other than that it made for a very enjoyable action movie with a great pace, nice humor, and I left the film wanting more!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
This has become a popular editing/filming technique during the past 10 or so years where the action scenes are edited in fast-paced fashion in order to make you think that you saw something that really never took place.
And its so doesn't have to be that way. Just last night I got sucked into watching the first hour of Kubrick's 2001. I've seen it many times before including in the early 80s in a second run neighborhood theater. It may have even been in 70mm because I know I saw North By Northwest, Singin in the Rain, and Larry of Arabia there too. But, I'm not sure.
Talk about long, slow special effects shots. They really don't hide anything in 2001. The weightless effects are still the best ever done, IMHO. Apollo 13 not counting, since much of that was actual weightlessness with the length of shots suffering as a result. Some of the "painted" effects don't age well, but still pretty good. Special effects don't have to be all in the scale models and CGI either. Some can be rooted in actor performance. The stewardess on the Pan Am flight with the "grip shoes" always struck me. The "special effect" is as much about her crazy little toddling walk, as anything else.
If it's worth doing, it's worth letting the audience see it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
And its so doesn't have to be that way. Just last night I got sucked into watching the first hour of Kubrick's 2001. I've seen it many times before including in the early 80s in a second run neighborhood theater. It may have even been in 70mm because I know I saw North By Northwest, Singin in the Rain, and Larry of Arabia there too. But, I'm not sure.
Talk about long, slow special effects shots. They really don't hide anything in 2001. The weightless effects are still the best ever done, IMHO. Apollo 13 not counting, since much of that was actual weightlessness with the length of shots suffering as a result. Some of the "painted" effects don't age well, but still pretty good. Special effects don't have to be all in the scale models and CGI either. Some can be rooted in actor performance. The stewardess on the Pan Am flight with the "grip shoes" always struck me. The "special effect" is as much about her crazy little toddling walk, as anything else.
If it's worth doing, it's worth letting the audience see it.
Just another reason why Kubrick's film is a masterpiece. When most people think of Special Effects they are thinking the wrong things, they certainly don't think of CITIZEN KANE as being a special effects film, yet it has some of the most amazing trick photography and effects than any film out there. The pace of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is just stunning. The classical music is really what dictates the choreography of the shots and it's a Special Effects ballet from there on out!
-
I was just asking my lunch mates today if Transformers was out on DVD yet. Yet?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
I was just asking my lunch mates today if Transformers was out on DVD yet. Yet?
Sorry Rich that my review sucked so bad.
-
Yes, you should've included the DVD release date. :rolleyes:
-
Do I smell a bootleg copy??:idea: Oct. 16, btw. P-Sky, tell me you haven't been haunting the $1 show on the bad side of town?
-
Beats me. Guess I'll have to go over to Blockbuster and find out for myself.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
Do I smell a bootleg copy??:idea: Oct. 16, btw. P-Sky, tell me you haven't been haunting the $1 show on the bad side of town?
Rich, Oct 16, see above.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
Do I smell a bootleg copy??:idea: Oct. 16, btw. P-Sky, tell me you haven't been haunting the $1 show on the bad side of town?
Well, here's the thing....the best theater and closest theater to me, is the budget theater. It was once a really awesome multiplex that offered first run features, but had a nearby theater to compete with that happened to be there a few months earlier. Short story long, the better theater ended up closing despite having larger screens, cleaner rooms, and better sound. Then it was re-launched after a few years went by as a second run place for $1.50/person. I can wait 4-6 weeks if it means seeing the film bigger, better, and with SDDS or DTS, especially if it saves 7 bucks per person!
-
-
It Totally Rocked
Absolutely loved the Movie.
I have the HD DVD on its way but cant play it till the dual format player arrives in December.
Hey if y'all want to see some of the cool stuff the HD DVD can do check this form out.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...56#post3261056
-
A friend brought over a copy he had from Netflix and I was surprised by the audio track. I figured they'd totally overdo the bass but it was blended in to the rest of the audio track quite well. Depth and impact was still there at times, although I honestly expected & would have liked more impact in some scenes without having to tweak settings.
-
I still can't believe no TrueHD track. I'm sure the DD+ track is nice and all but..........
|