I grew up reading these comic books like The Adventure of Tintin, among others.
It is an interesting movie, to say the least. It is based on one book which is part 1 or a 2-part story. There are a lot of liberties taken with the story and the characters, gags from other books are mixed into this one.
But, oddly enough, the spirit of the characters and of the new gags are very similar to what you would find in the Tintin comics.
Tintin does not own a gun and does not have a collection of newspaper clippings on his wall. And Haddock is just a goof and a drunk, not really a great jouster or martial art expert.
But I do not dislike this movie at all.
The Adventure of Tintin
Two universes collide and the result is actually pretty good, very entertaining and quite charming.
See, those are changes I don't really mind. Tintin's always getting into trouble, you'd think he'd be smart enough to start carrying a weapon at some point. And I like the idea of Haddock being competent at something, even if it takes a crapload of bad stuff to get him motivated to use any of it. As for the newspapers? Just there to provide shout-outs to past comics, I didn't worry about it too much.
All in all I felt it stayed true to the characters, and I do seriously think they translated well to motion-capture. None of those dead-eye problems, and enough cartooniness (THOSE NOSES) to avoid the uncanny valley.
I will give you that the tone is vastly different, but I felt it worked, and all the changes made to the plot made for a more cohesive movie. I personally can't wait for the sequel.
So, I guess I'm a fake fan. Whatever.
The Adventure of Tintin
The uncanny valley was one of the things that I was really worried about going into the theater, but it turned out I was worried over nothing. They made sure to keep the cartoony aspects on the characters so it never reached the Polar Express levels.
That being said, I did really enjoy watching the movie. The Crab with the Golden Claws was always one of my favorites because they introduced Haddock to us in that issue. I was surprised at how well that it came together with The Secret of the Unicorn. Even though they take place in completely different places on the globe and have very different plots, the came together well. The reason for buying the model ship was the only hiccup between the two that I thought could have been handled better.
The characters also managed to stay true to the originals. TinTin and Haddock have some great chemistry and make good foils for the other. Snowy continues to save TinTin. The Thompson twins are as incompetent as ever.
I'm very happy with the final result here, and so were my friends who came to the theater with me. They also knew who TinTin was already, truly a rare thing in America.
I think Scarlett Johansson is smokin hot, but as an actress
I really don`t think she is as great as everyone thinks she is, but that is
just me. I remember reading headlines that Crowe was considering casting Amy
Adams, Rachel McAdams, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Scarlett Johansson for the
lead female role in this movie and despite McAdams being my favorite actress, I
really wanted Amy Adams to be cast in the role, because I can honestly imagine
her playing a character who works with animals over Johansson, Winstead and
McAdams.
I can see Johansson being in a Cameron Crowe movie, but I
can also see Amy Adams and Rachel McAdams being in a Cameron Crowe movie as
well and not only that, but I can imagine Adams and McAdams giving better
performances than Johansson, but that`s just because I think they are better
actresses than Johansson.
But that is just my opinion.
Yes. Crowe cast her so she must have displayed something the
other choices didn't have. wait and see
"It's hard for me to watch American Idol because I have
perfect pitch."
-Jenna, 30 Rock
She was fantastic. After seeing it, I can't picture Adams,
McAdams, or anyone else in the role. And not for lack of talent, because I love
all who were suggested. It's just that Scarlett did a fantastic job in the
role.
I've heard that she's wonderful.
"So she can one day become president and declare war on
Germany like back when we were awesome."
Any number of actresses could have played her role in this
movie. There's really not a lot of scope there.
Maybe, but no one could bring the subtlety that she does to
the role. Crowe chose her for a reason as someone else in the thread said - and
I thought she was great.
just saw the screening and agreed. she's a pretty good
actress, but her age difference with Damon doesn't make the romance believable.
And I don't really buy her as a zoo worker.
Even someone like Emily Blunt, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica
Biel, or Minka Kelly would make much more sense, if they need a hottie for the
role.
But they didn't want just a hottie. They wanted an actress.
Those four are totally substandard for a role like this. Scarlett was perfect
in the role.
Any comment that suggests Emily Blunt is substandard is any
category needed to make films, talent and looks, is ludicrous and should be
disregarded immediately.
That said, I don't like how Scarlett seems to get criticized
a lot for being too hot, but not a good actress.
She's probably not in the top tier of talent and maybe her
range is a tad limited compared to other A-listers, but she's a LOT better than
people give her credit for.
And, even just going by the trailers, you can see she's
playing a character here that doesn't look like Scarlett in, say, the Island.
The hair and her entire appearance is toned down, but it's still Hollywood,
when do they cast unattractive people in their films?
Amy Adams is hot a hell. Just a different kind of hot. And,
while Jim Carrey and Zooey Deschanel seemed age inappropriate, in the average
film Yes, Man, I don't see that being the same problem with Matt and Scarlett.
Looks like a winner to me, from the cast (nice get with Elle
Fanning in a supporting role) and the story. I, personally, can't wait to see
it and think Scarlett was a terrific choice for the role and Amy Adams is my
favorite actress and she'd be great in anything, playing every role.
Since she can't do every film, Scarlett is a terrific choice
and looks good with Damon. With a film with this much heart, we'll see how much
the romance even plays into the entire story, but if they have good chemistry
together, I think this will be a wonderful film to end the year with because
everything else seems set up for this to be a wonderful, uplifting movie.
Any comment that suggests Emily Blunt is substandard is any
category needed to make films, talent and looks, is ludicrous and should be
disregarded immediately.
What can I say other than kiss my ass - it's my
opinion. She has only been excellent in
The Devil Wears Prada. Everywhere else - totally lackluster. And sorry gotta
say her constant smoking and such as really gotten to her teeth and skin - she
looks so much older than her age.
Scarlett is just like any other A-list actress - she's going
to get criticized to no end on everything (looks, talent, whatever) BECAUSE she
is A-list. She gets a lot of hate but probably no more than, say, Natalie
Portman or Keira Knightley. And Scarlett is probably top tier in her age group
based on talent. No doubt about it - any other dissimilar comment should be
disregarded immediately. Or sit them down and make them watch the majority of
her performances to see the truth.
And I've seen the film so the 'relationship' is played on in
short spurts in the form of tension between the two (not including towards the
end). But it never gets in the way of the story as a whole. There's actually
two romances brewing in the film and the other one is played on more.
Your opinion is wrong. There are scientists willing to back
me up on this.
Scarlett gets FAR more acting criticism than Natalie and
Keira just seems to have a lot of haters who attack her about almost anything.
Acting is just one of those things.
Keira is a terrific actress. So is Scarlett. Keira does have
a better resume so far, to show off her acting chops, but Scarlett doesn't get
a lot of credit for things like Ghost World before she was a star and sex
symbol.
Good to know that the Elle Fanning role is bigger than the
trailer lets on by you stating the younger romance gets more focus and screen
time.
In acting, I've learned that Voice is one of an actor's
tools and to me, that makes the most sense.
The way I see it...if an actor/actress has a good voice then
I think they are good, but if they don't have a good voice then I just think
they are bad.
I really don't like Scarlett's voice so naturally I don't
think she is a good actress.
If you want more of an answer, I will try to explain.
Johansson is much more than a "hottie." As is proven in this film and
others she played. Sure, when she was younger, she was cast in sexy roles, so..
to quote a line from Crowe's production: "Why not?"
Well, obviously because TV/movie stars tend to get type cast
-- e.g. lesser forms of humans tend to have expectations for subsequent roles.
It reminds me of a piano student I once had: Tony Danza. At the time, he was
worried and complaining about difficulty achieving feature film roles because
of how particular TV roles had type-cast him. He referred to Ted Danson's small
role in Saving Private Ryan. "Didn't it bother you?" I told him that
I wasn't troubled in the least. That I liked the role and the rest of the film
as well. And that, yes, I'd wasted plenty of my time watching the TV show
'Cheers.' We had a laugh over that. After which, I said that I thought type
casting was *beep* Explaining that most people in the audience don't go there.
Though, perhaps giving the human race too much credit for intelligence at that.
In any case, he wasn't convinced. Actually, after I said the "B"
word, his demeanor suddenly changed for the worse and, believe me, you don't
want former boxer Danza getting angry at you. "What do you mean?" he
bellowed. "That's what my agent is telling me."
Well, it was all in good fun. So they say here in tinsel
town. Tony was a good student, practiced every day and learned a nice Prelude
by Chopin. Which leads us back to Scarlett. As her physical presence in moving
pictures is much like an exquisite, yet small ditty by the great Polish master
pianist: fun. As in, the viewer almost immediately wants to play simple games
with her. And that is, at least one reason why she was well cast for her role
as a zoo keeper in Crowe's latest sentimental journey. For one, she doesn't
have a supermodel face/body. And ..Zoo's cinematographer/director discovered
well her studious side in close-ups. Which has always been there for anyone to
notice. Of course, an actor needs a role to bring out certain talent. And that
she got, wonderfully in this part.
Honestly, I don't remember her earlier roles that well. And
this may be, partly because I am, like many in our age, somewhat saturated by
all the acting/music everywhere. In that, I tend to forget stuff that happened
years before. Which, itself may be regarded as a talent. That is, an audience
member talent.
More specifically, her role as Kelly Foster was well
cast/acted such as in the difficult dramatic situations where she silently
watched and waited for appropriate moments to address the Mee's family
struggles. Undeniably a "strong woman" and "smart woman"
role. That seemed to be the main extent of her part. And also, that she was an
experienced professional concerning her work with animals. Again, excellently
written/played. If people aren't easy to recognize the former quality, her
knowledge/acquaintance/timing over family psychology, it more likely is a
result of their own lack of psychological well being than anything shortsighted
about the casting or playing of her part.
Something about how unstable and worried the mother's face
is scares me.. deep voices coming out of a woman's mouth is always scary too..
not so much freaky leg and arm positions I hope they dont over do that but I
think it looks promising to make me jump and get creeped out!
I think people forget that sometimes movies can be fun too..
and dont have to be taken TOO seriously
I just saw the trailer at the cinema and i think it looks
very scary too. What's with all the people nowadays deciding movies suck before
they have even seen them?
I'm the bad guy?
How did that happen?
They probably think it sucks because it looks like every
other movie about someone possessed.
I found the reason it seems so cool and "must see"
is because it DOESN'T look like every other exorcism movie. It looks really
spine-chilling and freaky, and the whole medical/science-y twist on a biblical
thing is interesting (Doctors curing demonic possessions instead of the usual
Father This-and-that).
I'm, quite frankly, dead bored with recent horror flicks,
but even the most sceptic people I know changed their minds when they actually
saw the trailer for this, instead of hearing about "another exorcism
film". This has the potential to be a future classic/cult favorite, as
long as they don't ruin it with marketing for idiots & teens and making a
yearly sequel that always ends in a cliffhanger. I really hope I don't have to hear
about "Devil Inside 5: Electric Boogaloo 2, the UNRATED DIRECTOR'S
EXTENDED CUT TOO HOT FOR THEATERS!!!"
The whole "biblical priests dealing with demons"
hoo-ya was dealt with already in Rec 2.
This movie is far from original. If you really think an old
lady singing "The Itsy Bitsy Spider" and seeing bodies flying from a
bed with no one touching them for the 10th movie in a row is scary, you need to
check yourself.
These handheld camera movies aren't even remotely original
in anyway anymore. They all borrow from each other, and other films.
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Oh gawd...that trailer scared the pee outta me! My
grandmother wants to take me to see it when it comes out....I hope I can sit
through it....I'm just going to bring a big jacket, some sunglasses, my mp3
player and a small teddybear with me!!!
The lack of makeup actually will make this movie scarier.
Lately I been seeing so many over done special effects that it makes everything
plastic looking. I think this will be a good movie visually. Now hopefully the
plot keeps up. :)
Yes, I noticed this too! It should be interesting to
see...it's always nice when a film breaks the rules of what is traditionally
done in a movie...i'm sure it will pay off :P
this looks insaaaane!!
Agreed. This movie, if you're a true horror fan, is
incredibly unoriginal. Plus, the trailers don't even look scary; it's more
stupid horror than clever horror. Definitely one I'm passing by
Hogarth, you stay. I go. No following.
For the first three minutes the trailer looked like every
other exorcism-themed film I've seen over the last 35 years, but then came the
christening scene, now that really shocked me.
Interesting.
unoriginal? how about all the remakes being done in recent
years? IMHO, this had a new feel to it. it could have been good editing for the
trailer (cuz i havent seen it yet)
i agree about the christening scene. i saw that on christmas
eve with the xmas music playing. that intrigued me as well. i havent seen a
shocking film that i liked recently. heres to hoping this one is.
That scene was completely stolen from "Omen III: The
Final Conflict".
"Nolite te bastardes carborundorum" - Don't let
the bastards grind you down
Kill them all, Let God sort em out
i hate when people say "this aint original" NOTHING
is gonna be 100% original! every idea in movies, music, and books has been done
by someone, somewhere before. It can still be good and not be original ya know
Kill them all, Let God sort em out
Yeah...it's pretty bad! haha! But I DID want to see
Paranormal Activity 3, and she was too scared to go :) I guess we balance
eachother out.
Firstly, the idea of science vs. faith being brokered by
priests is not a new idea. In the Exorcist the only priest who actually
believes in exorcism is the old one. The young one professes himself to be
something more of a psychologist than a priest. And the church elders suggest
the exorcism as a kind of placebo affect, none of them believe the girl is
actually possessed. The creepiest thing from the trailer was the phone call, if
you believe it's real, since it claims to be. Since that's actually just
marketing for the movie what you're left with is a very simple formula. Music
that builds to a tension, then everything goes quiet, and then something loud
happens. These are cheap scares. The second Paranormal Activity suffered from
an overuse of this. Based on the trailer this movie should be called "the
Startling." It's a natural human reaction to jump at something loud after
it's quiet but I don't think it's quality horror movie making. That's just an
opinion.
I'm a 40 year old male internet veteran and the trailer
scared me.
Usually If the trailer freaks me out ...the movie will live
up to it. I am pumped to see this....looks freaky as hell.
Expl: the darkest hour trailer was utter so was the movie.
I'm a true horror fan and after seeing the preview on TV I
can here to read more and watch the longer trailer. I think it looks quite
scary which is unusual for a newer horror movie, especially one about exorcism.
I think the idea is different and the execution of the idea looks unique. I'm
looking forward to it.
Agree !Let's not forget Silent throughout the preview= that
has me completely freaked out ! Anyone else have new forced associate with that
song? Scary scary
whether or not the horse lives or dies is important in my
decision of whether to or not see it. so anyone familiar with the play or book
please share.
I've only seen the Broadway version.
Joey doesn't die. Other warhorses do die, such as Topthorn,
so Joey experiences the loss of a friend (to the extent that horses have
friends, I guess).
thanks for posting this, I came here to say the same thing!
I don't want to see it if its too sad.
Yeah couldn't have this cynically 'heartwarming',
'emotional' film being a bit too challenging, could we?
I'm not gonna see it anyway. I don't like movies where
animals die. Dances With Wolves (accidentally watched it as a very young child)
scarred me for life.
You, ^^^ why can't you let this particular thread be, the OP
just had a question and You butted in with an irrelevant response. You already
have your own thread that's still on the first page of this board, where you
indulge your hatred for this movie. You disparagingly describe War Horse as
"cynically heartwarming" and yet it's becoming obvious to me you're
the one who is full of cynicism ... bitching against a movie that is several
month's away from being released, you've seen the trailer only and the
vitriolic campaign you're conducting against this movie in this board (and
probably elsewhere too) is too ridiculous.
Yes, it's very possible you can be the Leader of those
fanatical haters of this movie in this board or if not the movie, then perhaps
Spielberg, but I don't think there's anything Glorious or laudable in that kind
of effort.
I'm not a fan of Spielberg, but I do like some of the films
he had directed.
And learning from those who've seen the play that Joey
didn't die makes me more eager to see the movie come December ; even if it
hadn't been Spielberg, I'd still watch
it. I won't care if it doesn't become popular with critics and with those with
film savvy and the casual moviegoers, I'm just interested to see the story
unfold in the big screen.
Truth inexorably,inscrutably seeks and reveals Itself into
the Light.
I just asked this on another thread. I'm like you,I don't
like movies where animals die,thats why I hated Walt Disney,Old Yeller scarred
me for life. I wouldn't see Super 8 until everyone assured me the alien didn't
eat the dogs. I'll wait until this is on TV so I can watch it alone and cry for
the dying horses. Glad there are still some compassionate people like you left.
P.S. I saw Dances with Wolves in the show and was upset that the wolf was
killed,didn't feel it was necessary and have never watched the movie again.
I'm not laughing about Old Yeller dying, but the fact that
when we watched it fourth grade, I was crying like a ba in class and thought it
was cruel to be showing it to young kids. Am like the rest of your guys here,
don't like seeing animals die on film. I came to look to see if the movie was
based on the play, which I heard was sinply amazing, but lately, too much
sadness around me, can't watch more. And my mother likes to tell me that there
are happy endings in these movies, but it's the middle part of the movie that
gets to me. Thanks for the question and the spoiler!
Whenever you look up, there I shall be -- and whenever I
look up there will be you.
Thanks for answering my question.
I simply didn't want the War Horse to turn out like Pippit.
Thanks for asking this question, I came looking specifically
for an answer to it myself. There's too much cruelty and too many things to
grieve in reality, I don't need to watch a film for it.
"Uin lith naur echuiatha..."
(From the ashes a fire shall be woken... JRR Tolkien)
Yeah couldn't have this cynically 'heartwarming',
'emotional' film being a bit too challenging, could we?
Well, we could, if it wasn't for the fact that it's based on
a play which is based on a book which is told from the horse's point of view.
Joey can't die in the book because he's the narrator...if he did, we wouldn't
have a story. Hence he doesn't die in the film either. As others have pointed
out though, Topthorn, the secondary horse character in the book and play, does
die. And if they portray it as it is written in the book (can't remember what
they did in the play), it may well be very distressing.
Gene Hunt: She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin
shoot
It looks great but I too can't see this film either. I still
refuse to watch 'Marley and Me' because of the ending. I hate seeing animals
hurt.
"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but,
secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G
Well no one LIKES seeing animals get hurt. Unless your sick.
But not seeing a movie simply because 5 second scene of the animal actually dying
is silly. ESPECIALLY in movies, where no animals like horses ARE EVER killed.
Unless you are 11 years old, act like an adult.
No but lots of dead horses and humans in this.
novalich, i could have written every word that you did, so
just in case you ever thought 'you were the only one', you are not. i BEGGED 4th grade teacher to NOT read aloud the part
where old yeller dies; she went right ahead;and i feel the pain to this day.
whatever you do, do NOT see The Yearling. I refused to watch it, and my mom and
brother cried and cried, and i never saw or will see it.
some of us are very very tough in some ways and very very
sensitive in others.
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.
I saw the Yearlng when I was young,I never watched it again
and I'm now an old woman. I think films for children should be fun and carefree
so they can have a few hours of pure fantasy. They will learn the harshness of
the world soon enough,a sad and cruel movie will not help prepare them,thats up
to their parents. Those kinds of movies just made things worse for me when I
was a child.
"I will never let you part,for you are always in my
heart" Michael Jackson
The horse ends up in a glue factory. End of story.
^^Maybe I AM like an 11 year-old but I don't think I'll be
able to see this film. Well over 200,000 horses died on the Western Front alone
so, even if the "star" horse doesn't die, there will be a lot of
others that do.
I never forgave Walt Disney for Old Yeller and I don't think
I've changed much over the years in that way.
That may not even be a bad thing.
the horse is elected president of the united states. it
legalizes marijuana, taxes corporations into bankruptcy, and ends all war.
This is just my opinion.
thank you guys for doing this post. my thoughts and feelings
exactly.
about the horse. about old yeller. about the wolf in dances
with wolves. and the yearling. man!
Yep, I came to this board also just to find out about this.
Anyone ever see The Plague Dogs? Man, that was brutal.
My grandfather fought in WW1 and he told me horses were so
valuable that they would rather have a human die then a horse. SO I just assumed
the horse lived, thank god. I hate movies where they kill off animals even
though you know they are still alive. I was looking at this movie the other day
about this boy who lived in the swamps of Louisiana and his pet raccoon. Well I
was devastated and mad when the raccoon was killed a alligator and the boy goes after the
alligator for revenge. Well at the end of the movie, guess who shows up? The
pet raccoon who he thought was dead. That is when I stopped crying.
But listen up! Here is a warning to all of you folks who get
upset when something happens to a animal. Do not see this movie called Umberto
D. It is one of the best movies ever made, but I still get upset just writing
the name of the movie down. Be warned. The ending is the most heartbreaking
movie I ever saw, ever.
I was upset when Bambi's and Dumbo's mothers were killed
too.
I've always wanted to see Umberto D but avoided it because I
was afraid something bad happens to the dog. Uh-oh.
The dog was the focal point of the movie IMO and it doesn't
end like you think it will, but it is a heart breaking actions involving Flick,
the dog goes on all through the movie. The dog should of gotten a Oscar.
by ib011f9545i 22 hours ago (Fri Jan 6 2012 12:45:12)
I have seen the second and third Swedish verions of the books,but missed the first one,so was glad to see the English language version of this.
So I can't compare GIRL/TATTOO with the Swedish version but as a stand alone film it was great.
This might be Daniel Craig's best performance,and Rooney Mara was amazing.
I have been to Sweden several times and am a big fan of Stockholm,this film made me want to go back again.
I reject people saying it should not have been made,making a film in English means it will be seen by many more people than a subtitled film.
I think the film has a great Swedish sort of feel,unlike the English version of INSOMNIA or the English version of THE KILLING,the Atlantic North West is not Scandanavia.
Of course me saying that the film makes me lust after Sweden will mean that someone on IMDB will point out the film was actually filmed elsewhere?
Why was bits of it filmed in Norway?
by joeblackis 5 hours ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 05:19:55)
They could of and should of cut out the final 20minutes or so of the movie about stealing the money.
No real purpose except wasting time.
They could of left in those 20minutes as a dvd/blu ray extended version instead.
by Rob801 5 hours ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 05:45:25)
UPDATED Sat Jan 7 2012 05:48:59
I actually wish I could've seen Finchers first cut of 3:07...Different strokes I guess :). It wasn't a waste of time as it sets up for some events in the sequels, and if you choose to just look at it as a stand alone film, it brings resolution to the Wennerstrom affair.
To the OP, there was a Swedish reviewer that said that Fincher caught the feel of Sweden and Stockholm better than Oplev did ;). As far as filming (a shot?) in Norway, I was kind of wondering about that myself. There was a Swedish user that noticed it but most other people wouldn't of course.
"I haven't pitched a tent like this since Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face!"-John Oliver
by blupblup 5 hours ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 05:49:42)
Totally agree about seeing the longer cut... I like long films, especially if they are worth it and don't drag.
Why wouldn't people want to see more of a great film?
While many didn't like Watchmen, I loved it and the longer cuts just add to the story... same with many extended cuts. If you like the original film, why wouldn't you like 'More' film.
Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: You're not wrong Walter. You're just an a**hole.
by bruckelsprout 1 hour ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 09:17:04)
I think it really depends on what you're adding, though. Sometimes the extended cut puts in scenes that really make a difference to your understanding of the characters, and sometimes the extended portions just slog down the movie's pacing.
As far as the OP's post for the movie being a bit too long - while I really liked this film, I felt like perhaps the extended part with Wennerstrom and Lisbeth's money-stealing shenanigans was a "second ending," because at some point the movie gets wrapped up in the Harriet Vanger/serial killer storyline we totally forget about Wennerstrom. So after they find Harriet, it feels like the movie will be finished, and then suddenly there's a whole other section that feels like a fourth third of the movie. I wonder if that could have been solved by adding a scene with Wennerstrom, Erika, and Millennium would have reminded us that this other stuff was still an issue.
by GHsgirl 1 hour ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 09:44:23)
"I wonder if that could have been solved by adding a scene with Wennerstrom, Erika, and Millennium would have reminded us that this other stuff was still an issue."
Well, it sure had to be resolved one way or the other, since the reason why Blomkvist accepted the job Henrik offered, was the dirty Henrik had on Wennerstrom. It can be argued that they could have cut a few minutes from the whole scene with Lisbeth in drag. However, the conclusion of the Wennerstom case, in relation to Blomkvist's story arch, needed to be closed.
by bruckelsprout 56 minutes ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 10:01:16)
Oh, I'm not saying that that section of the movie shouldn't have been there. I actually liked that part. But after mystery of Harriet's disappearance is solved, I believe people start to wind down expecting the conclusion. Especially at the reunion scene. The Wennerstrom ending feels like a tack-on, and I was just wondering if a couple more references might have made it feel more interconnected, since the Vanger mystery dominated the last two-thirds of the movie.
by GHsgirl 47 minutes ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 10:10:55)
Got it. And I understand too that some people have/had difficulty because to them it might drag down and seem anticlimax.
I liked it too, and in the book I hadn't liked that part so much when I read on the page. To me seeing it coming to life like that was very interesting.
by deke8989 36 minutes ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 10:21:01)
Is it a proven fact or still just a rumour that Fincher had a longer cut? I've never heard an exact time of 3:07 before. Where'd you hear that, Rob. I just got overly excited about a possible director's cut blu-ray.
by Rob801 12 minutes ago (Sat Jan 7 2012 10:45:03)
UPDATED Sat Jan 7 2012 10:54:44
I don't remember the exact link but it was a video interview with Fincher and IIRC that time (3:07) was mentioned and he was asked about a directors cut and he basically said that cut was too long and didn't have the right flow and that the 2:40 cut was his doing. He also said something about not believing in directors cuts and that you put your best foot forward with what you got. It was one I saw in a thread on this board somewhere.
But who knows, he still could have felt an obligation to keep the film down to a length that wouldn't completely alienate most movie goers and sink the project (as much as I would have liked a longer cut personally, I don't think it would have helped ticket sales).
Edit: I found the interview here:
http://collider.com/david-fincher-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo-intervie
"I haven't pitched a tent like this since Dick Cheney shot that guy in the face!"-John Oliver
Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (2011) Trailer
User Reviews:
God no!!!!
by unc692 (Tue Nov 29 2011 18:37:36)
When the chipmunks and Chipettes go overboard, the writers should have written into the script that all six were eaten by a shark or some other type of carnivorous sea creature. I would have paid the ridiculous amount of money theaters want to see that.
by OuranosSkyAir (Sat Dec 3 2011 10:03:55)
I love you for this post.
Have a swarm of sharks eat them.
by dr_drift_phd (Sat Dec 3 2011 11:32:33)
First of all retard sharks don't eat chipmunks read the food chain. I know you're not being serious about that because seafood eats seafood even though this isn't a reality movie I mean come on you still have to at least give the idea of some of it being real otherwise there would be no rules and you would not be immersed in the cinema. Nice try though I know you're joking but I still hate to see someone say something so ignorant.
by shadowsofawakaning (Mon Dec 5 2011 12:52:34)
so sharks eating chipmonks is less believable then chipmonks talking and dancing? Are you down-syndrome?
film, like paintings, music, literature… is an art.
by Starbuck_Mark (Tue Dec 6 2011 03:51:27)
Sharks dont eat chipmonks? Have you ever thown one into the water with a shark to test it out? They seem to attack and attempt to eat humans on occation, lol.
by count_of_monkey_cristo (Tue Dec 6 2011 11:09:22)
"First of all retard sharks don't eat chipmunks"
What's a retard shark?
by delta_storm2152 (Wed Dec 7 2011 14:50:45)
You know, the shark with one crooked eye and missing teeth from trying to eat cruise ships instead of chipmunks splashing around.
by Blackace (Thu Dec 8 2011 17:34:55)
The only reason these films keep getting made is because they make money at the box office. The kiddies love this stuff, but most grown ups don't want to watch this. It's almost as bad as the Smurfs. Almost.
by Sevmarick (Thu Dec 8 2011 20:06:42)
what the *beep* dude thats not what i was talking bout
by cooljoebay2 (Fri Dec 9 2011 19:53:15)
Well, that's the problem. Kids would love poison if you added some sugar to it and fed it to them. But does it make it right? Not hardly. Today's "family" shows are poisonous. They make children narrowminded and non-empathic. No compassion at all. The old chipmunks bickered at times. But there was a line that was never crossed. And the good they did in their shows taught a lot about goodwill and helping others. Not to mention, sacrificing for the sake of others.
That stuff doesn't exist anymore. Everything has been reduced to eye candy and materialism.
So to say the show will make money, or the kids love it, is a foolish narrowminded attitude to have. If today's entertainment keeps it up, in another decade or two, we will end up with a world full of a-holes from top to bottom.
If the prez wants to have a war somewhere, he should just drop a few on Hollywood and save our children.
by taquitoman (Mon Dec 12 2011 06:21:41)
These little bitches will be singing a Rihanna song again?!
by eddelreal (Sat Dec 17 2011 23:34:31)
LOL! You're funny, but I have to admit, I thought some parts were cute and my seven-year-old niece LOVED it.
by same_here (Sun Dec 18 2011 19:37:49)
You took a seven year old child to see this movie? You sick bastard! You should be arrested for child abuse!!
by eddelreal (Sun Dec 18 2011 20:13:58)
ROFL. Hey, at least I didn't take her to see that Justin Bieber "Never Say Never" documentary. That would have been pure torture (for both of us).
by goose03 21 hours ago (Fri Jan 6 2012 11:37:52)
No, your veiwpoint is narrowmided. These movies (Chipmunks, Smurfs, etc.) are primarily for kids. If kids enjoy them, great! Sometimes as a parent, I have to sit through some stuff which isn't my thing...I bear with it as my kids come first.
Not sure how old you are but I grew up in the 70's....can I tell you how much crap TV I watched back then?? It was GREAT when you were a kid.
The only show I remember having any redeemable value was the original Scooby-Doo cartoons...but that was just because I learned never to trust Old Man Wilkens and it's OK to meddle in other people's business!
by tawdry_hepburn (Sat Dec 17 2011 14:52:10)
First off, I am straight. However, I enjoy movies with a strong gay subtext because they remind me of Hollywood's classic period during the Hay's Code where you couldn't actually show sex in any form. There's something charming about the throwback feel of a homoerotic subtext where we understand that the protagonists are in love with one another, though it is never spoken aloud. Sorta like "To Catch a Thief" where the romantic leads kiss and we pan up to the fireworks overhead. The audience understands the symbolism, even as the text itself remains understated.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, moreso than even the very gay original, is a great example of this trend.
As the film begins, Watson is about to marry. Holmes is none too pleased about this, though he cannot explain exactly why.
Next, Holmes throws Watson a stag party. Even though the party takes place at a *brothel*, Holmes systematically makes sure that Watson has no sexual contact with any women. He also makes sure that none of Watson's other male friends are even present. It's like having a bachelor party thrown by the bride.
And then there's the bit with the cigar...
After this, Holmes shows up and interrupts Watson's honeymoon, dressed as his wife (!) and ensures that Watson cannot consummate the relationship.
Later, Watson brings Holmes back to life by penetrating him with a phallic object.
And as if the film were not overt enough, the climax is Watson walking in on Holmes embracing another man! If you cut that close up of Watson into Jude Law's romantic drama "Closer" it would fit right in as Law's moment of heartbreak (assuming you ignored the period clothing).
I didn't love this movie, though the last 30 minutes were quite good. However, the gay angle, which Downey Jr. and Law have discussed openly, was very entertaining.
,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams
by kit-sung (Sat Dec 17 2011 15:00:45)
Are you sure you're not a closet homosexual? Cause you sure sound like a gay person who sees a gay subtext in even the most innocent moments...
by tawdry_hepburn (Sat Dec 17 2011 15:12:27)
No. I just went to film school. ahah.
But seriously, Downey Jr. and Law *did* discuss the intentional gay subtext of the original film during the junkets for part one. They're clearly playing Holmes and Watson as secret lovers.
As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." But in this case, the cigar is quitea bit more.
I enjoy films that deal with forbidden love and in 2011, we've already broken the class barrier, the age barrier, the race barrier and so on. Secret gay love affairs are all that is left.
I don't see why I would have to be gay to get enjoyment out of this angle anymore than I would have to be a drug addict to find catharsis in The Lost Weekend or Requiem for a Dream.
I would have linked to the original interview with Downey Jr. on Letterman, but it appears that that's been pulled from youtub.
This message has been deleted by the poster
by tawdry_hepburn (Sat Dec 17 2011 15:14:51)
I saw that as just action choreography, but I suppose you're right. Wasn't Holmes in a dress and makeup with a wig that resembled Watson's wife at that point too?
by luluthebeast (Sat Dec 17 2011 15:24:28)
While I agree that there is a good deal of subtext going on, I think you missed the point of the ending completely, and as far as the bachelor party goes, Holmes was there on business.
And I loved the movie and thought it was better than the last one. But I don't want to go into too much detail until more people see it. You know....spoilers and all.
by tawdry_hepburn (Sat Dec 17 2011 15:29:22)
I agree that it's unfair to discuss minute details of a film that's been out for less than 72 hours. I tried to keep it spoiler free. The image description I give for the climax doesn't really give anything away.
I know that Holmes was at the stag party on work, but his character is always doing two things at once. And it plays into the double entendre nature of his relationship with Watson where everything is buried and has a 'rational' explaination, as well as a *wink*wink*nudge*nudge* meaning.
The ending especially struck me as an interesting resolution of the film's internal romantic tensions. Watson is trying to leave Holmes, to go legit and get a wife, but when he sees Holmes in the arms of another man... it's like the ending of Last American Virgin (most authentic sex comedy ever made). That moment especially struck me as a double meaning. There is no particular reason for Watson to come outside at that exact moment other than as an exposition shortcut and to underline the subtextual themes.
I'm sick and tired of seeing the standard white guy with the racially ambiguous woman in movies. Why can't Hollywood cast dark skinned black women in these roles? Are mixed actors now in fashion? I honestly can't remember the time, I've seen a dark skinned actress in an action role for quite sometime.
by TJ_With_The_Rocky_Tattoo2012
I think you missed Colombiana then. And Thandie Newton cannot be mistaken for anything BUT a black woman and neither can Paula Patton to be honest. She's not that racially ambiguous, she pretty much looks black with lighter skin.
I...BRING IT!
by hero4hire (Mon Dec 26 2011 01:03:15)
I kinda get where the OP is coming from. Anytime you see films like this, and they have a female on the team its usually what I call an 'ambiguously brown'actress, which means the actress is clearly ethnic but light enough in skin tone and generally "looks good standing next to the white guy". These actresses include but surely arent limited to: Thandie Newton,Rosario Dawson, Paula Patton, Halle Berry, Rae Dawn Chong(for all you old school heads), Zoe Saldana(ESPECIALLY!). Its a very demeaning phenom to actresses of color.
Now that I think about it...whens the white chick gonna be second to the Black action hero...scary thought huh?
"You win some, you lose some. But you live, you live to fight another day."
by rapunzel_1 (Mon Dec 26 2011 01:12:01)
How BLACK do you want the woman to be to say "yeah she is a black woman?"
by Hugo_Cabret (Mon Dec 26 2011 01:41:06)
Columbiana was a french film produced by Luc Besson. NOT hollywood.
by quinmario97-1 (Mon Dec 26 2011 02:34:46)
OMG, THIS. Paula Patton is a black woman. Just ask her husband Robin Thicke, he talks about loving his black woman all the time. Who the hell cares about skin shade, she's still black. Besides, it was a good movie. Why are you making this a racial issue? And this is coming from a black woman.
by TheDarkRighteousFist (Mon Dec 26 2011 06:08:24)
OMG, THIS. Paula Patton is a black woman. Just ask her husband Robin Thicke, he talks about loving his black woman all the time. Who the hell cares about skin shade, she's still black.
What he's saying is that they don't usually cast darker skinned black women in leading action roles. It's always the light-skinned women who get the part.
For example, you see Paula Patton being cast alongside Tom Cruise - but I bet you box office money you'd NEVER see someone like Anika Noni Rose in that role.
Or you see Halley Berry being cast alongside Pierce Brosnan - but I bet you box office money you'd NEVER see someone like Kimberly Elise in that role.
As bad as it sounds, he has a point. It's the light skinned actresses that get the leading roles opposite the great white heroes, while the darker skinned actresses are . . . kept where and with whom they belong, so to speak.
by rick-586 (Mon Dec 26 2011 06:55:24)
In what world is Paula Patton racially ambigious?
I'm sure in your head you think you're making a highminded argument here - but it's pretty insulting to see this discussion relegate some fine actresses to "light skinned blacks" as if that's their only value. And as if breaking people down into light-skinned vs. dark-skinned isn't just as racist as seeing people as black or white... you're still seeing people by the color of their skin rather than who they are.
Let's be honest - in a movie like this Paula Patton was cast because she's smoking hot - but she's also a fine actress (recent evidence: Precious), so please stop using her as fodder for a misguided argument.
by steelo86 (Mon Dec 26 2011 06:59:37)
That's not entirely true. There are examples of brown and/or dark skinned women getting lead roles in action films:
- Sanaa Lathan, lead actor of Alien vs. Predator
- Grace Jones, Bond Girl in "View to a Kill"
- Gabrielle Union, female lead in "Bad Boys II" (I include this because it's a big budget action film, but if you want to discredit because the lead actors are black, fine)
- Naomie Harris in "Skyfall" (upcoming Bond film in production for 2012 release)
I won't include singers (Aaliyah in "Romeo Must Die", Rihanna in "Battleship", Whitney Houston in "Bodyguard") in action movies because there's plenty of room for speculation that those women got their parts through their popularity.
And let's not forget Pam Grier, who even Quentin Tarantino referred to as the first female action movie star. True, the action movies she starred in were a subgenre of the blaxploitation craze of the 70s, but roles like "Coffy" and "Foxy Brown" are iconic.
by enriquesinghjr (Mon Dec 26 2011 07:08:49)
Come on people, Hollywood is all about looks, they probably didn't consider Viola Davis for Patton's role, as much as they didn't consider Seth Rogen for Tom Cruise's role (had it not been the case that he's the producer and owner of the franchise).
by Staley67-02 (Mon Dec 26 2011 07:47:07)
Waah, the girsl not black enough.
Waah, Hollywood is racist.
Waah, I can't get a job because the guy that interviewed me is racist.
Stop your whining for God's sake.
"I see dumb people"
by nikkiten1979 (Mon Dec 26 2011 08:51:21)
What the hell are you talking about? Racially Ambiguous??? What does that even MEAN? She's half White half Black - that to you is ambiguous? Stupid. If you can't tell what you see then you're the one with an ambiguous mind and vision.
can't outrun your own shadow
by nikkiten1979 (Mon Dec 26 2011 08:55:40)
Paula and Thandie are both mixed with Black and White and they look IT. They are NOT just Black women - they are mixed and they are not ambiguous like the stupid OP claims them to be - what an insult!!! Most people look at them and think "Black" (which BTW Okay), and it's not as if we have MANY Black or mixed Black women in movies nowadays.
can't outrun your own shadow
by assumedkilla (Mon Dec 26 2011 09:16:06)
I disagree with you and the OP. It's pretty clear that Paula is black/white, so maybe the OP doesn't know what ambiguous means. Saying she looks white is pretty crazy too.
Zoe is a black Hispanic... her ancestors are from Africa just like a black person in America. Being Dominican, PR, Brazilian, etc doesn't change that.
I do agree that Hollywood does pick light skinned and/or mixed black woman way before a brown or dark one, when they're the far more common ones IRL. Anyone who denies this is naive, racist, or out of touch with reality.
"I never saved anything for the swim back."
by crapsdealer711 (Mon Dec 26 2011 09:29:30)
They Should have cast Gabourey Sidibe...the lard a$ from Precious. would that be dark skinned enough for you? I think it would be just as plausible as the rest of this nonsense.
by assumedkilla (Mon Dec 26 2011 09:29:59)
How BLACK do you want the woman to be to say "yeah she is a black woman?"
Well, having two black parents means you're black. The "one drop rule" is a racist idea that America has been using since slavery and it's still around today. If she had two black parents and was still kinda light then this would be a different discussion, but she's biracial, not a black woman.
"I never saved anything for the swim back."
by TJ_With_The_Rocky_Tattoo2012 (Mon Dec 26 2011 09:34:13)
What does being biracial have to do with being black or not? If the race that makes up your two races is BLACK then you are considered BLACK. Why does it matter if she's mixed with white too? She doesn't LOOK WHITE she looks black.
I...BRING IT!
by assumedkilla (Mon Dec 26 2011 09:43:46)
lol, if you don't think having a white parent and a black parent affects your race then I don't think you know what race is, SMH. It matters because that's what she is, a biracial woman, and she looks like it. Patton clearly looks mixed. I would be more surprised if she was all black than white/black. Thinking if you have any black in you means you're all black is a retarded/racist idea. They used to do that during slavery because they didn't want mixed slaves getting freedom, so they were classified as black too. In reality, a lot of masters were enslaving their own half white kids because they had raped the women, but they didn't want their kids to be free. I see no reason to keep that logic around today.
"I never saved anything for the swim back."
by jmckay27 (Mon Dec 26 2011 10:07:49)
Except for Harold and Kumar, the business of movies still is dominated by you know who. What ever happened to the John Singleton's or the John Woo's?
by TJ_With_The_Rocky_Tattoo2012 (Mon Dec 26 2011 10:15:04)
I'm biracial myself so I think I know what I'm talking about here. And for the record you are misconstruing what I'm saying. Paula Patton CLEARLY looks more black than white, do you think she could pull off a WHITE person role? Hell no, they tried that with Rosario Dawson and it was AWFUL, she just looked like she had on too much white makeup. I'm not saying that having a white and black parent means that you are automatically black, it is based on your features more than anything else.
Taking myself as an example, I have biracial parents too and I came out looking more black than white so that is what I relate myself to. If I had came out the other spectrum I would relate more to the white aspect of my family in terms of what I would define my race as. It is usually much easier for a biracial person that looks like the dominate race to say that is their race do you understand?
It is QUITE CLEAR that Patton has ALL black features except her more refined nose. She "looks" like a black person with lighter skin. If you were to darken her skin she'd look like a dark skinned African woman. So does Rosario Dawson, Thandie Newton, and Zoe Saldana as well. Halle Berry doesn't look MIXED either, the only reason you would think that Patton is mixed is because of her HAIR which is more than likely weave or she had to have it chemically relaxed in order for it to flow the way that it does.
