Actually I've almost watched everything Lynch now. Only Twin Peaks to go. Nitin I'm sure you'll have loved Blue Velvet. I enjoyed it, though I do prefer his more ambiguous films.

Inland Empire I loved. Just wish there weren't so many different theories on the plot and one of them actually stood out. I still don't know who was actually real in the film.

His doco and Rabbits aren't really worth watching though. 

Sixth Sense is actually a great movie IMHO, there is much more to it than just twist ending. Rest of his not so much although Unbreakable and Signs had plenty of decent bits. And kona he didnt do Avatar, that was James Terminator/Titanic/Aliens Caneron. And he's doing 2 more.

As for Inland Empire, I hated it. As much as anything I have ever hated if not more. Usually quite partial to Lynch except this movie and Wild at Heart both of which just rubbed me the wrong way. And I hope any future movie he does is done on film on a proper HD video camera, not the $2 camera he used for IE, which is also one of the ugliest looking YouTube videos I have ever seen.

. 

Avatar as in Avatar: The Last Airbender, which is what the movie was based on. I guess he just took the Avatar bit out so people didn't confuse it with Cameron's movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/

I didn't think this was that bad, but probably only because I haven't seen the cartoon and don't know the stories' potential.

Re Inland Empire; yeah filming it digitally is the one thing that really pissed me off as well. Could have been so much better looking if he'd filmed it properly. At times it felt like a cam recording. Think I read he was going to do all his films digitally from now on. Sounds to me like he's just been really, fucking, lazy.

Wild at Heart I didn't care much for either. 

plenty of decent looking films shot digitally, plus tv shows. But he is using some very basic digital video which is just silly. 

now in just alphabetical order, about 600 titles added. 

http://www.imdb.com/list/tRA4ZACG66o/ 

And only two more I'd ever like to see. 

Watched this again last night. Even second time around, on the small screen, it just bloody brilliant, in many ways. 

hobbit film: super fast framerate felt distracting to me. The very first scene looked like it was on fast forward to me until I got used to it, and every so often it stuck out. 

planning to see it in regular 24fps 2D. 

Probably a good idea. I didn't find the 3D added anything either.
Also, they did that annoying thing where they 'throw' things at the camera to make you flinch. I really wish they would stop doing that as it takes you out of the movie. 

I agree, but most people I know that like to watch in 3D want stuff like that. Personally, I still maintain that only Hugo had 3D that actually enhanced the movie (although I have heard from reliable sources that Life of Pi does too).

My brother saw Hobbit in 24FPS 3D yesterday and said that the sets/makeup looked really fake in 3D, something he hasnt noticed in other 3D movies, maybe a byproduct of being natively shot in 48FPS 3d?

Anyway, what did you think of the movie? 

Well, I'm not much of a movie critic, I tend to notice technical details more than the rest.

Also, my memory of The Hobbit is a bit fuzzy since I read it a few years ago.

I'm pretty much going to spoil parts of the movie now, so don't read this if you don't want to know...

--

Generally, this is a good, fun movie to watch. A bit slow to start, but with enough action at the back half to satisfy most people.

The movie is in an interesting position as far as book adaptations go since this is a single book split into 3 films instead of a book per film.

This actually allows for including pretty much the entire content. Some of the songs that are sung in the book survived the transition which I thought was a pretty cool move and the riddle game scene is completely preserved from what I remember. I really liked that and thought they might skim over the riddles and just have Bilbo get chased by Gollum.

There's obviously a lot of embellishment going on with regards to action scenes. Everything is dialed up to 11: the flight out of the goblin caves (which originally took place in complete darkness and was just them running) is now this huge elaborate running fight scene as they are chased across what seems like the entire goblin city, leaping across rickety wooden walkways and swinging on hanging rotten structures (which, btw, would make an awesome quake map...).

There are some changes from the book which I can sort of understand, but others which I don't.

For example, they added some character development to the orcs, having orc only scenes where they are talking and such. Also, Azog is alive now and has a personal grudge against Thorin (originally, he's already dead when the book starts). I think it's to better explain about why they will be swarmed with orcs at the end of the book (iirc, Gandalf only explains it to them AFTER the battle at the end of the book and then only in vague terms).

Was Radagast in the original story? I don't remember him at all, and his introduction is particularly jarring, coming way out of left field. Also, it's kind of goofy and hard to take seriously because there's this overly dramatic music playing and he's trying to save the life of... like a hedgehog or something. He actually serves to introduce the necromancer, whom Gandalf already knew about in the book. I suppose that was a show don't tell moment for the film, but Radagast is just really weird.

I found the pacing to be kind of bizarre. At times, it felt like the tempo of the movie didn't have enough time to slow down in between peaks and at others, it felt too slow. I can't really identify why it felt that way though, sorry.

Also, for some reason, the special effects of the introduction sequence (they show Smaug kicking the dwarves out), is quite poor, but it gets better after that. There are a lot more fantasy creatures and some are pulled off better than others. The goblin king looked pretty badass. He could easily have been silly with the way he looks, but the lines they gave him and the stuff he got to do made him someone(thing) to take seriously. The trolls, otoh, were kind of goofy. Especially when we've seen the more viscious trolls in LOTR.

Soo... anyway... I'll probably watch the other 2 films in 3d as well (just because I won't see them in 3D after that), but I'll try to see them at 24fps instead. I find the slower framerate works better because you mind fills in the gaps. The faster framerate exposes some defects like the gimbles on the steady-cam things not rotating smoothly, or the helicopter cams shuddering. 

North by Northwest
Gah, that ending! Apart from that it I found it a masterpiece in all regards. 

if you like zombie movies, definitely watch! it's quite awesome 

Also awesome! My friend wrote a great paper on that book. 

but still in the unwatched pile :( 

Yeah, so it was fun (also fun to see the movie in the cinema the world premiere was in!). I think I would have had more fun if I tried to forget about the book more... the thing about the hobbit is that it's very much a kiddy book but the movie is filmed in the same kind of tone as the LOTR movies were, which is understandable but also something of a shame IMHO.

The prologue should have not been there. In many ways it felt like watching the extended edition of the LOTR movies, I think the decision to do three movies was probably a mistake. The battles were all too long. I thought the effects were on the whole pretty good (as in, I didn't really think about how they were being done!) but some of the cuts between cgi/minatures/sets were pretty obvious. Not sure if this was down to the HFR or whatever or just me being less credulous than when I watched the LOTR movies! 

Oh yeah, and the other thing that hadn't really occurred to me is that obviously you can't film the goblin cave/gollum scenes as they are in the book, because the characters are basically in the pitch dark the whole time! I wish they'd put a bit more of that in though, like maybe having the riddle scene be illuminated by a candle or something. 

http://www.mojvideo.com/video-blade-runner-1982-1-4-full-movie-eng-subs/13475e954acc6903fd07


haven't seen it in years... and years.

Does Deckard rape Rachel? 

the scene always seemed that way for me, but i also assumed that the director didn't intend that. 

never really got blade runner, found it a bit boring. never got the star wars obsession either. maybe i need to rewatch it too.

Last movie I watched was Agguire Wrath of God... strange German film based in the 1500s Amazonia in the search for the mythical city of El Dorado. Could do with a remake with the story not just suddenly ending. Nice visuals though. 

they wont actually shoot it in the Amazon and wont have the actors actually having to do the same things the Amazonians did :) 

Well, that wasn't very good. 

Mariangela Melato has been the dream of a nation for a long time, a beatiful woman and a fantastic actress...

Among all her fine movies, I'd suggest Swept Away (1974) as a a nice way to pay respects and discover a truly great flick...