WoW Petopia Community

Saw both Argo and Hobo with a shotgun.

I found Argo to be okay. I know most of it was not true to the story. I don't know the full details of it but they mixed and made up some facts or something *shrug* Then again who goes to see a movie for 100% realism? I guess.

Hobo with a shotgun. Went into it thinking the hobo was the bad guy but nope he was the good guy! He was cleaning the streets with the shotgun! Was really good.

cowmuflage wrote:I want to see Frozen and the chances I will do will be high when it comes out but I'm not going to fall for the hype it's getting. Like I'm sure it's good but like everyone was so hyped about Brave and I found that to be a huge disappointment and no where as good as what everyone said it was. If you get my drift XD

Brave was a let down for me as well. I mean...I liked it, but not as much as everyone else seemed to. It definitely was not one of Pixar's finest. Frozen is from the same branch of Disney that did Tangled and Wreck-it Ralph which are better than the average Disney movies imo (especially Wreck-it Ralph ) Frozen is very much like Tangled. Signing, laughter, betrayal, etc. I've seen it twice so far I've only seen 3 movies twice and this is the first one I've seen twice and loved the second time just as much, if not more, than the first (I wonder if it'll be the second movie I see three time )

I saw Delivery Man last week. What's up with these movies that look like comedies and are really dramas? It was good, but I was expecting a better laugh.

Huh, I think I'm going to have to see Frozen. I have this sort of sour feeling about it due to a lot of little things, but if it's that good, I should give it a chance. xD

Watched Pacific Rim again tonight.
Thoroughly enjoyed the film, but dammit the music is just so god awful. It's cringe-worthy.

There are two films I really enjoyed where the music just totally ruined it for me: the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek film, and Pacific Rim.

Man of Steel is another one where the music ruined the film for me, but the film isn't that high up on my list anyway, so it was less of a disappointment. I think even with a better score I wouldn't have been particularly enthused by the film.

Now I'm just waiting to go see The Hobbit. The only other film that's REALLY big on my "simply cannot sit still I'm so excited and impatient to see it" list, is the upcoming Godzilla remake. My god that trailer is epic! (and the score should be good, I LOVE Alexandre Desplats)

So I saw the midnight premier of the Hobbit and...I was dissapointed.

It was a good movie, and it's probably even better if you have't read the book (he adds in SO MUCH that was not in the book so it feels even more long and drawn out, and he could have totally turned this into 2 movies instead of 3, especially since The Hobbit is the shortest of the 4 books...)

It has some awesome moments and it has some funny moments, but overall it did not meet my expectations (except for Smaug and his voice *swoons over Benedict Cumberbatch*)

I talked to some customers today about it. Most people who hadn't read the book thought it was amazing, and those who had thought it was good but not as good as they had hope.

I rewatched the Hobbit last night because I'm not likely to see the new one anytime soon because of mum breaking her arm and that's who I see movies with because I'm lame >.>


Anyway I find it to be a bit too long. Did Sir Peter jackson really need to split it into 3 movies? Besides for him to get more money? Also why is it so dark and not fun when the book is way more light hearted?

Like I enjoy the movie but I can understand most arguments about it too.

cowmuflage wrote:I rewatched the Hobbit last night because I'm not likely to see the new one anytime soon because of mum breaking her arm and that's who I see movies with because I'm lame >.>


Anyway I find it to be a bit too long. Did Sir Peter jackson really need to split it into 3 movies? Besides for him to get more money? Also why is it so dark and not fun when the book is way more light hearted?

Like I enjoy the movie but I can understand most arguments about it too.

Wow is it three parts?? The book wasnt that long!!!!

I'll be going to see "walking with dinosaurs" cause i'm a sad 31yr old that loves dinosaurs

And anchorman 2 ofcourse....stay classy perth!

The reason The Hobbit will be three films is that Jackson & Co. are including material from the appendices of Lord of the Rings (there's an additional 100 or so pages of information on events that preceded those of LotR in that section of the book, which many people bypass).

The idea was to create a bridge between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings for the film universe.

Castile wrote:

cowmuflage wrote:I rewatched the Hobbit last night because I'm not likely to see the new one anytime soon because of mum breaking her arm and that's who I see movies with because I'm lame >.>


Anyway I find it to be a bit too long. Did Sir Peter jackson really need to split it into 3 movies? Besides for him to get more money? Also why is it so dark and not fun when the book is way more light hearted?

Like I enjoy the movie but I can understand most arguments about it too.

Wow is it three parts?? The book wasnt that long!!!!

I'll be going to see "walking with dinosaurs" cause i'm a sad 31yr old that loves dinosaurs

And anchorman 2 ofcourse....stay classy perth!

It was originally going to be two movies. I think it should of been just two. The first one already feels drawn out and some of the stuff they added after the change feels out of place and clunky.

I mean I enjoyed the movie but it does have pacing issues.

cowmuflage wrote:

Castile wrote:

cowmuflage wrote:I rewatched the Hobbit last night because I'm not likely to see the new one anytime soon because of mum breaking her arm and that's who I see movies with because I'm lame >.>


Anyway I find it to be a bit too long. Did Sir Peter jackson really need to split it into 3 movies? Besides for him to get more money? Also why is it so dark and not fun when the book is way more light hearted?

Like I enjoy the movie but I can understand most arguments about it too.

Wow is it three parts?? The book wasnt that long!!!!

I'll be going to see "walking with dinosaurs" cause i'm a sad 31yr old that loves dinosaurs

And anchorman 2 ofcourse....stay classy perth!

It was originally going to be two movies. I think it should of been just two. The first one already feels drawn out and some of the stuff they added after the change feels out of place and clunky.

I mean I enjoyed the movie but it does have pacing issues.

I totally agree. Loved the movie but it did feel like he'd drawn it out like an english lit essay >.> I just wanted to see the dragon too the whole film lol.

Saw Frozen and not as good as I was told it was.

Still 100 times better then Brave.

I saw Frozen last night too. I loved it though, of course I also loved/adored Brave and Tangled so I figured I would love it.

oooooooo!
Tonight we get to choose between Elysium and The Lone Ranger (or as we used to call him when we were kids: The Stoned Ranger, and his Indian friend Toronto)!!

Both arrived early from Amazon.

So far I'm loving paying a couple of extra dollars for faster shipping. I've been getting all my DVD/Blurays a day before their official release dates.

Crybaby..

ohh dear its bad...

and im 99 % sure its NOT ment as a "fun" movie... well it isnt but its fun cause its so so so so so bad

cowmuflage wrote:Saw Frozen and not as good as I was told it was.

Still 100 times better then Brave.

I personally loved it but I could see where one may not like it as much. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it though. It always stinks when you come out of a movie thinking what a waste of time/money...

Jurz wrote:

cowmuflage wrote:Saw Frozen and not as good as I was told it was.

Still 100 times better then Brave.

I personally loved it but I could see where one may not like it as much. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it though. It always stinks when you come out of a movie thinking what a waste of time/money...

It was not bad and I did not feel like I wasted my money like I did with Brave.


Why do I keep comparing the two? Because it was the last Disney animated movie that was this overhyped to death.

Weird, everything I've read about Brave has been positive. It even has a VERY solid rating on IMDb.

Sukurachi wrote:Weird, everything I've read about Brave has been positive. It even has a VERY solid rating on IMDb.

I personally didn't hate Brave, it was a decently good movie, but it was probably my least favorite of all of Pixar's movies. It was weak, and didn't hit me like most of Pixar's other movies did. It was slowish and uneventful.

Jurz wrote:

Sukurachi wrote:Weird, everything I've read about Brave has been positive. It even has a VERY solid rating on IMDb.

I personally didn't hate Brave, it was a decently good movie, but it was probably my least favorite of all of Pixar's movies. It was weak, and didn't hit me like most of Pixar's other movies did. It was slowish and uneventful.

I agree, I didn't hate it but it wasn't as good as wreck-it ralph for example. I saw Brave on a plane so I didn't feel ripped off or anything but yeah I saw Tangled on another flight and liked that heaps better when I thought I would.

I don't know if anyone here has seen any Chinese animated films but I saw this one called "Legend of the Rabbit" (3d animated) and it was pretty decent! Subtitled ofcourse and our copy is a Bali dvd version but I really liked it! Very Kung-fu panda ish story with the underdog being a chubby Rabbit instead of a panda If you can find it, give it a whirl!

I watched The Mortal Instruments tonight. ARGHMAHGAWD I LOVED IT. I gotta go read the books now. Magnus Bane.. Mmm... <3