NarniaWeb Community Forums

Oh, well, that's kind of disappoint, SA. So this adaptation was connected to the new series coming out, and not so much the original quartet, or even the single sequel, whose name I don't remember?
Mmhmm, I saw the first four or five Love Comes Softly movies, but yeah...far too many deviations and liberties and not even necessarily ones that made sense.

o_O Great, they're doing A Gown of Spanish Lace too? Well...maybe if it's a standalone and there's no series they're trying to kick off, maybe they'll stick reasonably close. It did have a fair amount of drama in it.

I watched Iron Man 3 for the first time last night with the Wife and kid (who was glued to the screen the whole time...not bad for a 2 year old) and generally liked it. There was a surprising lack of Iron Man in it, to be sure..and I didn't care for the renaming of War Machine either. He's War Machine, namby pambies...get over it! The ending was...well, I'm really concerned. Are they making more Iron Man films? There seemed an awful lot of finality about it and it soured the whole movie for me. Ben Kingsley stole the show.

watched Muppet Christmas Carol last weekend for the time. Sort of a tradition for our house this season. I always wonder just how Micheal Cain ever kept a straight face in that movie.

Shadowlander, to my knowledge, RDJ's contract has expired and they haven't renegotiated it yet, so there is some question of whether he will be coming back as Iron Man or not.

I love The Muppet Christmas Carol, Puddleglum! We haven't had a chance to watch it this year, but maybe we can sneak it in before the year is officially over...

SL, I don't think they're planning any more Iron Man movies, but I heard rumours that they're still trying to bring him back for the second Avengers movie. We'll just have to see what happens with contracts and such, though, as Arwenel said.

I recently saw Now You See Me with my mom and sisters; Winter and I are at disagreement with the rest of the family about the ending of the movie. We think the "Welcome to the Eye" part meant that there was a real secret society and a real magic, since the main thing we heard about the Eye was that they were the guardians of the sacred magic; everyone else thinks there wasn't a society or that it was just a group of illusionists and that the guardians part wasn't important. I'm not really a fan of things that try to play with your mind and then leave it unclear about how much was real, such as all the illusions, and how much the FBI guy was acting and how much was real, so I wasn't overly happy with the movie (also, the partner getting his coat stuck in the garbage disposal really bothered me; I know he didn't get hurt, but still *shudders*). However, I did figure out that everything had to do with the drowned magician, and figured out that he either hadn't really died or that a close relation (such as a child) was involved, so I wasn't that surprised when it was revealed to all be connected to the son.

I also saw Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing; it took about 2/3rds of the movie for most of us to keep everyone straight, but it was pretty good. I could've done without several of the scenes, but I loved the scenes where they were trying to convince Beatrice and Benedict that the other loved them, how the ridiculous watchmen were played so seriously, and, a bit surprisingly, all the emotion in the wedding scene, especially between Hero and her father (and then Beatrice and Benedict trying to help).

The last movie I saw was Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters. It's been a while since I read the book, but while it wasn't a great adaptation, it was still a decent movie, and I thought they handled both Tyson and Clarisse fairly well. Plus, they did keep at least some semblance of Grover in disguise as a female Cyclops bit, which I wasn't expecting, especially considering everything else they cut.

The last movie I saw was Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters. It's been a while since I read the book, but while it wasn't a great adaptation, it was still a decent movie

I saw Sea of Monsters in the theatres with my friend who seemed to of enjoyed it. I personally found it kind of boring, predictable and very forgettable. I left the theatre thinking it could of been so much more.

I sew Gravity tonight for the first time,technically speaking the film is amazing the visual and sound mixing are great and I though Sandra Bullock was great especially since shes the only actor in the film for most of it,the story is vary simple but the film so thrill ride so is didn't matter, over all I though is was vary good especially if you like thrillers

8/10

Nellie and I are going to see The Princess Bride on the big screen tomorrow. It's part of Cineplex's Classic Film series. Only 6 bucks. When I first saw TPB a number of years ago, I just found it silly. The second time was at wisewoman's house where I began to see the creative humour in the film and enjoyed more than a few laughs with friends, so I'm hoping this time I will enjoy it even more. Nellie has liked the movie since Day 1. I have heard it said that this fun fairy tale parody can really grow on you.

Inconceivable!

Enjoy TPB, jo! My brother and I saw it in the theater in Seattle back when it first came out, and we were disappointed in how silly it was. I'm not sure what we expected.

But it indeed grew on us on repeated viewings and now I'm one of those who quotes it at random moments.

Narnia fan 7, I saw Gravity for the first time a few weeks ago, and agree that it's visually stunning and quite a thrill ride, and enjoyed it for those reasons. But I was distracted by the mistreatment (so to speak) of the title force (gravity), as shown in orbital mechanics and so on. (Yeah, I'm something of a space geek )

Also saw Mission to Mars (2000) over the Easter weekend. It had some familiar faces, like Gary Sinise, who was in another space movie (Apollo 13) and Jerry O'Connell (TV's Sliders). In my opinion it turned out to be something of a remake of 2001: A Space Odyssey for a new generation.

stargazer wrote:Also saw Mission to Mars (2000) over the Easter weekend. It had some familiar faces, like Gary Sinise, who was in another space movie (Apollo 13) and Jerry O'Connell (TV's Sliders). In my opinion it turned out to be something of a remake of 2001: A Space Odyssey for a new generation.

Is that a good thing?

I wanted to like Mission to Mars, but....meh. Why was Gary Sinise, one of my very favorite actors, wearing eye liner?

Is that a good thing?

Like Shadowlander, I wanted to like it. It started out well enough but when the first crew was lost (with rather bad special effects) and the infamous Face on Mars showed up, I could no longer take it seriously.

I noticed Sinise's eye liner too. I think I'll go watch Apollo 13. It's so much better.

While we're on the topic of space movies, have any of you seen the sci-fi/psychological thriller/drama "Moon", starring Sam Rockwell? It also borrows from "A 2001 Space Odyssey" but it's excellent. Check "Moon" out, if you haven't already done so.

Moon Trailer:

I've heard of Moon and would like to watch it but alas, it isn't on Netflix at this time.

stargazer wrote:Enjoy TPB, jo! My brother and I saw it in the theater in Seattle back when it first came out, and we were disappointed in how silly it was. I'm not sure what we expected.

"I'm not sure what we expected."

You know, that is the conclusion I came to after seeing The Princess Bride this third viewing. I had heard so much about it over the years, so I really don't know what I was expecting, but I do know I was disappointed that first time. This past Sunday I don't know if I enjoyed the film more than my second viewing, but certainly at least that much. The one part I still find just too silly is the Miracle Max scene. Anyway, it was fun to see on the big screen, that's for sure! *edit*Vizzini, Inigo Montoya, and Fezzik are quite the trio. But my favourite character for humour alone is The Impressive Clergyman.

I watched Gravity recently and what a great movie! I'm already into Sci-Fi and almost any movie dealing with NASA or exploration of space is going to draw me right in. I absolutely loved the film and would certainly buy it to add to my library. My only question about the film was...

where did she end up landing? And do you know what the odds are of managing a splashdown right off of the coast of someplace as opposed to the much greater chance of landing in water or land? I mean the Earth is 75% covered with water...she could have landed in the middle of the Marianas or 500 miles north of the Azores. Or right on top of the Rocky Mountains or Ayers Rock. Then again, given the religious iconography on display in the film perhaps this was a way for the "faith" element to enter the story, or at least to bring it to fruition.

In a totally different direction...Wifester keeps bringing home The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug from the library. I just feel so meh and noncommittal about watching it, in huge part to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and the many problems that film had. The irony is that if she brought home any of the LotR movies I'd dive right in (we don't own them currently) and begin watching immediately. The first Hobbit film just felt so bloated and so unlike the source material that if I were to see the 2nd film I have to do a literary suspension of disbelief of sorts and accept that this is a Hobbit film set in an alternate universe, or is a "reimagining" (I really hate that word) of the original. The original trilogy wasn't perfect, of course. If you're adapting a work as enormous as LotR into a 10+ hour cinematic experience you're going to have to excise things, or add some elements to streamline the story. But with the Hobbit you've got a very short book to begin with that absolutely does not need such revisions, and even if you add things from the appendices there's still nowhere near enough there to put it into 3 movies. And so after what I like to call "The Hobbit 1: An Unexpected Adaptation" I just have lost all desire to see more of these. Poor Wifester wants to watch it and I keep telling her to, but she wants to watch it with me, so I suppose I'll have to give in give it a viewing at some point.