|
Post by Ashe Raven on Jun 17, 2005 14:32:24 GMT
I have a better suggestion....
No... it will only fall on deaf ears, continue, it's not as if anyone has anything else left to say, esxpt "I hate Tim Hines...." every 3 posts.
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Jun 17, 2005 15:15:42 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]I really liked Seans review!
Not sure if he was being sarcastic or not, but now I'm really looking forward to the arrival of my copy. It's probably because of the legendary eccentric British sense of humour that bemuses our foreign cousins!
Still, only a week or so, and I'll be posting up my review! [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by recumbentrider on Jun 17, 2005 16:39:35 GMT
As I read the reviews and the comments on the reviews, one sad thought keeps going through my mind: as bad as this movie was, it still represents a lot of work to the people who made it. I cannot help but wonder what they all think of the finished product, and how bad it came out. This project was obviously too big for Mr. Hines and his crew. I am not saying this to make excuses for the people who made this movie; I thought the movie was bad, and those who made the film need to deal with it and move on. If anything, this movie should be a warning to moviemakers everywhere to not bite off more than you can chew! But at the same time, to me this whole enterprise points out how difficult it must be for an artist to work in the art form of film.
Most forms of artistic expression are within the reach of most of us. If someone wants to express themselves by painting, all they need is a canvas and some paints. If someone wants to express themselves by writing fiction, all they need is paper and pens. If someone wants to express themselves in music, all they need is an instrument, or their own voice. This isn't to say that anyone can make a good painting, a great novel, or a great piece of music. But at least the physical means to create a painting, a novel, or a song, are fairly simple.
If someone wants to express themselves in the art of film, however, it is far more difficult. Even to make a simple film, it can take a large amount of (often expensive) equipment, a crew of technicians, a crew of actors, scenery, etc. An even when an artist can assemble all of these elements, the end result can often be horribly bad (or laughably bad, as in the case of this movie).
This movie just made me realize how painful it can sometimes be to work in the art form of film. I hope those people who sincerely put forth an effort on this film can get over it and recover from it!
|
|
|
Post by nomadicsimes2 on Jun 18, 2005 10:42:41 GMT
It's been mentioned often in the reviews that the film looks anything but finished, "hurried" "rushed" are terms also used.
Yes Hines could of spent another year re-editing, touching up the CGI, but isn't it clear he wanted to release it before Spielberg's film to ride/exploit the wave of publicity?
Surely the reviews show that while he might have been enthusiastic about the project back in 2001, in 2005 he didn't really care about the end result but wanted to make a quick buck?
As a filmmaker friend once told me, you never ever finish a film to your complete liking, you just have to abandon it at some point and move on to the next one.
It would seem however that Hines jumped ship when the product was in a far from a reasonable state for presentation.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jun 18, 2005 11:00:59 GMT
I agree that it would be interesting to hear from the people behind this film- though I doubt we will (unless TH comes back begging to promote Chrome when he gets around to 'finishing' it....).
Yes- unfinished and rushed are good words- as are poorly planned and bitten off more than they can chew..... Sadly, following the book passage for passage doesn't often make a great film (though few films do this), but with some careful balancing, a film could manage this and get much of the books content and Wells' intentions covered, but it would be a very difficult job and best left to, not just a great director/producer/cast, but absolutely the right person to do it. Though I don't know who this would be. John Boorman?! ;D
|
|
|
Post by nomadicsimes2 on Jun 18, 2005 13:56:23 GMT
Sadly, following the book passage for passage doesn't often make a great film (though few films do this), but with some careful balancing, a film could manage this and get much of the books content and Wells' intentions covered, but it would be a very difficult job and best left to, not just a great director/producer/cast, but absolutely the right person to do it. Though I don't know who this would be. John Boorman?! ;D How about Ridley Scott? Alan Parker? Danny Boyle?
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Jun 19, 2005 21:28:54 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]I really liked Seans review! Not sure if he was being sarcastic or not, but now I'm really looking forward to the arrival of my copy. It's probably because of the legendary eccentric British sense of humour that bemuses our foreign cousins! Still, only a week or so, and I'll be posting up my review! [/glow] I'll second that. Sean's review was the funniest damn thing I've ever read on this site. Period. And, Sean, enjoy the stage weekend in Paris. You could make it really weird and wacky by staying in the Marais and visiting up at the 'Cox' at the rue des Archives. Just drink heavily. But the restaurant across the street, Les Maronniers, is fantastic with cheap café grub.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jun 20, 2005 12:39:20 GMT
It would be nice to hear what Charles says on the movie, being one of our Illuminati in all things Wells!
|
|
|
Post by DarkElastic on Jun 21, 2005 12:44:37 GMT
Nice review from SeniorFalcon. I need to watch it again now that I am over the initial dissapointment. I did think though that the second half of the movie - from when he falls in with the curate, to the end - was very good, with some good acting.
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Jun 22, 2005 2:21:09 GMT
Nice review from SeniorFalcon. I need to watch it again now that I am over the initial dissapointment. I did think though that the second half of the movie - from when he falls in with the curate, to the end - was very good, with some good acting. Thank you for your thoughtful review. I showed the latest trailer to a friend who read TWOTW as a child and who knows the 1953 version fairly well..... He said that it looked interesting and he would like to see the movie. I like your comment to the effect that 'if you love the book you'll hate this film' but that others less passionate about the book might actually enjoy it. Frankly, I think that no filmed version is going to please everyone all of the time.... and I do mean everyone! An absolute by the book version with nothing left out could be a crashing bore to the average punter..... Spielberg is a man who really knows how to please most people..... and most people are not going to be fans of the book..... most people are not going to have heard of it. The film might change that but don't bank on it..... If an official 'novelization' comes out that - and not Wells' - will become the official 'book of the film'. It has happened before.... Oh yes. Zoe
|
|
|
Post by seniorfalcon on Jun 22, 2005 3:27:49 GMT
Zoe wrote: "I like your comment to the effect that 'if you love the book you'll hate this film' but that others less passionate about the book might actually enjoy it."
My favorite book in the early 1970's was Ken Kesey's "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". In 1975 it was made into a movie starring Jack Nicholson. In the movie the fishing trip, a key event in the Big Chief's recovery, was was moved from close to the end to near the beginning and was played strictly as comedy. I was so upset about this change that it pretty much ruined the movie for me. The movie went on to win 5 academy awards, and most consider it to be excellent! So I can understand how a dedicated WOTW lover could be so upset with Pendragon's movie - I've been there. If you can't get past the shortcomings, then that's just the way it is - no amount of arguing will convince you to view the film any other way. (When you're talking about a person's opinions there is no right and wrong.) I was entertained by Pendragon's film because I could overlook the areas where it fell short and focus on the strengths; probably I could do that because I'm not so passionate about the book.
|
|
redweed78
Junior Member
Don't make me destroy you
Posts: 39
|
Post by redweed78 on Jun 22, 2005 17:57:08 GMT
Hi, new to the board, but just reading your reviews on the Tim Hines version has made me laugh! I recently had a look on amazon, and one reviewer gave it 5 stars!?! She said it was the best film she'd ever seen! But, she also said she couldn't wait to read the original novel by Orson Welles!! Classic. Any news about a UK release, I really want to see how bad it is!!
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Jun 23, 2005 2:40:49 GMT
Hi, new to the board, but just reading your reviews on the Tim Hines version has made me laugh! I recently had a look on amazon, and one reviewer gave it 5 stars!?! She said it was the best film she'd ever seen! But, she also said she couldn't wait to read the original novel by Orson Welles!! Classic. Any news about a UK release, I really want to see how bad it is!! Welcome to the board. I would take the opinions expressed on Amazon - the pro and the con - more seriously if the reviewers had more reviews under their belt than is evident. Time after time I clicked on 'read all my reviews' to find that the WOTW review was their one and only venture into film criticism! It rather created the impression that they were attempting to 'stuff the ballot box' on either side. Reading the contents of their reviews did tend to confirm that suspicion too! When someone says "This is the best film I have ever seen!" I am tempted to conclude that it is the only film she has ever seen. Zoe
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Jun 23, 2005 2:54:38 GMT
HTT I enjoyed your review. I don't know whether I shall ever see this film but I could almost picture it without having seen it - based on your review and the trailer. Not sure about the 'Art Film' crowd not liking it...... I know one 'cineaste' (he hates being called a 'film buff' ) who would probably revel in it..... He likes experiments with colour and hates high tech special effects..... I suspect he might argue that it is an interesting attempt at 'Cinema of Alienation'..... In fact that title might fit Hines' approach rather well! He has certainly alienated a lot of the fans..... was this intentional do you think? Was he inspired perhaps by Bertolt Brecht? Well it's a thought, isn't it? Maybe I've been listening to too many 'cineastes' Zoe
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Jun 23, 2005 9:27:54 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]I'll have a better impression after seeing the whole thing, but I do think Hines was trying to make the perfect WOTW movie, and not Alienation.
You cannot fault the script, the opening, or the scenes in the first half hour - I double checked the book and it is spot on ("Gipetto"s name is Gregg). The trouble is the bad acting, the delivery of the dialog, the unnecesary compositing, and the unconvincing FX, which would appear to be down to lack of money. The vision is there... just not fully realised.
Of what I saw, this would have been perfect if it had been shot on location, good actors hired, and used seamless, integrated CGI. Oh, if only Pendragon had retained the original budget... [/glow]
|
|
Zoe
Full Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by Zoe on Jun 23, 2005 12:41:19 GMT
[glow=purple,2,300]I'll have a better impression after seeing the whole thing, but I do think Hines was trying to make the perfect WOTW movie, and not Alienation. [/glow] Well more seriously, for anyone interested, 'Theatre of Alienation' is a technique where the audience is made aware that they are not watching a play by 'devices' for example a stylised form of acting or by actually going out into the audience. The audience is prevented from becoming so absorbed in the production that they are unaware of ideological themes that the playwright wants to get across. Another way of putting this is that the audience is 'challenged' by the production. They have to use their imagination in a different way - actively rather than passively. In a way, a 'by the book' film production could be seen as 'challenging' the audience in that everyone knows it never happened and so by deliberately presenting rather than representing or illustrating characters and events and without trying to interpret and embody the story naturalistically in a contemporary framework the production leans towards alienation anyway. Tinted film effects are one obviously deliberate alienation device that a 'cinema of alienation' director could employ. I suppose that while the overall effect might be one of 'alienation' it might well be accidental. It would be more obviously 'Cinema of Alienation' if actors stepped out of character and spoke directly to the audience or used some obvious 'ritualistic' device to distinguish characters such as putting on an obviously false moustache. Zoe
|
|
|
Post by RossH on Jun 23, 2005 17:14:03 GMT
I suspect Hines fell into the trap of thinking that computer fx (whether 3d or 2d compositing) would allow him to film quickly and on a limited budget, perhaps inspired by 'Skycaptain' or the recent StarWars movie that used extensive greenscreen and set extension fx.
However, I guess he didn't realise what a time and memory hog digital editing and 3d work is... and when every other scene needs some kind of effect then you're talking about a major undertaking.
And while there's much to criticize about the edit of the film, and the wholey inappropriate locations chosen,the poor quality of the fx must be blamed on the people who created them- taking into account the enormous number of scenes they had to complete in a very short time.
I certainly think if Hines had cut the movie to be about 90 minutes, and thus put less pressure on the fx folks to deliver so many shots then the film would be far superior.
Still, if Hines failed to deliver the spectacular movie he was aiming at, I feel he's only partly to blame. Everyone who was involved must share some of it...
Sometimes you just have to go with what you have, not what you would like...
|
|
|
Post by TommyAtkins on Jun 23, 2005 21:09:49 GMT
Was he inspired perhaps by Bertolt Brecht? Well it's a thought, isn't it? Zoe Jeez, you are deep, Zoë! Come back from that dark place...
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Jun 23, 2005 21:15:57 GMT
Well more seriously, for anyone interested, 'Theatre of Alienation' is a technique where the audience is made aware that they are not watching a play by 'devices' for example a stylised form of acting or by actually going out into the audience. The audience is prevented from becoming so absorbed in the production that they are unaware of ideological themes that the playwright wants to get across. Another way of putting this is that the audience is 'challenged' by the production. They have to use their imagination in a different way - actively rather than passively. In a way, a 'by the book' film production could be seen as 'challenging' the audience in that everyone knows it never happened and so by deliberately presenting rather than representing or illustrating characters and events and without trying to interpret and embody the story naturalistically in a contemporary framework the production leans towards alienation anyway. Tinted film effects are one obviously deliberate alienation device that a 'cinema of alienation' director could employ. I suppose that while the overall effect might be one of 'alienation' it might well be accidental. It would be more obviously 'Cinema of Alienation' if actors stepped out of character and spoke directly to the audience or used some obvious 'ritualistic' device to distinguish characters such as putting on an obviously false moustache. Zoe Well, it would be something if Hine's 'intent' had been to make us self-consciously ponder the Brechtian qualities of his film. Or, in an even more self-referential or postmodern way, he 'invites' us to look at the social construction of identity through the medium of film. I'm only joking. Now, if he had actually done that - that is, used the well-worn narrative of _The War_ to 'alienate' us from the medium of film and make us think about pressing social issues, like evolution, war, and colonialism - then that would have been quite impressive indeed. Of course, that is exactly what Wells did: he took the standard invasion narrative and put a new twist on it. As for theater itself, I'm much more of an Artaud kind of guy.
|
|
|
Post by robkral on Jun 24, 2005 9:57:07 GMT
Very good in the opening, and never bad, but it did become repetitive in places, and there were sequences with no music at all. I would guess that Hines couldn't afford a full-length score (surprise, surprise). Others have complained that at times the music was too loud to hear the dialogue. I didn't have that problem, but then I have an audiophile-quality set of speakers in my home theatre system. I wonder if those who couldn't hear it properly were playing it on their computer and listening to small computer speakers. (The above quote is in regard to music). NOt a full length score? Are you kidding? There must be about 2hours and 50 minutes of score in this thing!! If anything it needed LESS music. Mixing levels were fine. The music is probably the most professional part of the production. It's not a real orchestra but it's heart is definitely in the right place and it's done fairly well.
|
|