register

  • Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 

CRAIG ARMSTRONG

General Discussions » CRAIG ARMSTRONG (Posts 61 to 90 of 266)

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >
  1. Well, the first CGI Hulk was crap, but what I´ve seen of the new one so far is extraordinary stuff. And this time I will stay until after the end credits. Boys, was I pissed when I heard about that Jackson thing on Iron Man.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeMay 27th 2008
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Martijn wrote
    William Hurt cry

    confused Where´s the problem?

    Craig Armstrong confused

    Strange choice, but who knows...?

    CGI Hulk rolleyes

    So you would actually prefer a real guy with latex muscles? shocked


    The CGI Hulk looks pretty good to me! cool

    As I've said elsewhere, people just wouldn't buy a bodybuilder painted green anymore and latex muscles just look, well, WRONG! ( see Vinnie Jones as Juggernaught in X-Men 3 )
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeMay 27th 2008
    The whole Hulk thingy looks pretty ridiculous to me, with or without latex muscles and the first movie was very, very bad. Looking forward to the score alone.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 27th 2008
    No, I'm just again not very impressed by Shrek with muscles.
    I agree a guy with latex won'hack it any more, but CGI simply isn't there yet to be able to carry the main character in a live action film.

    And I'm greatly displeased they chose to replace Sam Elliott as General Ross "Thunderbolt". angry
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  5. Martijn wrote
    I agree a guy with latex won'hack it any more, but CGI simply isn't there yet to be able to carry the main character in a live action film.

    Hm... what do you think about Gollum and Jackson´s Kong?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSouthall
    • CommentTimeMay 27th 2008
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    Martijn wrote
    I agree a guy with latex won'hack it any more, but CGI simply isn't there yet to be able to carry the main character in a live action film.

    Hm... what do you think about Gollum and Jackson´s Kong?


    Gollum is really, really well-done, but I do agree with Martijn. There's almost always a lot of other stuff going on at the same time Gollum is on-screen, and that's no coincidence. King Kong is a bit different. I think "humanoid" characters are the things they haven't done very well yet, they seem to have mastered a lot of other ones.

    It just adds so much to the drama of a film when you know the stunts are performed by talented stuntmen putting their lives at risk. CGI is still completely obvious, and who gives a flying fuck what happens to any CGI character, surrounded by CGI danger? Nobody does.
    http://www.movie-wave.net | http://facebook.com/moviewave
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 27th 2008 edited
    *Edited*, because James beat me to the punch. smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    No, I'm just again not very impressed by Shrek with muscles.
    I agree a guy with latex won'hack it any more, but CGI simply isn't there yet to be able to carry the main character in a live action film.

    And I'm greatly displeased they chose to replace Sam Elliott as General Ross "Thunderbolt". angry


    Please don't say Shrek with muscles Martijn, you are too knowledgable for that, I really didn't expect You to come out with the ignorant kind of crap that a few film critics did the first time Hulk appeared on the big screen ( I wonder if some will say the same again...I won't bet on it? rolleyes ). The first thing I thought when I saw Shrek for the first time was 'Hulk rip off'!

    Very good points made by James though, I don't think "seriously realistic" CGI humanoid characters are here yet though the "new" Hulk is certainly a step in the right direction from what I've seen? Defininitely a long way off of seeing long dead stars such as James Dean, Elvis, Monroe in roles where you can't spot the difference.....heaven forbid.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
    I can see where you´re coming from regarding to humanoid characters, but they are getting closer and closer. I found some scenes in Beowulf to be incredibly touching, I absolutely started to invest feelings in some of the characters, and the difference to a creature like Hulk is not too big. It can be done, and I am looking forward to the movie.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Timmer wrote
    Please don't say Shrek with muscles Martijn, you are too knowledgable for that, I really didn't expect You to come out with the ignorant kind of crap that a few film critics did the first time Hulk appeared on the big screen ( I wonder if some will say the same again...I won't bet on it? rolleyes ). The first thing I thought when I saw Shrek for the first time was 'Hulk rip off'!


    Not my point: what I meant was a clearly fully CGI-created character (far more cartoonish than lifelike) in the same vein that Shrek was.
    Except this particular Shrek (big green CGI character) had muscles rippling all over (which beats earwax in my book, but hey, that's a personal preference).

    What I saw in the trailer was exactly that again, a big, green, obviously CGI-created character. I am perfectly happy with that in a cartoon, but not in a live action film where it's supposedly a humanoid.
    So I stick with my qualification (for now).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  11. Sam Elliot will be missed.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
    Well, I will miss them ALL. I love to watch Eric Bana, and Jen broke my teenage heart a long time ago in Labyrinth.

    But then again, Arwen will do it for me any time, and Edward is a fantastic actor.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    I found some scenes in Beowulf to be incredibly touching,


    That's the thing though, innit?

    Beowulf was entirely made up by CGI-rotoscoping!

    That means the frame of reference is different: when a whole world looks like that, human minds are flexible enough to accept that at its own terms.
    The problem I have with the last Hulk (however much I liked the plot and the actors), was that it was a CGI-construct that was inserted in an environment that didn't match its terms and limitations.
    It's teh same reason I didn't like Gollum much.
    Or the bald gollums from I Am Legend.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  14. Okay, I see... well, I think we´ll have to wait another ten years (or even longer) to get that far, but are you really considering missing out on all the movies made in between? wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Why no.
    I generally do see them all...but the fact that I watch them and enjoy some of 'em doesn't mean I'm blind to the technical limitations! Especially with film that depend on such devices I'll be more critical when the device isn't yet convincing enough.

    That said, I am very curious what Armstrong will come up with.
    I'm really impressed by his Plunkett and Macleane score, but that's it, unfortunately.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
    What about Love Actually?

    (And I get your point regarding to CGI - it is hard to develop any feelings for CGI characters in a real environment, but I think I will invest my tender emotions into the Edward Norton scenes and will settle with my grim lust for carnage while that big greenish CGI thing is on screen. That might work. wink )
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Ralph Kruhm wrote
    What about Love Actually?


    Wow. That title sounds like it should have been scored by Powell. wink
    Don't know it, I'm afraid.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  18. It´s not only the best romantic movie I´ve ever seen, showing love in all its beauty and sadness, with a fantastic cast of actors and characters, but Armstrong´s score delivers the exact amount of feelings necessary to make it as great as it is. At least, that´s what I think. But I am a hopeless romantic, anyway.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Indeed, LOVE ACTUALLY is one Armstrong's strongest scores so far. Deeply recommended for those into melodic, romantic modern listens.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Really?
    Well, you've certainly peaked my interest now!
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  21. I would strongly recommend watching the movie first!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Ahhhh.... well... I pretty much gave up on romantic comedies after the 1930s...
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
    Well, that´s exactly my point. It is not a comedy. It is a beautiful piece where half a dozen (or more?) different stories are cleverly combined to tell you about the different aspects of love. Most of them are very moving but told with a heart-warming lightness of real life dialogue. This is definitely a brilliant european work that is delivered completely without the comedic elements & "taste" of the usual love comedy stuff we´ve suffered through decades.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Hm.
    Wikipedia states that "Love Actually is a 2003 British romantic comedy film written and directed by Richard Curtis."
    With Curtis at the helm and the gang of usual suspects (Grant, Rickman, Firth, Thompson) in it, it's hard to see how it's NOT a romantic comedy! (especially when the official website's tag line read "the ULTIMATE romantic comedy"

    I think I'll pass. smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
    I just found this nice little review that sums it all up rather well without giving away too much...

    "Love Actually" is messy, it's complicated and it is all over the map -- just like love.

    Just when we think we know what we want, life has a way of slapping us on the face and making us re-evaluate our vision. I'm not sure I have ever seen a movie before this one that shows the many facets of love -- the good and the bad, the hopeful and the hopeless, the discovery and the loss -- in such an honest way. Now, I'm not saying "Love Actually" is a realistic depiction of how people interconnect, but the confusion and pain and joy it portrays shows how there is never one real way to love, but many different ways. And there are just as many ways of hiding that longing for connection so you can avoid being hurt. From the people who brought you "Notting Hill" and "Bridget Jones' Diary" you would expect a lighthearted romance where everything sparkles and everybody is happy in the end. But "Love Actually" doesn't just deal with romantic love, it shows the intimate connection between husband and wife, mother and child, best friends who fall in love with the same woman, longtime business partners and sisters with brothers. It shows the longing of unrequited love coming to fruition only to be sacrificed for a different kind of love, the blush of puppy love, the love that evolves even when language is a barrier and how sometimes sex is not always the most intimate way to know somebody. The extremely large cast and the numerous relationships we are thrust into can be daunting to track. For a while "Love Actually" seems like a picture without a place to go. But in the last third of the film it all starts to jell and, though at times sappy and saccharine, it has a warm happy glow, even for the relationships that have a bittersweet edge to them. Hugh Grant as the new prime minister of England is being touted as the star of the movie, but this is a true ensemble piece. There is just too much going on for one person to be the centerpiece. In fact, his story and his performance may be one of the weak links in the film. Even as leader of England, Grant is still his rakish and devilishly handsome self and the connection between him and a pretty, but supposedly plump staff member is a bit confusing. Some of the more memorable and dimensional performances come from Emma Thompson, Laura Linney, Bill Nighy and the young Thomas Sangster. Thompson plays the wife of a successful businessman who realizes she is being taken for granted by her husband, who is thinking about exploring sexier pastures. Linney is a lonely American with a brother in a mental institution and a longtime crush on a co-worker. Sangster is a boy whose mother has died and believes he has found, and is about to lose, the love of his life -- a classmate who is about to move back to the United States. And the flashiest role goes to Nighy as Billy Mack -- a washed up pop singer making one last desperate attempt to hit the top with a Christmas version of a '60s standard. What is truly remarkable about "Love Actually" though is how it makes the viewers a part of the experience by showing regular people going through their everyday lives expressing love with small bits of kindness and compassion. If you have a little patience when watching "Love, Actually," it is very likely you will be swept up in the experience by the end and realize that love is all around -- you just need to appreciate and recognize it.     - Debra A. Scott
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    Hugh Grant as the new prime minister of England


    ...WHAT?
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
    EXACTLY!

    If you hate him, ignore him and enjoy the rest.

    If you love him, enjoy the whole thing. ^^
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    I wouldn't recommend the film, personally (too saccharine, beyond the point of tolerance) but i'd certainly recommend giving the lovely score a spin. It's guaranteed to make you feel good.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRalph Kruhm
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
    Thank you! I was halfway through to convince that man! crazy

    Or... at least I let myself believe that. wink

    It´s just that I doubt the two or so tracks on the CD (which is mostöy a song compilation) will do a thing for him without the movie as reference...
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
    There's a very fine promo of Love Actually available. wink
    Kazoo

61 to 90 of 266

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. >