2737 replies to this topic

[Rhododendron]

Did any of the guys who saw "The Hobbit" think it sucked because this 48FPS makes the movie look like a reality show? I mean, more like "this is not the movie, here are some shots from the making of the movie" . Like everything that is not supposed to look professional , all those types of filming feel somewhere like "48 fps filming".

Edited by Rhododendron, 27 December 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[BuddhaKeks]

Heart Collector, on 26 December 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

And thank [...] Buddha [...]

Your welcome, fellow forum dweller!

Rhododendron, on 27 December 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

Did any of the guys who saw "The Hobbit" think it sucked because this 48FPS makes the movie look like a reality show? I mean, more like "this is not the movie, here are some shots from the making of the movie" . Like everything that is not supposed to look professional , all those types of filming feel somewhere like "48 fps filming".

I think it added greatly to the experience. I'm very conscious when it comes to movies, I always know it's still a film I'm watching (that's why horror movies can't scare me, I just know it's not real all the time), to the point that I can watch a film for the first time and predict everything that is yet to come. It's for the simple reason that I know the medium so well. With the Hobbit however I was so drawn into the story, that I at times completly forget that I'm just a passive watcher. The 48fps and the 3D made it look so real (despite being so fantastic) that my mind accepted it as reality. This is something that happened to me often when I was young, but almost never in recent years. Reliving this feeling, is what made this movie special to me.

I hope this reality show-feel didn't take too much from the film itself for you. Maybe you should check it out in 24fps sometime and see if you like it better.

[pumpkin pie]

what is a 48fps?? i go to see in a cinema with a screen and a projector.

okay, 48 frame per second hehe.

can't see any different sorry. but now that i think back, in an interview sometime, somewhere, on lotr, Peter Jackson did mention one reason of using 48 fps , (i could be mistaken thou) but this particular reason has to do with making arrows shooting looks better.

http://www.pcmag.com...46,00.asp

[Heart Collector]

BuddhaKeks, on 27 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Your welcome, fellow forum dweller!



I think it added greatly to the experience. I'm very conscious when it comes to movies, I always know it's still a film I'm watching (that's why horror movies can't scare me, I just know it's not real all the time), to the point that I can watch a film for the first time and predict everything that is yet to come. It's for the simple reason that I know the medium so well. With the Hobbit however I was so drawn into the story, that I at times completly forget that I'm just a passive watcher. The 48fps and the 3D made it look so real (despite being so fantastic) that my mind accepted it as reality. This is something that happened to me often when I was young, but almost never in recent years. Reliving this feeling, is what made this movie special to me.

I hope this reality show-feel didn't take too much from the film itself for you. Maybe you should check it out in 24fps sometime and see if you like it better.

*chuckles*

*SPOILERS inc* Well, to reply to Rhododendron, there were good and bad aspects to the 48 FPS (BTW @ pumpkin pie: the film was shot in 48 frames per second rather than the industry standard 24 - this means that your eye saw 48 sequential pictures every second).

The good thing was the enourmous clarity that really made Weta's hard work at props and costume design show - little details that they talked about in the making ofs of their previous movies you barely noticed, but you saw every little chink and ornament in the costumes here. I could even clearly see the edges of Ian McKellan's contact lenses in close ups. The slowmo scenes also looked really good - and Gollum, well I know a lot of things about his creation in the LotR movies after extensive research, it was my uni thesis after all But he was SO well done in this movie that I actually forgot he was a CGI character. The 48 fps really worked in Gollum's favor.

The bad thing was that yeah it felt like a soap opera, or one of those BBC docudramas. And it didn't feel as "real" as LotR felt despite the great visual fidelity. With the exception of the slowmo scenes, the mountain giant brawl, Gollum, the dwarf-goblin battle, any scene with trickling water and waterfalls and I guess some other scenes I can't remember off the top of my head, the constant "hyper realism" made it look kind of fake to me took me out of "movie mode". I think it's the lack of that "natural" (though maybe "familiar" would be a better word) motion blur you get at 24 fps that did it for me. If the movie didn't have the incredible production value it had we would have been able to see all the imperfections, make up, prosthetics etc very clearly as fake.

So it was a mixed bag for me.

Edited by Heart Collector, 27 December 2012 - 07:33 AM.

[BuddhaKeks]

Life of Pi: 9.8/10

While it might seem to be a classical man vs nature story, it is more, much more. This film is not afraid to dive into religion, philosphy and most of all, what is left if a human is reduced to having to fight for his life. The journey of Piscine Patel is a physical and a spiritual one at the same time. To top it off, the visuals are stunningly beautiful.
This movie is a work of art, I can only recommend it. The only draw back is that, later in a story a scene about an island comes up, that I think wasn't explained all that well.


The Amazing Spider-Man: 0/10

Diz mowie sux becuz Spodamon uzes bing!!!111


Ahem...

The Amazing Spider-Man: 8.5/10

I really disliked the idea of rebooting the franchise, because I honestly think Spider-Man 2 (9/10) is one of the best superhero movies ever made. But I was pleasently surprised by this one. While I've seen Spider-Mans origin story before, they found a way to make it different. Overall the movie worked (except minor derp moments, like how easy Peter gets past Oscorps security) rather well, especially with the new angle on Peters parents.
Most of all I liked how they used the characters specific traits in combat. The Lizard for example is a bio-chemist, so while battling Peter in the school he creates a smoke bomb on the fly, out of chemicals that are scattered around. Anothe example is Spidey using his webs to detect Conners movements.
What I didn't like, was how quickly the Lizard considered Spider-Man to be his archnemesis and vice versa. It was just way to fast, they saw each other for 30 seconds on a bridge. The Gwen-Peter relationship suffered from the same problem, it was just much to quick.
Fun fact: Irrfan Khan who plays adult Pi, was also in this movie. It was pure coincidence that I watched both on the same day.

[Mustache Mayhem]

was weird about the hobbit.. it was like they took a game and made it into a movie at parts.. the wizard weilding the sword mowing down trolls like a warrior put a bad taste in my mouth.. the dwarfs came off as a bunch of hole dwelling butt bangers and I really needed to see the drake- but of course they left it as teaser material for the next film..

the other movies were excellent.. this one panders to harry potter fans!

[Saleem]

The Hobbit 8.0/10

It was fun really ... and the dwarves looked so distinct too ! ( I totally was expecting cliche dwarves which all look the same in most fantasy XD ) even crazier is they managed to make 1 good looking dwarf ? *mind blown* now I've seen everything.
I haven't read the book before but I was told everything of it was in the movie with added content and scenes.

I was also surprised the story had more ties with LoTR then I thought it would have had.

Really it was more light hearted and fun but still dark when it was needed.
I liked it.

The 48 was off putting for me though, especially when the action was fast paced ... at times It felt like I was watching a making of the movie.
There were times were I didn't notice it anymore though.
I'm really just hoping it's because my mind still needs to adjust to it and it's making flawed associations that  am bothered by it so much at the time being.

Life of Pi 9.0/10

I had never heard of this movie and was dragged to watch it with friends.
I was really pleasantly surprised.
The movie was beautiful and at the same time very harsh.
I left somewhat in awe and at the same time somewhat horrified.
For whatever reason this movie struck strong emotions in me ... positive and negative ones.
It was a magical journey ... with beautiful images but the beauty was almost an illusion to hide the harshness and darkness you might not see at first glance.
I wonder if I got the message like I should have because it made me feel sad more than anything.

Edited by Saleem, 30 December 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[Heart Collector]

Mustache Mayhem, on 30 December 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

was weird about the hobbit.. it was like they took a game and made it into a movie at parts.. the wizard weilding the sword mowing down trolls like a warrior put a bad taste in my mouth.. the dwarfs came off as a bunch of hole dwelling butt bangers and I really needed to see the drake- but of course they left it as teaser material for the next film..

the other movies were excellent.. this one panders to harry potter fans!

Gandalf in the books uses Glamdring (the sword) extensively so I'm not surprised - though I have to say he did look a bit too nimble and sprightly doing so

Also, remember that the Hobbit is actually a children's book. It's much more lighthearted than LotR, to the point of silliness at times

[Naevius]

The Hobbit could have had 30 minutes cut out of it.

And the falling/plunging/roller-coaster scenes got old fast - they are the worst artifact of 3D movies.

But it was better than I feared it might be.

[BuddhaKeks]

Robin Hood (2010): 6/10

Remember when Ridley Scott movies were actually good? I do. But this one belongs to the category mediocre. Why is it that movies which claim to be historically correct always make this glaring mistakes? Dumb it down for the audience, they wouldn't know that the french didn't try to invade england (okay, I've read now they did, but much later). Isn't it common knowledge that pretty much all the battles between france and england took place on french ground? And the magna carta giving rights to commoners? Maybe you should have talked to you history teacher Mr. Scott. (okay there is another carta with rights for commoners called carta of the forest IIRC, but this was again, much later).
What really saddens me is the fact, that the original script was about the sheriff of Notingham, trying to solve a murder case and suspected Robin Hood at first, but at the end they would team up. This sounds like a fresh new take on it. But no, Ridley Scott bought it and rewrote it, meaning that we can never get this version as long as Mr. Scott holds the rights to it. No instead give us this origin story which is sooo historical correct.
Last but not least I want to mention that I like films like 300 or Inglorious Basterds. Are they historical correct? Not the slightest! Do they claim it? Of course not. What makes me angry are those films like Troy, Alexander and this, which claim to be historical accurate, but they mess up so much for a "better" story narrative.


Red Dawn (2012): 4/10

Ech... Why North Korea? Oh no, China can't be the villian, that would offend chinese movie fans. I'm not even kidding. China was supposed to be invader but they changed it in post-production to North Korea, by redubbing the dialog and digitally replacing the flags! Screw logic, we want money!
Yeah, quick money was the only motivation for this I guess. Throw some horrible actors together, alongside Chris Hemsworth, who looks like a freaking 10 times oscar winner when compared to these kids and put some american patriotism on it. Which works so fine on a european. Why not alter the american flag for on of the european union for the EU version? You did before, it shouldn't be a problem.
Oh and those North Korean soldiers... they are either blind and deaf, deaf and mute or blind and mute. You will never see one who is able to spot enemies and warn the others, or shoot straight, or hear someone sneaking up from behind, or use common sense.
In all its mind-boggling stupidity it was still kind of fun to watch, but only in a so bad it's good way.

Ah feels good to hate on movies for once.

Edited by BuddhaKeks, 03 January 2013 - 01:01 AM.

[Rhododendron]

Sooper troopers

and it goes like that for the rest of the movieeeeee^10/10

[dawdler]

Dredd (2012): 2/10.

I'm a little slow for new movies, so I watched Dredd. Its crap. Complete ass. Good for a couple of hours of braindead action (hence the 2 points). But it didnt really feel like Dredd. You could have put Bruce Willis rescuing his daughter in there as well, wouldnt have made a difference to the plot and the way the movie plays out. The original Judge Dredd movie was alot more fun and played more on the judges part. I mean they didnt even bother with a futuristic setting. The very opening scene disappointed, just your average city scene with CGI slapped on top. That's just bad. The "mutant" part of the plot was dreadfully boring (hehe) and led to blantantly obvious scenes. The only fun scene I can remember in hindsight was *KASPLAT* "Mother*er!".

[Tr3LoS]

All my ratings for movies are here: http://letterboxd.com/tr3los/

Latest movie: Skyfall (007)
Rating: 3.5/5
Review: Well I hate writing reviews, this 007 movie was missing the action 007 movies have.. I was expecting much more from what I saw in the trailer.

[Rhododendron]

Dredd - The only resemblance with Stallone's Dredd is THE FACE below. Everything else is better. Karl Urban is so awesome that he never removes THE helmet , the drug lord is calm and scary, the Sci - fi setting is believable and classy, and for the the cinematography... the whole imagery has something that you haven't seen before done this way ( hint:  the effects of the  Slo-Mo drug^{some of that in the picture below} ). An action movie for every second of it, that is awesome because they took something i have seen so many times before and made it really entertaining.

Edited by Rhododendron, 04 January 2013 - 06:18 PM.

[Turambar]

A Royal Affair:
Rating 8/10
Description: Set in Denmark, the queen and physician manage to navigate a mad prince and their own limited influence at court to bring the age of enlightenment to this country during the 17th C.
Danish

Headhunters:
Rating: 7/10
Description: A headhunter (recruiter) steals valuable paintings by night to fuel his relationship with his beautiful gfriend, but one day he takes on the wrong client/job... Great fun from start to finish, reminded me in pace and tempo of Taken: Full value movie viewing!
Norwegian

[Impmon]

I just watched the new total recall.  Average action movie.  My only complaint was they should've shown more of jessica biel & kate beckindsdale in underwear.

The elevator sequence was well done.  Good special effects.

[lazykoala]

Skyfall: (6/10) I heard it was the best bond movie in a long time so I had to see it, but wasn't blown away. Granted, I've only seen half of the last one...but skyfall didn't make a lot of sense to me. The version I was watching was mediocre quality, but still very viewable. It felt like a short movie with a mediocre plot, villain, setting, etc... Q was annoying in this movie too. Unlike most movies where she is behind the scenes where she should be, she was instead constantly in bond's way and slowing him down the whole time.

DK rises: (9/10) Another great batman movie with a great plot that continues the story perfectly. Bain was great as a villain, although I think slightly below the joker which is why I gave the previous movie 10/10. Much more sex appeal in choice of female actors in this one over the last one as they make hathaway look much sexier than in the typical stuff I have seen her in. It was kind of annoying to have gordon out of commission and batman down in a dungeon for a good chunk of the movie, but I suppose necessary for the plot to be as good as it is. Great awesome surprise to hint to the beginning of robin, but he was pretty lackluster in this movie in a sense that he didn't show much physical skill and played more of a detective role. Of course he hasn't been trained yet, but I think they could have done a bit more with him in the movie.

[Illein]

DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012)

I've been waiting for that movie since I first saw the trailer about a year ago. I'd not consider myself an Italo-Western enthusiast really, sure - movies like "Once upon a time in the West", "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and "The Magnificent Seven" are considered great classics still in our house, but typically - it's the sort of movie I watch on a bored Sunday afternoon when it's raining outside and there isn't anything else to waste away my time with.

That said, I did have an absolute blast watching Quentin Tarantino's latest. The cast ensemble is brilliant as usually when it comes to his movies. Jamie Foxx, Leonardo Di Caprio, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson - they all do an astonishing job portraying their characters in this, at times, rather gorey spectacle of a Spaghetti Western!

Who troubles me a little - is Christoph Waltz playing Dr. King Schultz. Most of you might know him from his brilliant acting in Inglorious Basterds, playing Colonel Hans Landa, which he got the Oscar for. Don't get me wrong, I think he among with Samuel L. Jackson and Leonardo Di Caprio were the absolute highlights of this flick - he does WHAT he does exceptionally well. The sophisticated class act type of character fits him like a glove, whether he's playing the villain with the bright side or the Doing Good Fellow with the sinister streak, he puts his very own flair to it.

I only fear he'll be stuck in those type-casts, which while still lucrative for him as an actor, would maybe sell him short as an actor.

Anyway! The plot itself is a rather simple one - easy to follow, well laid fragments of history melting together with believable fiction to the degree you'd expect from a Tarantino movie. It definitely isn't for the faint-hearted but I believe the whole controversy of him as a regisseur using the word "Nigger" in an historical epoch where it simply was used a metric shit ton of times a day, is absolutely ridiculous.

The humour in it is very light-hearted and makes for an entertaining cinema run!

What really stuck out to me was the superb Soundtrack of the movie - that doesn't really come as a suprise as I still love the Pulp Fiction OST and catch myself humming Kill Bill's "Twisted Nerve" when I am waiting for the bus or something! That said, the way Tarantino embedded all sorts of genres into the movie deserves a special tip of ones hat. There is something bizarre about a Tupac/James Brown feature booming out of the speakers while Jamie Foxx goes on a killing spree on screen - but it just fits! And so does hearing Rick Ross' "100 Black Coffins" and Jim Croce's "I got a name" back to back.

I recommend seeing the movie - but I demand you buy the soundtrack! it's so good.

8/10 all things said.

[Hankey]

Anna Karenina -8.5/10- visually stunning

[Rhododendron]

Twin Peaks + Fargo + a sprinkle of Cohen Brothers = yummmmmy

[Stargate]

The Hobbit(2012)
+++ Cate Blanchett superstar! No one could do better role of Queen Sorceress Galadriel. Granted in first LOTR movie her
power becomes crystal clear! Of course she can only do what Director lets her do.
+ Smaug the Dragon what little you can see...
+ Big wolves and wolfriders
+ The Action and scenes after the first hour was very enjoyable.
+ Cool powerful evil rises... this story is not only about the Dragon Quest!
+ the very ending of the first movie the last minute! My kind of ending! Perfect!
Neutral: The fights.
- Annoying singing scenes.
- They do their best to not show the Dragon! What a disappointment
- Hobbit is a childrens book! The very first hour felt for me like watching a childrens movie! Oh please the scene with the
3... was not even remotely scary! First hour could have age rating 8!
- Dwarf leader looks like a human with beard and not a dwarf.
My vote: 8.5/10 very good and almost classic!

The first LOTR movie I rate as 10/10. The second and third LOTR movie I rate as 9/10. The first Hobbit movie I rate as 8.5/10. I watched it with 3d HFR. Problems with HFR? Absolutely not!

Spoiler

On the other hand in car driving school we tested reactiont time. I had 0.5 second reaction time and a normal humans reaction time have 0.5-1.5 seconds. People that have problem with HFR(High Frame Rate) likely have not good reaction time or are sleepy or very sensitive eyes. I don't look down on people with bad tolerance for HFR. For them
I recommend try see the movie without HFR and only 3D. If you have very sensitive eyes
then 2D is best.

Honestly I had no problems with HFR and 3D, but that is subjective. I did really not notice hardly any difference between HFR 3D and another 3D movie. I do notice a huge difference between 3D and 2D.

Expendables 2
+++ Van Damme cool enemy leader who have excellent Martial Arts. There were also Jet Le and Chuck Norris in this movie. Though Chuck Norris did not show martial arts championship and only warfare. Chuck Norris has for real won Karate Full Contact and he has been in Vietnam for real. Why so many war movies with Chuck Norris exist about war is that he lost his brother in Vietnam that is one reason. May his brother rest in peace.
Neutral: The end fight was good, but felt to short.
- not very realistic. On the other point with these movies they are not supposed to be very realistic
- Easily predictable story
My vote: 7.25/10 good movie!

Werewolf the Beast among us(2012)
+ ok main actors
+ Some horror scenes
+ Action fighting
- Gets repetitive and I get bored on the eastern Europe villagers in the long run.
- Werewolf does not look enough wolflike in my taste.
My vote: 7/10 good movie!

Edited by Stargate, 16 January 2013 - 12:09 AM.

[Hankey]

Silver Lining Playbook- 7/10- don't really undferstand all the nominations, good acting but not a stellarscreenplay in my opinion. Its a good watch with its funny moments but a cheesy ending

[Fenice_86]

Prometheus 8/10

Yeah i know it's an "old" movie... whatever, a very nice movie, explains a few things about Alien's origins and adds some interesting questions... a movie that must be watched well focused or you'll miss a lot of details!

(could be useful watch again Alien's movies before or after it)

[Illein]

Life of Pi (2012)

I honestly don't want to write a big review on this one, because I know for sure I'd spoil you of its magic if I did.

All I am saying is - that it's probably the best movie of 2012 I saw. Definitely haven't been affected by something on screen like that in a very long time.

Absolutely fantastic movie that is just NOT what you expect it to be.

9.5/10
Go
watch
it!

Seriously.

Edited by Illein, 22 January 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[Winterclaw]

The Hobbit: 3D HFR version

Totally awesome.  10/10

[Stargate]

House at the end of the Street(2012)
+ Horror to some mild degree though felt more like an interesting Thriller. This is not torture horror and there is not much blood.
+ Good main actors
+ The female main actor is hot and good looking.
+ Some good camera work and angles.
+ Drama slightly.
+ Good Story I did not guess what is it about in the beginning.
Neutral: Some high school environment. Ok though not very good.
- No nudity. In this movie with a few hot girls it felt slightly annoying.
- Never becomes epic this is about local stuff.
My vote: 7.9/10 Very good movie!

I am a horror fan! This is rated as fairly realistic none torture horror. There is a classic old movie that reminds me of this movie.

Edited by Stargate, 27 January 2013 - 12:45 AM.

[BuddhaKeks]

Django Unchained: 9.5/10

Tarantino's next master piece is out and it really deserves the title master piece. Well speaking of the title, I have to wonder, why the film is named after Django. You would think because Django is the main character, but in my opinion he isn't. Dr. King Schultz is; being so masterfully played by one of the most ingenious actors of our time, Christoph Waltz. Yes, the film starts with Django and ends with him, but both go through the same amount of character development and honestly, Schultz is a much deeper and refined character to beginn with. While Jamie Foxx is a great actor, he just pales next to Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio. Speaking of which, Leo is an actor I really disliked for most of my life (I thought he was horrible in Titanic and Romea&Juliet), but he has grown on me in recent years, he actually seems to get better with every movie.

Well the only thing I disliked about the film, was the pacing, which is the only real problem I have with Tarantino in general. His films just seem veeery oddly paced and I personally would do it differently (pacing is actually the thing I worry about the most, when I write stories).

@Illein: I think I have to disagree with you here. Schultz has some traits of Landa (being a highly intelligent plotter) but they are still very different. Also Waltz has been in other roles like the bad guy from Green Hornet, the ringmaster from Water for Elephants and his various roles for german TV, all different enough. They only really have in common that they are played by the same person. I would not consider this type-casting.

[Illein]

BuddhaKeks, on 27 January 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

@Illein: I think I have to disagree with you here. Schultz has some traits of Landa (being a highly intelligent plotter) but they are still very different. Also Waltz has been in other roles like the bad guy from Green Hornet, the ringmaster from Water for Elephants and his various roles for german TV, all different enough. They only really have in common that they are played by the same person. I would not consider this type-casting.

Hmm. Okay, let me see.

Inglorious Basterds: Landa - sophisticated Villain with a charm overload.
Django - sophisticated Hero with a dark streak.
Green Hornet - Brutally sophisticated Villain with inferiority complexes (His worst role so far by a long shot)
Water for Elephants - sophisticated Villain with a charm overload and a dark streak.
Three Musketeers - the sophisticated Villain par excellence - Cardinal Richelieu. C'MON!

Sorry, but if anyone denies that Waltz gets type-cast ever since Inglorious Basterds, he's delusional

Haven't seen any of his German productions but all the blockbaster movies he's made - he plays a VERY similar role each time.

I don't see the variety in these roles, whatsoever. If that isn't the classic example of a type casting I don't know what is.

Edited by Illein, 27 January 2013 - 04:28 PM.

[BuddhaKeks]

Illein, on 27 January 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Hmm. Okay, let me see.

Inglorious Basterds: Landa - sophisticated Villain with a charm overload.
Django - sophisticated Hero with a dark streak.
Green Hornet - Brutally sophisticated Villain with inferiority complexes (His worst role so far by a long shot)
Water for Elephants - sophisticated Villain with a charm overload and a dark streak.
Three Musketeers - the sophisticated Villain par excellence - Cardinal Richelieu. C'MON!

Sorry, but if anyone denies that Waltz gets type-cast ever since Inglorious Basterds, he's delusional

Haven't seen any of his German productions but all the blockbaster movies he's made - he plays a VERY similar role each time.

I don't see the variety in these roles, whatsoever. If that isn't the classic example of a type casting I don't know what is.

The reason he is always sophisticated is, because that's part of Waltz personallity. I will put the rest of my explanation in a spoiler, since I'm going into detail about Django's storyline.

Spoiler

There are a lot of differences between Landa and Schultz, most obviously, one is a good guy, the other is a bad guy. But it is much deeper than that. Landa doesn't have morals, he acts to his own benefit, whatever that might be. If you allow me the D&D term, I would say he is neutral evil. He does play by the rules, but only as long as he gains something out of it.

Schultz on the other hand is chaotic good/neutral good. He does what he thinks is right and he sorta plays by the rules (the law allows him to kill outlaws, so he does that, to save himself trouble), but he doesn't like them. He is not happy with his life. That's why he even helps Django, he wants to save his humanitiy. After spending 5 years murdering people in cold blood for money, he sees the chance to do something good, despite not getting anything out of it for himself. The film could be seen as Schultz's quest to regain a clean conscience (also wonderfully illustrated by the fact, how sick he feels from having to watch a man getting torn to pieces by dogs and not being able to do anything about it).

Further, while both are brilliant plotters, they do it in different ways. Landa seems to be able to come up with plans on the spot, giving him the ability to react to his opponents. His flaw is his hybris, thinking himself to be smarter than anyone and thinking he is one step ahead of everyone.
Schultz on the other hand, comes up with his plans long before he does anything. He is crazy prepared, giving the illusion he can make up things on the fly like Landa, but he doesn't, he just thinks of as much possible scenarios as he can, beforehand. He also does not underestimate his opponents, the reason his plan failed, is that he didn't know that Stephen was such a damn smart puppet master. He also is a bit of a sore looser, especially since he lost to a man he wholeheartedly despises. Candy stands for everything Schultz hates, he is a racist, a snob, a poser, cruel to the bone, and pretends to be cultured despite having no clue at all. That's why Schultz snaps when Candy rubs his victory in his face. It's not only the fact that he lost and his brilliant plan did not work out, it's because he lost to such a man. However, he could have just went up to Candy and ask him to sell Broomhilda (strange spelling o_O), but he didn't, because that gives Candy the possibility to say "No". So Schultz's flaw is, trying to always get a win on his terms, always trying to be in complete control over everything.

(A little history lesson: Given the time the movie is set in, it's possible that Dr. King Schultz was a revolutionary in Germany, member of the 1848 movement, who stood for a democratic, liberal, educated Germany, free from the aristocratic oppression. The revolution failed and many of it's members fled to North and South America, to evade prison or death. This would explain why he hates the concept of slavery and the way the slave owners behave, so much.)

Those are just the most obvious differences between the two. But there is more towards the others. The villian from Green Hornet for example, I think it was Bloodnurdovsky, wasn't really sophisticated. He was street smart yes, but he looked like a "disco santa" at the beginning (that's how James Franco's character puts it) and later he runs around with a gas mask to look cool. Nothing he does, seems cultured to me. Also many of his plans rely on luck or the stupidity of the Green Hornet. I think so far, this might be the dumbest character Waltz has played yet. I can't say much about his role in the 3 Three Musketeers, since I haven't watched it yet, and Water for Elephants, also not fully yet. (That reminded me that I still have to do that) but his roles on german TV are anything, from nice fatherly figure and family man, to sherlock-like police inspector. He is also a director, for many episodes of some Germanys most famous TV shows, like "Tatort".

So no, I don't see him type-cast. It's more that his personality shines through most of his roles. Listen to his interviews, he is a cultured, smart and gentle man in real-life. Also he seems to fully enjoy to play such roles.

[Illein]

BuddhaKeks, on 27 January 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

The reason he is always sophisticated is, because that's part of Waltz personallity. I will put the rest of my explanation in a spoiler, since I'm going into detail about Django's storyline.

Spoiler

There are a lot of differences between Landa and Schultz, most obviously, one is a good guy, the other is a bad guy. But it is much deeper than that. Landa doesn't have morals, he acts to his own benefit, whatever that might be. If you allow me the D&D term, I would say he is neutral evil. He does play by the rules, but only as long as he gains something out of it.

Schultz on the other hand is chaotic good/neutral good. He does what he thinks is right and he sorta plays by the rules (the law allows him to kill outlaws, so he does that, to save himself trouble), but he doesn't like them. He is not happy with his life. That's why he even helps Django, he wants to save his humanitiy. After spending 5 years murdering people in cold blood for money, he sees the chance to do something good, despite not getting anything out of it for himself. The film could be seen as Schultz's quest to regain a clean conscience (also wonderfully illustrated by the fact, how sick he feels from having to watch a man getting torn to pieces by dogs and not being able to do anything about it).

Further, while both are brilliant plotters, they do it in different ways. Landa seems to be able to come up with plans on the spot, giving him the ability to react to his opponents. His flaw is his hybris, thinking himself to be smarter than anyone and thinking he is one step ahead of everyone.
Schultz on the other hand, comes up with his plans long before he does anything. He is crazy prepared, giving the illusion he can make up things on the fly like Landa, but he doesn't, he just thinks of as much possible scenarios as he can, beforehand. He also does not underestimate his opponents, the reason his plan failed, is that he didn't know that Stephen was such a damn smart puppet master. He also is a bit of a sore looser, especially since he lost to a man he wholeheartedly despises. Candy stands for everything Schultz hates, he is a racist, a snob, a poser, cruel to the bone, and pretends to be cultured despite having no clue at all. That's why Schultz snaps when Candy rubs his victory in his face. It's not only the fact that he lost and his brilliant plan did not work out, it's because he lost to such a man. However, he could have just went up to Candy and ask him to sell Broomhilda (strange spelling o_O), but he didn't, because that gives Candy the possibility to say "No". So Schultz's flaw is, trying to always get a win on his terms, always trying to be in complete control over everything.

(A little history lesson: Given the time the movie is set in, it's possible that Dr. King Schultz was a revolutionary in Germany, member of the 1848 movement, who stood for a democratic, liberal, educated Germany, free from the aristocratic oppression. The revolution failed and many of it's members fled to North and South America, to evade prison or death. This would explain why he hates the concept of slavery and the way the slave owners behave, so much.)

Those are just the most obvious differences between the two. But there is more towards the others. The villian from Green Hornet for example, I think it was Bloodnurdovsky, wasn't really sophisticated. He was street smart yes, but he looked like a "disco santa" at the beginning (that's how James Franco's character puts it) and later he runs around with a gas mask to look cool. Nothing he does, seems cultured to me. Also many of his plans rely on luck or the stupidity of the Green Hornet. I think so far, this might be the dumbest character Waltz has played yet. I can't say much about his role in the 3 Three Musketeers, since I haven't watched it yet, and Water for Elephants, also not fully yet. (That reminded me that I still have to do that) but his roles on german TV are anything, from nice fatherly figure and family man, to sherlock-like police inspector. He is also a director, for many episodes of some Germanys most famous TV shows, like "Tatort".

So no, I don't see him type-cast. It's more that his personality shines through most of his roles. Listen to his interviews, he is a cultured, smart and gentle man in real-life. Also he seems to fully enjoy to play such roles.

Seems to me you simply have a different understanding of what type-casting is, than the rest of the world.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was type-cast for action movies in the 80s and 90s for his extraordinary physique - that is exactly what happens to Christoph Waltz right now for his on-screen presence.

Schwarzenegger eventually broke the mould with Twins - now, I am looking very much forward to see Mr. Waltz do the same - playing something that isn't HIM - because I'd like to judge him for his craft and not for his personality off-screen. Just saying that so far, I haven't really gotten the opportunity yet - wish he'd play a really run-down bum with foul teeth and a dull expression of speech and STILL completely still the show.

That'd be something I'd not expect from him. While pretty much every movie coming up will have a bit of a déjà-vu feeling, seeing him in. Heard he plays Michail Gorbatschow in an upcoming movie - curious how that'll work out, though I fear I know it already.

Don't get me wrong, I am with you on that he's a phenomenal actor, I just think he's being sold short by Hollywood. Though I guess he won't complain, looking at his award-shelf