King Kong

[kirottu]

I liked Brad Pitt in Twelve Monkeys, he made me laugh. (was i supposed to laugh?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was trying to remember who he played, with little success. (And, no, I don't suppose you were meant to laugh.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I suppose you were meant to laugh or at least smile. The title song is reason enough to like this movie.

[metadigital]

Terry Gilliam is enough to like this film.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Does this mean that my opinion is wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That would depend on what you expected from the extended versions. They are closer to the book than the edited version. But they still have the made up bits in them.

[Blarghagh]

Fight Club had a good premise, but decended into farce when the writer didn't know how to end the story. Pitt was okay in it, but I prefered his performance in Legends of the Fall, if only because we get Anthony Hopkins as well; the two of them produce some excellent perfomances. Sure it was slow, it wasn't an action film: it was a character film.

 

After that, Interview with a Vampire, or even the bit parts in Thelma & Louise and True Romance strike me as demonstrative of his talents.

 

Dude, he was onscreen in True Romance for all of one minute. Okay, so maybe that's an exaggerations but he basically had a cameo performance as a stereotypical stoner, and he was sleeping for the most of that. Thelma and Louise is on my to-see list. Interview with a Vampire is good, but Brad Pitt definately wasn't the most commanding presence on the screen and paled in comparison to Kirsten Dunst and what I like to think of as Tom Cruise's best performance of not being Tom Cruise.

 

Fight Club... well, Fight Club really is an exception in my book.My reasons for liking Fight Club do not include basic things like storytelling. The acting is top-notch, but I do not even neccesarily like it for that. I do not believe Fight Club, book or movie, is meant to be seen as a story as much as it is to be seen as a well-played, utterly quotable social satire.

 

Twelve Monkeys rocked. And Brad Pitt's performance was hilarious. The way he constantly rolled his eyes was a nifty quirk.

[mkreku]

I said that.  Molyneux's team is the one that done made BG&E. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're only going to use the last name, and that last name happens to be Molyneux, everyone will assume you're talking about Peter Molyneux (Populous, Black & White, Fable). Are you saying he is involved in King Kong somehow? Because I sure never heard about him having anything to do with Beyond Good & Evil.

[Blarghagh]

He didn't. Beyond Good and Evil was made by the same people who made the Rayman Games. Peter Molyneux, formerly of Bullfrog now of Lionhead is famous because of Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Theme Park, Black and White and Fable, and soon, 'The Movies' but definately not Rayman or Beyond Good and Evil. Lionhead, I believe, is doing the King Kong game. But I might be wrong.

[metadigital]

Dude, he was onscreen in True Romance for all of one minute. Okay, so maybe that's an exaggerations but he basically had a cameo performance as a stereotypical stoner, and he was sleeping for the most of that. Thelma and Louise is on my to-see list. Interview with a Vampire is good, but Brad Pitt definately wasn't the most commanding presence on the screen and paled in comparison to Kirsten Dunst and what I like to think of as Tom Cruise's best performance of not being Tom Cruise.

 

Fight Club... well, Fight Club really is an exception in my book.My reasons for liking Fight Club do not include basic things like storytelling. The acting is top-notch, but I do not even neccesarily like it for that. I do not believe Fight Club, book or movie, is meant to be seen as a story as much as it is to be seen as a well-played, utterly quotable social satire.

 

Twelve Monkeys rocked. And Brad Pitt's performance was hilarious. The way he constantly rolled his eyes was a nifty quirk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He played a psychotic stoner, and he did it well. I also really appreciated his performance in Se7en.

 

However, as a comparison with Robert Redford (something done quite a bit), he is a poor imitation at best.

[alanschu]

Blame the axing off of the love interest at the beginning of the Bourne Supremacy on the fact that the first one didn't follow the book very well, and she doesn't even exist in the novel version of Bourne Supremacy.

 

 

I liked both of the Bourne movies personally, and I wait with high anticipation for the third one.

[Child of Flame]

He didn't. Beyond Good and Evil was made by the same people who made the Rayman Games. Peter Molyneux, formerly of Bullfrog now of Lionhead is famous because of Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Theme Park, Black and White and Fable, and soon, 'The Movies' but definately not Rayman or Beyond Good and Evil. Lionhead, I believe, is doing the King Kong game. But I might be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Geez, I can't believe I got the names wrong, I meant Ancel.

 

Molyneux = Teh Suck.

[Child of Flame]

Strangely enough, I've been attacked more for not liking Peter Jackson than I have for any of my views on religion or politics. Strange what stirs up passions...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually people calling George Lucas an average producer, was a lot more heated than this post. But I will say, I

[EnderAndrew]

I rather liked Jersey Girl. The only negative press I read on the picture was before the release by people who were more concerned with Ben Affleck's love life than the quality of the film.

 

Jersey Girl was the first film in years to make me cry and laugh outloud in the span of two hours. Other such films include Life is Beautiful and Almost Famous. It's not as good as Chasing Amy, but it's still a good movie.

 

Vixen defends Mean Girls but rips Jackson.

 

When you attack him as a director, again you are listing a boring story. You may forget that Hollywood for some 40 years has called Lord of the Rings impossible to adapt to the screen. And while it is not 100% faithful, there are some who feel the books meander, and aren't the best books written on the planet. I am among them. I also feel that the LotR trilogy remains one of the best adaptations I have ever seen.

 

Fight Club may be the best book to film adaptation I have ever seen.

 

Regardless, you claim to be a huge movie buff, and also claim to understand the role a director has in a film, but you've yet to back your claim. You blamed him as a director for the overall story, which the director is not responsible for. You still have yet to really come up with a complaint, let alone a valid complaint about his directing style.

 

Last time I checked, LotR:RotK stands as one of the most highly acclaimed movies in all of cinema history, despite what I feel to be a weak story.

 

The climax is weak, and the main story continues on well past the non-existant show down with Sauron. Yes, Jackson cut down on much of the after-math of the Shire, but as is, many felt the movie was too long. The real climax of the movie was probably the slaying of the Witch King, and not Frodo's battle with Gollum.

 

Jackson is an auteur director who has a strong hold on every aspect of his film's production. The quality of the production is evident throughout moreso than most any other film I have seen. His visual storytelling is quite good, and editting the lengthy films for a theatre is a task that would make most directors cringe.

 

For those who enjoy the story, there are far more details that one can really attempt to cram in. As much as the Harry Potter films turn a profit, one can not help but draw a comparison and see how much better LotR looks in comparison. The Harry Potter books are easier reads, and possibly more enjoyable. Yet the Harry Potter movies leave out major plotlines that weaken character development, where as the LotR movies were much more faithful adaptations overall.

 

I called you a troll, because while I respect an individual's ability to not like LotR, I maintain any true student of film should be able to recognize brilliant talent when they see it. I think Tim Burton in an ass, and I hate half his films, but I recognize him as a great director none the less.

 

Any "movie buff" who puts Mean Girls abot LotR in terms of quality knowns nothing about film.

[jaguars4ever]

He didn't. Beyond Good and Evil was made by the same people who made the Rayman Games. Peter Molyneux, formerly of Bullfrog now of Lionhead is famous because of Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Theme Park, Black and White and Fable, and soon, 'The Movies' but definately not Rayman or Beyond Good and Evil. Lionhead, I believe, is doing the King Kong game. But I might be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Geez, I can't believe I got the names wrong, I meant Ancel.

 

Molyneux = Teh Suck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if Beyond Good and Evil wll get a sequel...

[Kor Qel Droma]

Jersey Girl suprised me totally. And thats hard to do in a movie, since I've seen so many of the damn things. I was expecting this Benifer flick but it turned out to be a solid show worth watching more than once.

 

And the name of Brad Pitts character from 12 Monkeys was Jeffrey Goines. The best portrayal of a spaz since Michael Richards in UHF...

 

To derail this thread further, I plunked down 3.99 at work for a copy of Charlton Heston in Soylent Green. I had seen the old SNL skit where they run around screaming 'Soylent Green is people' but never understood it until now. It's your typical Heston flick, not quite the Omega Man but not bad nonetheless.

[Blarghagh]

He didn't. Beyond Good and Evil was made by the same people who made the Rayman Games. Peter Molyneux, formerly of Bullfrog now of Lionhead is famous because of Populous, Dungeon Keeper, Theme Park, Black and White and Fable, and soon, 'The Movies' but definately not Rayman or Beyond Good and Evil. Lionhead, I believe, is doing the King Kong game. But I might be wrong.

 

 

Geez, I can't believe I got the names wrong, I meant Ancel.

 

Molyneux = Teh Suck.

I wonder if Beyond Good and Evil wll get a sequel...

 

It was supposed to be a trilogy, but since the publisher completely ****ed up on bringing the product to the press, the game didn't sell well. This is sad, because I really loved the game and I don't seem to be the only one - reviews are overwhelmingly positive.

 

I must be the only one who thinks Kevin Smith is a hack director. His scripts totally make up for this, though, but if he'd just keep to the writing credit and the actor credit as Silent Bob and hand the directing to someone better, say, Tony Scott or, and I hate to be this clich

[EnderAndrew]

Kevin Smith is a horrid visual director, but I think he has a knack for getting good performances, editting his films well for timing, etc.

 

He is a far better writer than he is a director.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, exactly. He needs to discover the wonders of zooms and pans. His visual style is hella static, and the angles barely ever work.

[Darth Flatus]

Thats cos his films are mostly centered around bantering, no visual direction needed for that.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Dogma and Chasing Amy are two of my favourites.

[Darth Flatus]

Chasing amy is my least favourite, there is a bit in the middle where it just slows down and i tune out, i've tried to watch it 3 times!!! I really hate Ben Affleck.

 

Clerks - has good bits but a bit boring in places, the principal detaract form the script.

Mallrats - I like this, an entertaining romp.

Dogma - Excellent, probably SMith's most solid film IMO. The fact that it attacks religion doesn't hurt either.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back - Funnu goofy film. An adult version of bill and ted, Will Ferrell is great in this.

I have yet to see Jersey girl.

 

P.S. I have just realised this is a King Kong thread , oh well never mind.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Any "movie buff" who puts Mean Girls abot LotR in terms of quality knowns nothing about film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I called Mean Girls a "fun little movie". I approach a Mean Girls differently than I would approach a Citizen Kane. If I'm reading a mystery novel, I'll judge it on different standards than I'd judge a work of high literature.

Anyway, a movie lives or dies in the director's hands. A good director can save a crappy script, and a brilliant script can die in the hands of a crappy director. A good director can coax great performances out of mediocre actors, and again vice versa. Jackson managed to bore me with Cate Blanchett and Sean Bean in his troupe.

Maybe his problem was sticking as close to the books (I assume, I haven't read them) as he did, and should have strayed more from them than he did. That's something else a good director can do. A good director should be able to take a story and glue my ass to the seat making me want to see how it all ends. So I don't think Jackson is a good director.

I know I can find review after review praising the LoTR films and Jackson, but they are not universally beloved.

 

But hey, folks, I've read the J.R.R. Tolkien novels more than once, and my quarrel isn't with his grand mythic vision. It's with Peter Jackson's often uninspired translation of his story into cinematic terms... Add a lot of dull acting - except Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis - and you have an uneven movie with yawns aplenty. So there's one critic's opinion, which won't make a bit of difference to zillions of LOTR fans.

Linky

 

Like all the other installments in the saga, The Return of the King is part of a good movie, but only mediocre on its own, full of awkward pauses and redundancies.

Linky

 

And make no mistake: Return of the King is an empty spectacle. Nowhere did any of its characters feel like real people with real emotions

[alanschu]

No movie is universally beloved though.

 

I still think that not liking the movies is still a bit too general to make sweeping arguments about an individual.

 

I don't think you can argue that the majority of people out there think that Peter Jackson is an excellent director, based on the LotR movies alone.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

I don't think you can argue that the majority of people out there think that Peter Jackson is an excellent director, based on the LotR movies alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't argued that at all. In fact, I've admitted time and again that my opinion is in the minority.

[metadigital]

Any "movie buff" who puts Mean Girls abot LotR in terms of quality knowns nothing about film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I called Mean Girls a "fun little movie". I approach a Mean Girls differently than I would approach a Citizen Kane. If I'm reading a mystery novel, I'll judge it on different standards than I'd judge a work of high literature.

Anyway, a movie lives or dies in the director's hands. A good director can save a crappy script, and a brilliant script can die in the hands of a crappy director. A good director can coax great performances out of mediocre actors, and again vice versa. Jackson managed to bore me with Cate Blanchett and Sean Bean in his troupe.

Maybe his problem was sticking as close to the books (I assume, I haven't read them) as he did, and should have strayed more from them than he did. That's something else a good director can do. A good director should be able to take a story and glue my ass to the seat making me want to see how it all ends. So I don't think Jackson is a good director.

I know I can find review after review praising the LoTR films and Jackson, but they are not universally beloved.

 

But hey, folks, I've read the J.R.R. Tolkien novels more than once, and my quarrel isn't with his grand mythic vision. It's with Peter Jackson's often uninspired translation of his story into cinematic terms... Add a lot of dull acting - except Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis - and you have an uneven movie with yawns aplenty. So there's one critic's opinion, which won't make a bit of difference to zillions of LOTR fans.

Linky

 

Like all the other installments in the saga, The Return of the King is part of a good movie, but only mediocre on its own, full of awkward pauses and redundancies.

Linky

 

And make no mistake: Return of the King is an empty spectacle. Nowhere did any of its characters feel like real people with real emotions

[EnderAndrew]

Tokein almost single-handedly recreated high fantasy. And high fantasy is much like spaghetti westerns in how black and white characters are. They are meant to be one-dimensional to allow the reader/viewer to easily slip into supporting one side or the other.

 

I prefer flawed characters with depth personally, but one sided characters often have better mass appeal.

 

Look at how many people love Superman.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Look at how many people love Superman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at how much more popular Batman has become.