- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
Best movies of 05 — Page 5
- Time
- Post link
i mean it didnt look very nice (but what does at that time)
Actually, I watched this movie last night, and I found it hard to believe that it was made only in 1933. As someone who has learned to spot a lot of technical stuff in films, I was surprised at how advanced the effects were on such an early film.
By the way, I just saw PJ's "Kong" about an hour ago, and all I can say is.........WOW.
- Time
- Post link
I hated how Jackson STRETCHED the movie to be three hours. The original one wasn't that long, and this one didn't need to be that long. There were so many boring, pointless scenes that could have been taken out and it would have made the pacing of the movie, and the overall film, much better.
For example, the scene where Kong is sliding around on the ice in the park. That scene really had no purpose at all, other than to show that Anne actually really likes Kong and that Kong is a pretty swell guy! But we already had that message delivered a little bit earlier in the film, when Anne walked up to Kong and he picked her up. We already knew they had a strong connection with each other, so we didn't need 5 minutes of sliding around and laughing to show us the message over and over again. Also, if mister Kong is heavy enough to make the entire balcony in the theater house crumble apart, why did the ice not even crack? I seriously doubt that the ice is stronger than that balcony, which was holding well over a hundred people when all the seats were full.
Another scene that I really hated, was the scene with all the giant bugs at the bottom of that cliff area. There was NO reason to have that scene in the movie, other than "let's see how many giant monsters we can fit in this film!!!" and "let's have some more really cool death scenes!!!" Jackson just wanted that scene to show off his special effects. It did nothing to help the story. The Captain and the actor guy still could have come back and rescued them, simply by dropping a rope or vine down the edge for them to climb up. All important, plot progressing moments in that scene, easily could have been done without the bugs, and again, it would have made the pacing of the film much better. The army of giant bugs was just ridiculous.
Also, the dinosaur stampede was cool for the first couple of minutes, but it went on FAR too long. And the fact that the Raptors continued to go after the 7 or 8 humans, when there was a PILE OF INJURED, GIANT DINOSAURS RIGHT NEXT TO THEM, is a little odd. No animal would go after some strange, small, unknown prey when they have enough food to last them for years just sitting right next to them. The same thing happened when Anne was in the log, and the T-Rex had a FRESHLY KILLED, HUGE ANIMAL IN ITS MOUTH! But still, the T-Rex simply DROPPED it's fresh prey, so that it could go after some smaller prey. Also, I bet if Jurassic Park had never been made, there wouldn't have been any Raptors in the film at all! I'm not saying that King Kong ripped off Jurassic Park, because it didn't. I'm just making an observation, which is: nobody knew what the heck a Raptor was until Jurassic Park came out.
Oh yeah, the beginning of the film, in New York. Did that whole setting seem fake to anyone else? Like, when they would walk around the streets, New York just felt very... generated... very... smooth and weird looking. It didn't really feel like a city, it felt more like some castle from a Final Fantasy game. Of course, I wasn't around New York in the 30s, so maybe that's really what it was like... But the entire city just seemed... fake. Of course, when they came back from the island, it didn't seem fake anymore. It was really weird. It felt like they were coming back to a whole new city. I don't know if I'm the only one who felt that way or not, but it did seem odd.
Anyway. Jack Black was really good in the movie. Like, surprisingly good. It's really awesome how intense he was about the role. Even though there are other people who deserve it more, I still think it would be neat if he won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.
Overall, the movie wasn't THAT bad... But it did unnecessarily drag on in certain places. In some parts I felt like Jackson was really trying to make a good film, and in other parts I felt like he just wanted to show off his neat special effects, without paying attention to the story, and create a "long epic" like LotR, even though King Kong doesn't really need to be a long epic to be good (whereas LotR did).
Doesn't make it to my top five list of the year, but it's not in the top five worst movies either. It's right in the middle.
- Time
- Post link
Another scene that I really hated, was the scene with all the giant bugs at the bottom of that cliff area. There was NO reason to have that scene in the movie, other than "let's see how many giant monsters we can fit in this film!!!" and "let's have some more really cool death scenes!!!" Jackson just wanted that scene to show off his special effects. It did nothing to help the story. The Captain and the actor guy still could have come back and rescued them, simply by dropping a rope or vine down the edge for them to climb up. All important, plot progressing moments in that scene, easily could have been done without the bugs, and again, it would have made the pacing of the film much better. The army of giant bugs was just ridiculous.
This was an homage to the lost "spider pit" sequence from the original 1933 "Kong", which is sort of the Holy Grail of deleted scene to movie enthusiasts. There is evidence that it exists, such as pieces of the original script and old photographs, but the actual sequence has never been found. So PJ, for his remake, decided to put it back in. So, for us "Kong" nuts, that scene was quite a treat.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
Oh, really? I did not know that! That's interesting... So, I guess the scene actually did have some point then. Still though, while viewing it without any knowledge of the "spider pit scene," it seemed useless. But I wonder how I'll feel about it the next time I see it, now that I know it's actually a reference to an old scene...
-edit-
So I did some research on the "spider pit scene" (by research I mean google'd it), and it turns out that the scene was originally cut because the director thought it messed with the pacing of the film (how ironic).
Popular legend says that Cooper cut the footage because it was "too shocking" when shown to a test audience, but as the screen capture of one of Cooper's notes from one of the special features in the new Kong DVD shows, "...so don't know about the spider sequences. After all I invented them, and personally cut them out of the rough studio print of "King Kong" They stopped the story". It was cut merely to tighten up the pacing and keep the focus of the terror on Kong.
Another scene that I really hated, was the scene with all the giant bugs at the bottom of that cliff area. There was NO reason to have that scene in the movie, other than "let's see how many giant monsters we can fit in this film!!!" and "let's have some more really cool death scenes!!!" Jackson just wanted that scene to show off his special effects. It did nothing to help the story. The Captain and the actor guy still could have come back and rescued them, simply by dropping a rope or vine down the edge for them to climb up. All important, plot progressing moments in that scene, easily could have been done without the bugs, and again, it would have made the pacing of the film much better. The army of giant bugs was just ridiculous.
This was an homage to the lost "spider pit" sequence from the original 1933 "Kong", which is sort of the Holy Grail of deleted scene to movie enthusiasts. There is evidence that it exists, such as pieces of the original script and old photographs, but the actual sequence has never been found. So PJ, for his remake, decided to put it back in. So, for us "Kong" nuts, that scene was quite a treat.
This was an homage to the lost "spider pit" sequence from the original 1933 "Kong", which is sort of the Holy Grail of deleted scene to movie enthusiasts. There is evidence that it exists, such as pieces of the original script and old photographs, but the actual sequence has never been found. So PJ, for his remake, decided to put it back in. So, for us "Kong" nuts, that scene was quite a treat.
Oh, really? I did not know that! That's interesting... So, I guess the scene actually did have some point then. Still though, while viewing it without any knowledge of the "spider pit scene," it seemed useless. But I wonder how I'll feel about it the next time I see it, now that I know it's actually a reference to an old scene...
-edit-
So I did some research on the "spider pit scene" (by research I mean google'd it), and it turns out that the scene was originally cut because the director thought it messed with the pacing of the film (how ironic).
Popular legend says that Cooper cut the footage because it was "too shocking" when shown to a test audience, but as the screen capture of one of Cooper's notes from one of the special features in the new Kong DVD shows, "...so don't know about the spider sequences. After all I invented them, and personally cut them out of the rough studio print of "King Kong" They stopped the story". It was cut merely to tighten up the pacing and keep the focus of the terror on Kong.
Source.
So, I can still respect the fact that Jackson put it in as a tribute, but maybe he should have taken a hint from Cooper and, at the very least, made the scene shorter, because it really does feel like it "stops the story" for the more casual Kong viewer, like myself.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
very much like LOTR...
hardcore fans of LOTR very much dispised the movies because they did not hold true to Tolkiens writings...
just like us hardcore Star Wars fans dont care much for the PT...
I'm kinda baffled at the numerous people who say they didnt like the movie...
the main complaint being it was too long...
maybe i was more captivated by what was going on not to notice the length...
i mean we all knew it was going to be 3 hours so at least prepare yourself for a long movie rather than coming out and saying.. "man that was too long!"
but like i said people are going to either like it or not...
i think Jackson did a wonderful job on it and it really did exceed all my expectations..
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
Yeah, Peter Jackson probably has a lot more footage like he did fore the LOTR trilogy.
- Time
- Post link
just watch the trailers
- Time
- Post link
War does not make one great.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Yeah, Peter Jackson probably has a lot more footage like he did fore the LOTR trilogy.
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
Yeah, Peter Jackson probably has a lot more footage like he did fore the LOTR trilogy.
Why does jackson like making 3 hour long movies?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
i think this movie is an either love it or hate it kinda movie...
very much like LOTR...
hardcore fans of LOTR very much dispised the movies because they did not hold true to Tolkiens writings...
just like us hardcore Star Wars fans dont care much for the PT...
I'm kinda baffled at the numerous people who say they didnt like the movie...
the main complaint being it was too long...
maybe i was more captivated by what was going on not to notice the length...
i mean we all knew it was going to be 3 hours so at least prepare yourself for a long movie rather than coming out and saying.. "man that was too long!"
but like i said people are going to either like it or not...
i think Jackson did a wonderful job on it and it really did exceed all my expectations..
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
i think this movie is an either love it or hate it kinda movie...
very much like LOTR...
hardcore fans of LOTR very much dispised the movies because they did not hold true to Tolkiens writings...
just like us hardcore Star Wars fans dont care much for the PT...
I'm kinda baffled at the numerous people who say they didnt like the movie...
the main complaint being it was too long...
maybe i was more captivated by what was going on not to notice the length...
i mean we all knew it was going to be 3 hours so at least prepare yourself for a long movie rather than coming out and saying.. "man that was too long!"
but like i said people are going to either like it or not...
i think Jackson did a wonderful job on it and it really did exceed all my expectations..
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
Well, it's really NOT a love it or hate it kind of movie... I mean, through out my entire post, I mentioned that I half liked it and half disliked it. I said it was right in the middle. So, for me at least, it wasn't a "love it or hate it" movie.
Also, my complaint isn't so much that the movie was too long, it's more the fact that it was much longer than it needed to be. I know those are the same thing, but I guess I'm just trying to emphasize one point more strongly than you are...
Anyway, it's not like I don't enjoy long movies. I just think that this one movie didn't necessarily need to be that long. It felt too forced. It's like the movie was long, just for the sake of being long. I knew it was going to be three hours, but I was hoping that there would be more stuff filling up those three hours. Like I said before, there were just so many parts that didn't add anything to the film at all. There were too many scenes that just had no real reason to be there.
Think of it as having a very large cup, but it's only filled up half way, as opposed to being completely full. So, it's not the fact that the movie was long. It's the fact that there was so little that actually consisted within the lengthiness.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I agree totally with Jaster Mareel about Kong. I felt like it was action scene, action scene, action scene, forced character development/emotion, killer bugs, action scene, forced and unbelievable romance scene, action scene, killer dinosaur, etc.
I agree totally with Jaster Mareel about Kong. I felt like it was action scene, action scene, action scene, forced character development/emotion, killer bugs, action scene, forced and unbelievable romance scene, action scene, killer dinosaur, etc.
Um....That's pretty much how the original "Kong" was too.
And it's still one of the greatest movies of all time.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Jaster Mareel
Well, it's really NOT a love it or hate it kind of movie... I mean, through out my entire post, I mentioned that I half liked it and half disliked it. I said it was right in the middle. So, for me at least, it wasn't a "love it or hate it" movie.
Also, my complaint isn't so much that the movie was too long, it's more the fact that it was much longer than it needed to be. I know those are the same thing, but I guess I'm just trying to emphasize one point more strongly than you are...
Anyway, it's not like I don't enjoy long movies. I just think that this one movie didn't necessarily need to be that long. It felt too forced. It's like the movie was long, just for the sake of being long. I knew it was going to be three hours, but I was hoping that there would be more stuff filling up those three hours. Like I said before, there were just so many parts that didn't add anything to the film at all. There were too many scenes that just had no real reason to be there.
Think of it as having a very large cup, but it's only filled up half way, as opposed to being completely full. So, it's not the fact that the movie was long. It's the fact that there was so little that actually consisted within the lengthiness.
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
i think this movie is an either love it or hate it kinda movie...
very much like LOTR...
hardcore fans of LOTR very much dispised the movies because they did not hold true to Tolkiens writings...
just like us hardcore Star Wars fans dont care much for the PT...
I'm kinda baffled at the numerous people who say they didnt like the movie...
the main complaint being it was too long...
maybe i was more captivated by what was going on not to notice the length...
i mean we all knew it was going to be 3 hours so at least prepare yourself for a long movie rather than coming out and saying.. "man that was too long!"
but like i said people are going to either like it or not...
i think Jackson did a wonderful job on it and it really did exceed all my expectations..
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
i think this movie is an either love it or hate it kinda movie...
very much like LOTR...
hardcore fans of LOTR very much dispised the movies because they did not hold true to Tolkiens writings...
just like us hardcore Star Wars fans dont care much for the PT...
I'm kinda baffled at the numerous people who say they didnt like the movie...
the main complaint being it was too long...
maybe i was more captivated by what was going on not to notice the length...
i mean we all knew it was going to be 3 hours so at least prepare yourself for a long movie rather than coming out and saying.. "man that was too long!"
but like i said people are going to either like it or not...
i think Jackson did a wonderful job on it and it really did exceed all my expectations..
FYI - can anyone smell an extended edition coming?
Well, it's really NOT a love it or hate it kind of movie... I mean, through out my entire post, I mentioned that I half liked it and half disliked it. I said it was right in the middle. So, for me at least, it wasn't a "love it or hate it" movie.
Also, my complaint isn't so much that the movie was too long, it's more the fact that it was much longer than it needed to be. I know those are the same thing, but I guess I'm just trying to emphasize one point more strongly than you are...
Anyway, it's not like I don't enjoy long movies. I just think that this one movie didn't necessarily need to be that long. It felt too forced. It's like the movie was long, just for the sake of being long. I knew it was going to be three hours, but I was hoping that there would be more stuff filling up those three hours. Like I said before, there were just so many parts that didn't add anything to the film at all. There were too many scenes that just had no real reason to be there.
Think of it as having a very large cup, but it's only filled up half way, as opposed to being completely full. So, it's not the fact that the movie was long. It's the fact that there was so little that actually consisted within the lengthiness.
i see what your saying but i think there are only a couple scenes that i feel didnt need to be in there and they were very small scenes at that...
many have said the first 70 minutes leading up to Kong was boring...
well if we never had that time dedicated to the back story we wouldnt know anything about the characters nor would we care about them at all...
i know the original Kong is a classic and all but i mean it had no character development at all... and thats what Jackson set out to change..
i feel he did anyway.. it was a huge improvement over the original...
and i also feel the original was an all action piece... (if you can really call it "action", it was in those days anyway)
i mean what else do you expect from a movie that features a giant gorilla on an uncharted island with dinosaurs??
lol
but i respect your opinion...
different strokes for different folks after all...
im just dissapointed its not getting the recognition i feel it deserves..
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
Um....That's pretty much how the original "Kong" was too.
And it's still one of the greatest movies of all time.
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I agree totally with Jaster Mareel about Kong. I felt like it was action scene, action scene, action scene, forced character development/emotion, killer bugs, action scene, forced and unbelievable romance scene, action scene, killer dinosaur, etc.
I agree totally with Jaster Mareel about Kong. I felt like it was action scene, action scene, action scene, forced character development/emotion, killer bugs, action scene, forced and unbelievable romance scene, action scene, killer dinosaur, etc.
Um....That's pretty much how the original "Kong" was too.
And it's still one of the greatest movies of all time.
So I guess we didn't need a remake then...
Anyway, forget Kong (I sure have - it wasn't hard). I finally bit the bullet last night and went to see the Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and it was actually pretty good, and not the LOTR rip off to sell toys and happy meals I thought it was based on the trailer, so I take back all my previous Narnia movie slamming. I'm not saying it was the best movie I've ever seen or anything, but it was fairly faithful to my memories of the book. It was especially cool when they were in Beaver's house and he's telling them that they are the ones the prophecy speaks of and Susan says 'we're not heroes - we're from Finchley', because I live in Finchley and was watching the film in Finchley. For me that was pretty cool.
War does not make one great.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Did anyone here see Brokeback Mountain?
Did anyone here see Brokeback Mountain?
I wanted to, but I never got the chance. I hate how I don't live close to any big cities, so I always miss movies which are select cities only. I'm going to have to wait to catch both Brokeback Mountain and Munich on DVD. The Fountain is probably the only movie which I'll be willing to drive several hours to see, if it ends up coming out in select cities only (which it probably will).
But anyway, I'm glad Ang Lee is recovering from The Hulk. Brokeback Mountain has been getting him some massive critical acclaim. I definitely thought that he was gone forever after The Hulk, but all of a sudden, he's back in the spotlight.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Did anyone here see Brokeback Mountain?
It only came out here on Friday, and I intend to see it.Did anyone here see Brokeback Mountain?
War does not make one great.
- Time
- Post link
No thank you.
On a positive note, I have now seen both Narnia and King Kong and both were excellent. Which now means I have a top five movies of the year.
ROTS still isn't on it.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
Did anyone here see Brokeback Mountain?
It only came out here on Friday, and I intend to see it. Did anyone here see Brokeback Mountain?
When it gets to DVD I'll watch it. Although Ang Lee has not produced a good film since... uh... forever.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Isn't that the movie with gay cowboys?
No thank you.
Isn't that the movie with gay cowboys?
No thank you.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link