[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Yojimbo ain't that great, either. Kurosawa made plenty of much better movies.

Yojimbo is pretty damn good. It's John Sayles' favorite movie of all time, and he doesn't exactly have poor taste (at least I wouldn't think so if he could make a film like Lone Star). Yojimbo is brilliantly shot (by Kazuo Miyagawa, the best cinematographer Japan ever had), filled with delightful moments, and features a splendid main character that helped invent "cool" in cinema. Mifune is electrifying in the movie. Period. I think Kurosawa has only made five superior films to Yojimbo, and with a director as good as Kurosawa that still places Yojimbo pretty high as movies go.

Originally Posted by Snarky

And acclaiming Peter Jackson is so trendy these days that I think a fair number of elitists are being swept up. (Besides, real snobs don't rate the original that highly, anyway.)

You've got a point, but at the same time, I was a Peter Jackson fan back before he had even made The Frighteners. I became a P.J. fan around the time he made Heavenly Creatures in 1994. I remember skipping school one day to go rent Bad Taste and Meet the Feebles at a cult video store. So there's no "jumping on the bandwagon" for me. I was already there over a decade ago. Also, the original Kong gets plenty of love from film snobs, but most of them still address the flaws of the movie as they praise it. And there's no denying it has some major flaws...

Originally Posted by Snarky

I don't get what the fuss is all about, though. All the clips so far have looked terribly computer-generated. And I could just about excuse a three-hour bloat in the Lord of the Rings movies, but for King Kong?!

The NBC exclusive preview is what sold me. It's a 4 minute uncut sequence from the film. It was great stuff. Amazing CG effects. Best I've seen thus far.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

You've got a point, but at the same time, I was a Peter Jackson fan back before he had even made The Frighteners. I became a P.J. fan around the time he made Heavenly Creatures in 1994.

And, of course, you stopped being his fan after the utterly unimaginative Lord of the Rings trilogy?

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

And, of course, you stopped being his fan after the utterly unimaginative Lord of the Rings trilogy?

Ha ha, well I actually drifted away from him before the LOTR trilogy, but I still like him. In other words, I don't absolutely adore his work like I did when I was younger (I was also a huge Sam Raimi fan in those days). As far as LOTR goes though...I must say I like the trilogy quite a bit. They might be overrated to some extent, but I find them quite enjoyable regardless. Also, I can't stand the "Peter Jackson is God" fans these days that emerged in the wake of the LOTR trilogy. Nerds who had never even heard of Peter Jackson before were suddenly following his career religiously. Ugh...

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

They might be overrated to some extent, but I find them quite enjoyable regardless.

They are incredibly overrated. I mean, even the Harry Potter movies are more interesting...
But yes, quite enjoyable fits them.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

They are incredibly overrated. I mean, even the Harry Potter movies are more interesting...
But yes, quite enjoyable fits them.

Hmmm, I think the Potter films are equally overrated. Perhaps moreso.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Hmmm, I think the Potter films are equally overrated. Perhaps moreso.

At least the Potter films make sense to those who haven't read the books...

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by RLacey

At least the Potter films make sense to those who haven't read the books...

You may have a point there. The extended cuts help a bit in that regard I think. Over two hours was cut from the entire trilogy if one only views the theatrical cuts. However, one thing that still wasn't explained to my satisfaction in the films was the return of Gandalf, gone from Grey to White. If memory serves, this wasn't thoroughly explained in the books either until The Silmarrion. It bothers me, but I'll live...

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Hmmm, I think the Potter films are equally overrated. Perhaps moreso.

I never heard anybody claiming that they were masterpieces, but I've heard some saying that for Lord of the Rings.
So I'd say LotR is much more overrated, in my limited experience.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by RLacey

At least the Potter films make sense to those who haven't read the books...

Could you give an example in what way LOTR movies don't make sense? I don't think I've heard such a complaint before.

[Dark Veil]

Yesterday I saw A Tale of Two Sisters

A really good Korean "psychological" horror movie IMHO.
It does get off to a slow start and it could very well go over your head the first time you see it.
But all the pieces pretty much fall together in the end.
It's still one of those movies where watching it a second time really pays off though.
I especially liked the fact that while the main storyline leaves little room for discussion not all is disclosed or explained like Hollywood tends to do.

Fans of more subtle horror should definately give it a try...

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Could you give an example in what way LOTR movies don't make sense? I don't think I've heard such a complaint before.

Well, admittedly I'm not sure that the books make sense, but let's take the random moment from the first film that finally convinced me it wasn't worth trying to follow the plot...

There's a bit where the heroes are wandering through the mountains, and Evil Christopher Lee Wizardâ„¢ magically causes an avalanche.

Now, if the guy has such extreme power of nature, why can't he uproot the trees in the fight in the forest later on in the same film?

Also, the characters in the film really do just wander to a location [cut to nice shot of New Zealand] and then say "We need to go to XXXX!", before moving on again. Possibly with a fight scene first.

I dunno; I never got more than about ten pages into the book, and the film struck me as silly, rushed and unexplained.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by RLacey

There's a bit where the heroes are wandering through the mountains, and Evil Christopher Lee Wizardâ„¢ magically causes an avalanche.

Now, if the guy has such extreme power of nature, why can't he uproot the trees in the fight in the forest later on in the same film?

An off-the-top-of-my-head explanation with no reference to the books whatsoever: Maybe his power are restricted only to some forces of nature? If you had watched Two Towers, you'd find out that flora and him doesn't exactly live on good terms with each other.

Besides, that's a type of thing you can as easily easlier accuse of many, if not most, stories that involve magicians or otherwise superpowerful entities, which seem to forget their abilities when the plot requires it (now playing: Fahrenheit ). And I haven't watched any of the Harry Potters, but judging from the books, they're hardly an exception.

Also, the characters in the film really do just wander to a location [cut to nice shot of New Zealand] and then say "We need to go to XXXX!", before moving on again. Possibly with a fight scene first.

While this may be frustrating for avid fans of the original who miss certain scenes and characters and subplots, I don't see how leaving all those details in would make it any less confusing for "those who haven't read the books", which was your main concern.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the screenplay was perfect. But I felt, and was told so by people who hadn't known the source prior to watching it, it stood rather firmly on its own.

[Maquisard]

I just watched Stealth on DVD. 'Tis a very entertaining movie that got shit grades. Compare that to Red Eye, a piece of cinematic diarrhea that got excellent reviews. What is this world coming to?! Does it seem like lately, a whole buncha directors are getting "A" for effort, even though their products are mediocre at best?

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Mares

Compare that to Red Eye, a piece of cinematic diarrhea that got excellent reviews. What is this world coming to?!

I wouldn't say "excellent" personally. It does have an 81% at Rotten Tomatoes (135 good reviews, 32 negative...remember a 2 1/2 out of 4 is considered a good review, same as a 6/10). However, if you look at the average rating over all of the reviews, it's a 6.7 out of 10. One could argue that it deserves a lower rating than 6.7, but in my view, once you get that low it's not worth complaining about anyhow.

[Maquisard]

That's a huge relief, thanks. I guess I'll keep a closer eye on what Rotten Tomatoes is really saying in the future.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Dark Veil

Yesterday I saw A Tale of Two Sisters

A really good Korean "psychological" horror movie IMHO.
It does get off to a slow start and it could very well go over your head the first time you see it.
But all the pieces pretty much fall together in the end.
It's still one of those movies where watching it a second time really pays off though.
I especially liked the fact that while the main storyline leaves little room for discussion not all is disclosed or explained like Hollywood tends to do.

Fans of more subtle horror should definately give it a try...

One of my favourite ever films. Really beautiful, a true "anti-Amelie".

[Dark Veil]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

One of my favourite ever films. Really beautiful, a true "anti-Amelie".

and coincidentally Amélie (Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain) is one of my favourite ever films...

small world isn't it?

[squarejawhero]

It's a small world aaafter alll, it's a small world aaaafter all...

OK I'll shut up.

[Huz]

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
Very funny and original, if a little sick in places! I think I only laughed out loud once, but the cinema was so empty I felt all self-conscious. The laugh-out-loud moment really was hilarious though!

The Exorcism of Emily Rose
The scariest bits were all seen in the trailer (as usual for horror movies, I suppose), but I really enjoyed this. Courtroom scenes combined with flashbacks are always compelling - when they're not badly done and cheesy - and this got it just right. It was also quite sparing with the jumpy moments, so when they came they were more effective.

Probably laughed out loud more here than in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang - someone in the (absolutely packed) cinema screamed.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Dark Veil

and coincidentally Amélie (Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain) is one of my favourite ever films...

small world isn't it?

There's another movie by the guy who made Amelie, which takes place during (or right after) WW1. Title in french is "Un long dimanche de fiancailles. And I liked it better than Amélie. I though it was more subtle, and the main character more attractive (because she's a bit evil).