The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Diesel

King Kong (2005)

i understand why you thought why you did, but strongly disagree. this is a rare 5 star for me.

on length: 100% disagree. its not too long. why? its a 3 part film
(1) getting to island: an hour
(2) on the island: an hour
(3) back in NY: an hour

i love that 3-part structure. i think each act is equally important, and one hour is at least what is needed. some don't. oh well. this is why we have forums. Jackson actually wanted to do a fourth act, actually (2.5) between
(2) and (3): Getting Kong back to NY, which would have been another hour. I'm still not sure about that.

on the characters: you didnt care for Watts or Kong, which is the skeleton relationship of the film, so didn't enjoy it. I loved their characters. I had only sympathy for both of them. how were either of them to blame for their respective dilemmas? they're not.

good review though, even if i 100% disagree

[SquidPuppet]

I'll start by saying that my score for the film was not affected by the following.

1. Shakey-Cam (While I dont care for the style, I understand its application in this film.)
2. Disarm bomb/repeat/repeat. (This film was not about disarming bombs and the repetative nature of their tasks was realistic)

The good.

The film looks like the budget was 10 times what it really was.
Cimematography really captured the intensity of the situations and the vulnerability of the guys.
Editing was sharp and even during chaotic moments I never felt lost.
Acting was pretty darn good all around.
Sound editing/design and mixing were very very good.

The bad

The movie sucked. It was so full of unrealistic behaviors, decisions and actions from begining to end, that I nearly stopped watching. I get it, James is an adrenaline junkie. Thats the story. Fine. Could have been a great one too. My problem is not with that character being a wreckless cowboy, because they do exist and always have. My issue is that in the real world he would have been "dealt with", one way or another. He would not have gone on and on, endangering his men without consequences. Sanborn spotted James for exactly what he was within the first few minutes of their first mission. Sanborn was a sharp cookie and would have terminated that crap ASAP. Either by filing reports, or by erasing James himself (as we saw he almost did). I'll repeat, cowboys dont survive. The fact that James' behavior goes unchecked for the entire film, makes the entire movie FAKE.

The Sniper scene. Where do I begin? Uh, guys, use the Hum-vee and the SUV for cover. When Jones gives Specialist Eldridge the support talk during the "Spit and rub" portion, I almost fell out of my chair. Am I able to believe that this Cowboy is a complex, multi-faceted man, who actually cares about his men? Sure I am. But it was so out of character, so out of sequence and handled so poorly that I had to roll my eyes. Jones would have given him the "buck up soldier" speech, not coddle him like he did. Then, when Jones lovingly feeds Sanborn a drink of juice, and takes no liquids himself, the juxtaposition was overly melodramatic and failed.

What was with Specialist Eldridge mouthing off to a Colonel? A Colonel? I cant believe a Grunt is going to repeatedly talk disrespectfull, condescending smack to a COLONEL and not have his ass rearranged. That would be like you going to the CEO of your company and calling him a yuppy ass pansy and you dont get fired. Aint going to happen, sorry. Fake as hell.

Colonel Reed is 100% aware of Jones' wreckless behavior. Colonel Reed addresses Jones face to face about the issue in the field... then does nothing. What???? Colonel Reed was p!ssed off and just getting started. There would have been follow up to that. It wouldnt just go away.

The Drunken bonding scene. Do bonding-by-punching parties take place? Damn skippy they do. They take place when close comrads celbrate and build upon an existing emotional bond. Sanborn and Jones were not pals. Sanborn did not respect Jones, in fact he was disgusted and frustrated by Jones' lack of professionalism. Remember, Sanborn contemplated killing Jones. This scenes existence in the film is so out of place and unrealistic that it is mindbogglingly ridiculous.

These are only the tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about military and non-military bloopers, plot holes and continuity errors. I literally sat there amazed that each deeply flawed scene led to yet another preposterous set of events.

Film 2/5
PQ 4/5 (darn good)
AQ 4.5 (dialog was always clear and the pans were accurate)

[Q?]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Year One - Yo Q & Squid I think I may have finally found anotha film that belongs right up there with the great EPIc MasterPiecE of 10,000 BC!!! Year One is on point, tru to the source and the portrayals are spot on! It was truly amazing to see history unfold before your eyes and to understand how we came about. Truly amazing and a work of art! This film gets two snaps in a circular motion! 11/10 Got Em!!

I hear ya man!

I haven't seen it myself but so far I've only read good stuff about it.

A whole 11/10 for that too?
These are great times we live in, incredible to have such masterpieces be made so close to each other, thanks for the heads up.

[Show spoiler]

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i understand why you thought why you did, but strongly disagree. this is a rare 5 star for me.

on length: 100% disagree. its not too long. why? its a 3 part film
(1) getting to island: an hour
(2) on the island: an hour
(3) back in NY: an hour

i love that 3-part structure. i think each act is equally important, and one hour is at least what is needed. some don't. oh well. this is why we have forums. Jackson actually wanted to do a fourth act, actually (2.5) between
(2) and (3): Getting Kong back to NY, which would have been another hour. I'm still not sure about that.

on the characters: you didnt care for Watts or Kong, which is the skeleton relationship of the film, so didn't enjoy it. I loved their characters. I had only sympathy for both of them. how were either of them to blame for their respective dilemmas? they're not.

good review though, even if i 100% disagree

Now that is the kind of review I am looking for regarding this great film! Got Em!!

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I'll start by saying that my score for the film was not affected by the following.

1. Shakey-Cam (While I dont care for the style, I understand its application in this film.)
2. Disarm bomb/repeat/repeat. (This film was not about disarming bombs and the repetative nature of their tasks was realistic)

The good.

The film looks like the budget was 10 times what it really was.
Cimematography really captured the intensity of the situations and the vulnerability of the guys.
Editing was sharp and even during chaotic moments I never felt lost.
Acting was pretty darn good all around.
Sound editing/design and mixing were very very good.

The bad

The movie sucked. It was so full of unrealistic behaviors, decisions and actions from begining to end, that I nearly stopped watching. I get it, James is an adrenaline junkie. Thats the story. Fine. Could have been a great one too. My problem is not with that character being a wreckless cowboy, because they do exist and always have. My issue is that in the real world he would have been "dealt with", one way or another. He would not have gone on and on, endangering his men without consequences. Sanborn spotted James for exactly what he was within the first few minutes of their first mission. Sanborn was a sharp cookie and would have terminated that crap ASAP. Either by filing reports, or by erasing James himself (as we saw he almost did). I'll repeat, cowboys dont survive. The fact that James' behavior goes unchecked for the entire film, makes the entire movie FAKE.

The Sniper scene. Where do I begin? Uh, guys, use the Hum-vee and the SUV for cover. When Jones gives Specialist Eldridge the support talk during the "Spit and rub" portion, I almost fell out of my chair. Am I able to believe that this Cowboy is a complex, multi-faceted man, who actually cares about his men? Sure I am. But it was so out of character, so out of sequence and handled so poorly that I had to roll my eyes. Jones would have given him the "buck up soldier" speech, not coddle him like he did. Then, when Jones lovingly feeds Sanborn a drink of juice, and takes no liquids himself, the juxtaposition was overly melodramatic and failed.

What was with Specialist Eldridge mouthing off to a Colonel? A Colonel? I cant believe a Grunt is going to repeatedly talk disrespectfull, condescending smack to a COLONEL and not have his ass rearranged. That would be like you going to the CEO of your company and calling him a yuppy ass pansy and you dont get fired. Aint going to happen, sorry. Fake as hell.

Colonel Reed is 100% aware of Jones' wreckless behavior. Colonel Reed addresses Jones face to face about the issue in the field... then does nothing. What???? Colonel Reed was p!ssed off and just getting started. There would have been follow up to that. It wouldnt just go away.

The Drunken bonding scene. Do bonding-by-punching parties take place? Damn skippy they do. They take place when close comrads celbrate and build upon an existing emotional bond. Sanborn and Jones were not pals. Sanborn did not respect Jones, in fact he was disgusted and frustrated by Jones' lack of professionalism. Remember, Sanborn contemplated killing Jones. This scenes existence in the film is so out of place and unrealistic that it is mindbogglingly ridiculous.

These are only the tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about military and non-military bloopers, plot holes and continuity errors. I literally sat there amazed that each deeply flawed scene led to yet another preposterous set of events.

Film 2/5
PQ 4/5 (darn good)
AQ 4.5 (dialog was always clear and the pans were accurate)

I applaud u man. Agreed with pretty much everything u said. Glad u finally watched and now see how overrated this film is! Got Em!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i understand why you thought why you did, but strongly disagree. this is a rare 5 star for me.

on length: 100% disagree. its not too long. why? its a 3 part film
(1) getting to island: an hour
(2) on the island: an hour
(3) back in NY: an hour

i love that 3-part structure. i think each act is equally important, and one hour is at least what is needed. some don't. oh well. this is why we have forums. Jackson actually wanted to do a fourth act, actually (2.5) between
(2) and (3): Getting Kong back to NY, which would have been another hour. I'm still not sure about that.

on the characters: you didnt care for Watts or Kong, which is the skeleton relationship of the film, so didn't enjoy it. I loved their characters. I had only sympathy for both of them. how were either of them to blame for their respective dilemmas? they're not.

good review though, even if i 100% disagree

I thought Jack Black was a great casting choice and he did a great job.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Q!

I hear ya man!

I haven't seen it myself but so far I've only read good stuff about it.

A whole 11/10 for that too?
These are great times we live in, incredible to have such masterpieces be made so close to each other, thanks for the heads up.

[Show spoiler]

No prob man, I was glad I could share the joy for such a masterpiece. This was pretty much the sequel to 10,000 BC. Got Em!!

[Show spoiler]

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by CZAR

Year One - Yo Q & Squid I think I may have finally found anotha film that belongs right up there with the great EPIc MasterPiecE of 10,000 BC!!! Year One is on point, tru to the source and the portrayals are spot on! It was truly amazing to see history unfold before your eyes and to understand how we came about. Truly amazing and a work of art! This film gets two snaps in a circular motion! 11/10 Got Em!!

[Show spoiler]

Thats it!!! I am blind buying it ASAP.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I thought Jack Black was a great casting choice and he did a great job.

+1 One of the only times he was casted well. Haha......Oh and Year One. Sorry! Got Em!!

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thats it!!! I am blind buying it ASAP.

[Show spoiler]

Got Em!!

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i understand why you thought why you did, but strongly disagree. this is a rare 5 star for me.

on length: 100% disagree. its not too long. why? its a 3 part film
(1) getting to island: an hour
(2) on the island: an hour
(3) back in NY: an hour

i love that 3-part structure. i think each act is equally important, and one hour is at least what is needed. some don't. oh well. this is why we have forums. Jackson actually wanted to do a fourth act, actually (2.5) between
(2) and (3): Getting Kong back to NY, which would have been another hour. I'm still not sure about that.

on the characters: you didnt care for Watts or Kong, which is the skeleton relationship of the film, so didn't enjoy it. I loved their characters. I had only sympathy for both of them. how were either of them to blame for their respective dilemmas? they're not.

good review though, even if i 100% disagree

You know, I actually saw your user review for the movie and thought of it when I was writing the part that I could see why others like the movie so much

I presume you mean "Watts and Black"? Because I definitely liked Kong, Black's character is the other I mentioned specifically not liking.



_______________



Ok, how about this one:

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope


Ah, good old Star Wars. My favorite villain in movie history, Harrison Ford, one of the coolest good characters ever in Kenobi, a great score, great story and a giant hairy sidekick. Good stuff.

This was the 2nd movie I saw of the 6. In 2001 or early 2002, I saw The Phantom Menace on television for the first time, and believe it or not, that one actually got me hooked instantly to Star Wars. I later rented the original 3 on VHS and haven't looked back since
This one stands as my 4th favorite of the 6.


A New Hope is a darn good movie, but not the be all end all that some think it is imo, as I think a lot of people factor in the phenomenon factor into their movie scores. I, though, do not. I look at JUST the actual movie.

Is the acting great? For the most part, no. But it is definitely acceptable quality and works superbly for the movie. Sir Alec and also Jones as the voice of Vader are easily the best parts of the movie character wise. But Luke, Han and Chewbacca are also great (even though Luke is on the annoying side for a decent amount of the first act).

I love the story that the film started (or continued if you watch the prequels first). The beginning of the maturation and growth of Luke into the man his father SHOULD have become and his relationship with Han, Leia and Chewie; Luke's relationship with Obi-wan; the history between Vader and Obi-wan, the

[Show spoiler]rebel victory in the destruction of the Death Star

(I'm sure everyone knows that already, but just in case). Its just all around great story wise imo


The music is also great, which typically isn't something I rate in movies, but this is one of those exceptions. The scene where Luke is looking off into the distance towards the two suns and the music is playing quite loudly is just pure greatness.


There is not all that much that I don't like about the movie, but there are some things. The part with R2 and 3PO wandering through the desert, though relatively brief, seems to take forever. I actually usually skip over that part, which is rare for me to actually skip parts of movies. Once they land I usually skip ahead and pick up when they arrive at Luke's home. The aunt is also annoying for her 4 minutes of screen time. And my personal biggest gripe...

[Show spoiler]why the hell doesn't Chewbacca get a medal at the end when they destroy the Death Star!!!!

Rating: 4.5/5

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i understand why you thought why you did, but strongly disagree. this is a rare 5 star for me.

on length: 100% disagree. its not too long. why? its a 3 part film
(1) getting to island: an hour
(2) on the island: an hour
(3) back in NY: an hour

i love that 3-part structure. i think each act is equally important, and one hour is at least what is needed. some don't. oh well. this is why we have forums. Jackson actually wanted to do a fourth act, actually (2.5) between
(2) and (3): Getting Kong back to NY, which would have been another hour. I'm still not sure about that.

on the characters: you didnt care for Watts or Kong, which is the skeleton relationship of the film, so didn't enjoy it. I loved their characters. I had only sympathy for both of them. how were either of them to blame for their respective dilemmas? they're not.

good review though, even if i 100% disagree

I agree on every single point, except I give the film 3 1/2 stars out of 4. It's the rare big budget film that is almost perfectly paced. The quiet, tender moments are what set the film apart. The best example of this is the incredible ice rink scene.

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I agree on every single point, except I give the film 3 1/2 stars out of 4. It's the rare big budget film that is almost perfectly paced. The quiet, tender moments are what set the film apart. The best example of this is the incredible ice rink scene.

Great scene man! Got Em!!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Jackson actually wanted to do a fourth act, actually (2.5) between
(2) and (3): Getting Kong back to NY, which would have been another hour. I'm still not sure about that.

on the characters: you didnt care for Watts or Kong, which is the skeleton relationship of the film, so didn't enjoy it. I loved their characters. I had only sympathy for both of them. how were either of them to blame for their respective dilemmas? they're not.

good review though, even if i 100% disagree

I would have been intruiged to see Act 2.5; I've always wondered how they would have gotten Kong's massive body in chains and on the ship back to NY before he woke up again and everything. Maybe he could have caused some massive havoc while at sea, who knows?

I agree on the characters too; maybe not terribly deep, but I loved their performances, and were easy to relate to.

"King Kong" rocks!

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Film 2/5
PQ 4/5 (darn good)
AQ 4.5 (dialog was always clear and the pans were accurate)

I liked the movie for its suspense, but I never stopped to consider all these inaccuracies and contradictions. Good analysis.

[Al_The_Strange]

Watched "8 1/2" via Netflix. Apparently, it's one of the best movies ever made...

[Show spoiler]

Entertainment: 3/5. Lots of interesting scenes, and I love the imagery. I felt the movie was pretty long and weird though.

Story: 3/5. Very strong characterization; the whole film serves as some kind of character exploration. I did find it interesting seeing how all the different fantasy scenes tied into the character and helped define him. But plot-wise, there's not much going on. Any conflict is internally-driven and subtle, with maybe some outbursts of drama. A little too uneventful for my tastes I'm afraid.

Film: 5/5. No complaints about the film itself; the photography is gorgeous, the acting and writing are perfect, casting seems strong, production design (sets, props, costumes, etc) is strong, and the music is great.

Intellectual/emotional: 3/5. Still a bit convoluted for me to fully understand, but I found the exploration of the main character interesting at he least.

Total: 3.5/5 (rounded down from 3.67). Not sure if it's really my kind of movie, but it is decently made and quite interesting. I'll have to think over it some more.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

i understand why you thought why you did, but strongly disagree. this is a rare 5 star for me.

on length: 100% disagree. its not too long. why? its a 3 part film
(1) getting to island: an hour
(2) on the island: an hour
(3) back in NY: an hour

i love that 3-part structure. i think each act is equally important, and one hour is at least what is needed. some don't. oh well. this is why we have forums. Jackson actually wanted to do a fourth act, actually (2.5) between
(2) and (3): Getting Kong back to NY, which would have been another hour. I'm still not sure about that.

on the characters: you didnt care for Watts or Kong, which is the skeleton relationship of the film, so didn't enjoy it. I loved their characters. I had only sympathy for both of them. how were either of them to blame for their respective dilemmas? they're not.

good review though, even if i 100% disagree

I wouldn't mind, but the getting to the island is overlong and could had been cut down too 30-45 mins. and little bit could of been trimmed of the second and final half.

But it is a truly spectacular film, and I have to agree it's really good!

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I wouldn't mind, but the getting to the island is overlong and could had been cut down too 30-45 mins. and little bit could of been trimmed of the second and final half.

But it is a truly spectacular film, and I have to agree it's really good!

For it to be a truly spectacular film , u sure do want a lot of the film cut! Haha! Got Em!!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I liked the movie for its suspense, but I never stopped to consider all these inaccuracies and contradictions. Good analysis.

Thanks.

Here is another thing that left me shaking my head. Jones kidnaps the DVD salesman at gunpoint to get information about "Beckham". Highly unlikely, but I'll go with it. Not that he didnt want the info because he cared about the kid, but the way he went about it was illogical. He enters the house enraged, waving his pistol and the homeowner calmly invites him to sit down. WTF? And to top it off, Jones declines. Extra WTF. He went there for info and then he doesnt sit down to ask the questions that drove him there in the first place??? Then the wife comes in all agitated and the angry-pistol-waving soldier runs away. Come on.

Later we see a young boy with a soccer ball peddling DVDs. Is it Beckham? I couldnt really tell for sure. He sure looked just like him to me. If it is, why did Jones walk right by him? Wouldnt Jones be happy to see he is alive? If it was not Beckham, then its emotionally manipulative spoonfeeding of the message that "in a war torn country, everyone can be replaced". The kid was a Beckham clone simply to tug at our heart, it was too blatant and over the top.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I would have been intruiged to see Act 2.5; I've always wondered how they would have gotten Kong's massive body in chains and on the ship back to NY before he woke up again and everything. Maybe he could have caused some massive havoc while at sea, who knows?

I agree on the characters too; maybe not terribly deep, but I loved their performances, and were easy to relate to.

"King Kong" rocks!



.

That is something that I always thought they could have spent some time on simply for excitement and action.

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by Diesel

King Kong (2005)Where, oh where to begin.

The 201 minute movie that should have been 130 minutes.

Well, if you had watched the Theatrical cut, rather than the Extended cut, it could have been the 187 minute movie that should have been 130 minutes, instead.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thanks.

Here is another thing that left me shaking my head. Jones kidnaps the DVD salesman at gunpoint to get information about "Beckham". Highly unlikely, but I'll go with it. Not that he didnt want the info because he cared about the kid, but the way he went about it was illogical. He enters the house enraged, waving his pistol and the homeowner calmly invites him to sit down. WTF? And to top it off, Jones declines. Extra WTF. He went there for info and then he doesnt sit down to ask the questions that drove him there in the first place??? Then the wife comes in all agitated and the angry-pistol-waving soldier runs away. Come on.

Later we see a young boy with a soccer ball peddling DVDs. Is it Beckham? I couldnt really tell for sure. He sure looked just like him to me. If it is, why did Jones walk right by him? Wouldnt Jones be happy to see he is alive? If it was not Beckham, then its emotionally manipulative spoonfeeding of the message that "in a war torn country, everyone can be replaced". The kid was a Beckham clone simply to tug at our heart, it was too blatant and over the top.

Suspenseful though it was, this whole episode was a little iffy for me too. The guy was kinda acting like an idiot really; he shouldn't have gotten so involved with the locals. He let his emotions (and possibly his adrenaline rush) get the better of him, as always.

I didn't think it was Beckham; I figured he died or was written off or something (in fact,

[Show spoiler]wasn't he the one with the human bomb implanted in his chest or something?

). I honestly didn't feel my heart being tugged by this whole scene; I just thought it was more palpable suspense and a lesson the main character learns (don't get too close and personal with the locals).