quote:

4. Munich (74) - I just couldn't get beyond the politics of this movie, which I found extremely offensive. I could see Michael Moore or Oliver Stone making a movie like this, but not Steven Spielberg, the same man who made the incomparable "Schindler's List."

What was so offensive about the politics of Munich? That Spielberg showed the Israel-Palestine conflict to be more complex than "Israel good, Palestine evil"? For me, that's what gave importance to the film. What would be the point in showing it as a one sided argument?

Just a word to add on War Of The Worlds. Many people are comparing this to the older version of the film, but noone seems to be analyzing it as a book adaptation. As an adaptation of the book, this was a much better film than the original. Spielberg's film follows the book much more rigidly, and all the close calls and narrow escapes that people are complaining about were extremely prevalent in the novel, perhaps more so than the film. The novel is over 100 years old, and scientific progress required notions from the book to be either changed, or manipulated, as the world is a vastly different place than when it was written. As an H.G. Wells fan, my major complaint is in the updating of the time setting, the only way to be truly faithful to the story would be to have it in it's proper period. As it was done, the tone is very appropriate to the book. My minor complaint would be the unbelievability of Tom Cruise's acting in the scenes at the beginning, but he progressively gets better throughout the film. On a technical level it was brilliant, and it had the best filmed sequence I saw all year, while driving, the camera pulls a full sweep from one side to the other in very Kubrickian fashion, something rarely seen from Spielberg. Bringing up internal consistency...that is something very hard to achieve in a novel adaptation, and is usually forgivable if you are familiar with the source material. Comparing it to something like the Matrix which was a juvenile hodge podge of religious mythology is thoroughly unfair, and if you know enough about the sources the Wachowski's were borrowing from, as well as reading H.G. Wells War Of The Worlds, you would see that this film has far more screenwriting integrity than The Matrix.
A final note, a major theme of the book is the unexplainability of improbable and unlikely events(a far more riveting idea 100 years ago when there wasn't the media barrage we are subjected to now), and how small one person(or family) is in the grand scheme of things. This movie has loads of credibility, and was a far better adaptation of a book than Spielberg's Minority Report. Maybe MR had more entertainment value to the masses, but I bet H.G. Wells would prefer Spielberg's version to the original, and I'm sure Philip K. Dick would not have been the least bit pleased with Minority Report. Credibility and entertainment value are different things to different people.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

4. Munich (74) - I just couldn't get beyond the politics of this movie, which I found extremely offensive. I could see Michael Moore or Oliver Stone making a movie like this, but not Steven Spielberg, the same man who made the incomparable "Schindler's List."

What was so offensive about the politics of Munich? That Spielberg showed the Israel-Palestine conflict to be more complex than "Israel good, Palestine evil"? For me, that's what gave importance to the film. What would be the point in showing it as a one sided argument?

Listen, I'm not going to go into a long explanation of my views. Suffice to say, you appreciated the political point of view of this movie much more than I did.

quote:

Originally posted by asc85:
Listen, I'm not going to go into a long explanation of my views. Suffice to say, you appreciated the political point of view of this movie much more than I did.

Well, the point is that I didn't really think the film took a political stance on the issue at all, but rather just presented the situation as a complex case with no clear answer, which is what it actually is. It's a far cry from Michael Moore, who only presents one side of the case. I have to say it's the most mature film I've seen Spielberg make.

I think it's Spielberg's most mature film too, but I'm a Spielbergaholic. I think Schindler's List and several other of his films are "better", but I hope he keeps making thoughtful films henceforth, along with his super entertainments.

However, I highly respect asc's opinions, so I can safely say he's not flippantly mentioning it. I can imagine his reasons because I believe they're the same reasons that the film only gets a 74 at MC. I also believe his reasons will be shared by Academy voters who will apparently keep the film from the attention it deserves at the Oscars, but I can always hope I'm wrong.

No offense to anybody. I just watched the 1960 film Exodus with my 14-year-old daughter (who has seen Munich) because I thought it was pertinent to a Munich discussion.

I totally agree with Mark on this. I HATE. HATE. Spielberg, and LOVED "War of the Worlds", and I think "King Kong" is one of the better movies of all time (or that I've seen). They're PURE MOVIES. "War of the Worlds" sans the stupid contrived ending is a frightening science fiction spectacle and one of the best of its kind. "King Kong" is the best movie of the year with fantastic performances and some of the most thrilling effects and chase sequences I have ever scene. It also broke my heart, and I dont fall for that sappy shit.

WotW ****

King Kong *****

quote:

ChrisFromAstoria posted:

I wasn't crazy about KING KONG, but I found it mildy enjoyable. WAR OF THE WORLDS was a bit of a dud, but it wouldn't make my worst list.

Cheerleading team. Rah. Rah. Rah. Way to go. A touchdown comment.

quote:

EccentricSam posted:

I totally agree with Mark on this. I HATE. HATE. Spielberg, and LOVED "War of the Worlds", and I think "King Kong" is one of the better movies of all time (or that I've seen). They're PURE MOVIES. "War of the Worlds" sans the stupid contrived ending is a frightening science fiction spectacle and one of the best of its kind. "King Kong" is the best movie of the year with fantastic performances and some of the most thrilling effects and chase sequences I have ever scene. It also broke my heart, and I dont fall for that sappy shit.

When I read somebody say that King Kong is one of the best movie of the year, I just can't let that statement stand without offering up a lengthy and comprehensive argument otherwise that I've spent hours coming up with elsewhere so here it is (and until someone would take the time to provide a reasonable response to the multitude of problems with this film, I just can't believe how this film can be considered anything but decent, but surely not excellent or even very good overall):

It's so hard to remember this movie because it was so long and so much was happening but several scenes stand out that make me furious at the director and this movie:

Spoilers

1) We see King Kong fall but never hit the ground. After all the emphasis on this magnificent beast, his last swan song is only a "small" glimpse actually from afar as he falls even further done into invisibility - such invisibility almost is a minimization of Kong's death, his impact, a supposedly innocent creature where his fall to his death is actually hidden.

2) A faint scream is heard in the first instance of Kong's appearance but it's not clear from where it comes. This break away from Naomi Watts muffles and deadens the shrill horror and terror that may be coming from her.

3) Slow special cute effects seemed to an attempt at artistic cleverness but for me it just comes off just that. The scene were the crew attempt to capture the beast and Naomi is scene in slow motion just seems cloyingly patronizing to its audience.

4) There were just too many, too long, continuous scenes just to show off the special effects forever and forever and what for me seemed to be bizarre forced scripted action just continue to scene for screen time sake. A big pretentious show of waste screen time.

5) Naomi Watts finds out that she's out of a job, the whole set up seemed artificial just like out of a black and white stage play. Yet I don't think the director can have it both ways, this exaggerated, simplified plot and his attempt to be clever with the humanizing of this movie and the sensitive emotions which require much more subdued, deliberate acting that wasn't achieved in the opening sequences. Naomi's colleagues upon learning of their unemployment did presented performances that seemed to be so clique and weak with steretypical reactions.

6) Naomi Watts was never given a real opportunity to develop an endearing relationship with King Kong. There were attempts but much too little, too late. It was the giant, male King Kong not the sensitive female Naomi Watts that offered his hand for Naomi to touch not the other way around. Her parting effort to save King Kong was lukewarm as there wasn't the struggle between her and her new found boyfriend who conveniently came too late. My what a last scene where Naomi could have been seen struggling mightedly with her conflicted emotions between staying with King and leaving into the safe arms of her boyfriend.

7) What's with this young kid who isn't given a lot to do and acts really strange and has an attachment to Naomi that was never explained. So mysterious waste of time and money.

8) What can't Kyle Chandler have become a more realistic, three-dimensional character? He goes from narcissistic bastard, to saving Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts, back to stereotypical it's all about me again. Where's the conflict, the struggle between his new found conscience that gets to be turned on and off like an artificial script writer?

9) I don't know what the depression era was like in terms of law enforcement, but I still feel some moral, ethical standards may have been in place about shooting suspects while innocents were at risk. The almost, perhaps deliberate army and airforce is scene without any dialogue, no communications or instructions as to what they were supposed to do. Like the below par remake of War of the Worlds (2005) which left out a lot of the military jargon and interplay that made the original more understandable, this remake too seems to simplify a much more complicated military maneuver that leaves out why it was so simple to shoot at Kong while Naomi Watt's life was at risk not from Kong but from the military. And how did the military response time get to be so unrealistically, unbelievably fast, rapid?

10) Even the relationship between Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts seemed unevenly unveiled, awkwardly trying to comic interest in their meeting but never having that finely honed dramatic, comedy interplay that Steven Speilberg found in Jaws (1975) with the straight-laced Roy Scheider getting played for real laughs, not forced ones. The budding love development was underdeveloped, while screen time was developed for the action adventure. The whole scene where Naomi discovers the comedy script being written for her by Brody was not handled well, the director Jackson missed a wonderful opportunity to really make the scene come alive with discovery and import.

11) Jack Black as the opportunistic director was miscast in my own mind. His comedic background and his patent expressions made it so that the separation between his role in this movie and his past characterizations made it crucial that this role be distinguishable and I feel the Jackson failed in his direction. The beginning of the movie felt too light, too comedic in tone for what the rest of the movie truly presented. Mr. Black just didn't seem to have the depth, seriousness that this role required to pull off successfully. The director's emphasis on his eyes as if looking for some real subtle emotional resonance, only seemed to be just that...a director trying to use technique instead of allowing the performance to make the scene.

12) I would have loved to see much more of the movie from Kong's viewpoint, even though Jackson purported does a little of this with his bouncing camera shots of Naomi in Kong's hands. There wasn't even the usual going out of focus shot from Kong's perspective when he goes unconscious from the chloroform.

13) The whole movie felt forced, manipulative, the script being written, in par, as it was being shot and supposedly cute directorial, script changes added without explanation just to keep the continuity of the action going. Adrien without much explanation jumps into a taxi, the driver jumps out (because of course we can't have him in the scene), and only later does the audience perhaps figure out that Adrien may be trying to save people? I don't know. Of Naomi Watts arrives mysteriously in this big city as if on cue. This arriving on cue seems to happen quite often, actually impossibly so often that it can only happen if the script writer needs it to keep the movie going. There's only so much of this one can suspend belief over a three hour movie.

14) The cinematography selection was in my opinion the wrong approach for Jackson's intent, if it was, to really produced a gritty, in your face, monster-sized movie. The many times of fuzzy photography only served to imply a fantasy removed animated version instead of what I would have wondered what the movie would have been like if Terrence Malick had had an opportunity to helm this update using his cinemagraphic approach that he took with his new gorgeous looking movie The New World.

There a lot more problems with this movie but so many that I'd have to see this movie again which in my mind would be almost torture for me as one might be able to deduce from my thoughts about my first experience with it. Only an Mission Impossible (1996) experience with a second viewing could perhaps alter my distaste for this movie (it's only happened once in my lifetime).

It was great reluctance that I subjected myself to a second viewing due to a brother-in-law's insistence.

While I feel that this movie is greatly overrated and the many, many problems in this movie have been overlooked, surprisingly I didn't find this movie even as boring or as long as my first experience. I even enjoyed the movie more (if that's possible) and found more scenes that I liked. Particularly memorable and very much enjoyed that I somehow failed to appreciate the first time around was the superb performance of Naomi Watts. Her delivery, her presence on the screen was probably the best element of the entire movie. She was truly captivating, consistently in all of her close-ups too. And the few of the 15 precious minutes of basically silent acting between characters in the movie I found as rich and rewarding as the first time through. There are a number of memorable gems in this movie. However as with the pleasure, I also discovered or remembered more of the problems inherent in this flawed movie:

(1) The obviously fake opening shot of the City among the live action shots of animals was immensely distracting.

(2) The usual credit opening was dropped from selected shots of both life in the depression and of Ann's vaudeville performance which was too much activity for the beginning. Preferably if would have been more smooth to have had credits rolling over the background slice of life instead of attempting both slice of life and Ann Durrow's performances.

(3) Ann's theater, vaudeville colleague were wooden in their reactions to the future of their jobs. There was an attempt to develop some rapport between Ann and the older actor but it was severely underdeveloped.

(4) Yes, why didn't Driscoll jump ship when he could? He obviously went back to stage writing not film.

(5) Jimmy was a lot of baggage one a clearly unnecessary character in the movie that only became a big loose, hanging end. There was no clear, real motivation for his interest in saving Ann. Then Denham for as astute as he was never attempts to thwart Jimmy informing the crew of their real destination after he over hears Denham talking about it.

(6) It would have been helpful to see Ann's discovery of Driscoll's script that he wrote and also perhaps some scenes with his actual development of the script and Ann's role in it to provide a more intimate connection of Driscoll to Ann.

(7) At the end of the story about a man two of the crew members recovered from sea and describing this island with hundred foot tall walls, apparently the man is found having stabbed himself to death - rather incongruous demise. A much more simpler and touching ending would have been for the man to have died from his overexposure or injuries.

(8) The development of the relationship between Driscoll and Ann was a little uneven especially with the Ann's dance scene where she ignores Driscoll. While their was some build up to Ann and Driscoll's relationship, there still remains the somewhat abrupt transformation on Driscoll's part.

(9) There was too much light comedic music at the beginning of the movie, especially with scenes with Denham, leading the audience one direction when in fact the movie was going in a totally different direction. It was if the music and the movie were two different movies.

(10) The captain of the cargo ship pauses too long (for a real veteran sailor) before he reacts to the sudden discovery of a wall of rocks.

(11) Ann's first scream sound was a wide angle shot and it was only the second scream the audience gets to see a face shot of Ann. The first scary moment is diminished.

(12) The third dinosaur attack on Anne was too much of a coincidence for even action-adventure plausibility.

(13) The bug scenes was unnecessary an overly horrific and gross for no real purpose and went over the line for its graphic violence.

(14) There is uncertainty between Ann's relationship with Driscoll when Ann discovers that there is a plan to capture King Kong. The whole emotional interaction between these two lovers was underdeveloped at this point.

(15) Denham's supposed transformation isn't very apparent during the movie. The sudden decision to trap King Kong would have been more reasonable had it come from the expert live animal trapper and captain of the ship wherein Denham bought into the idea.

(16) Driscoll's staged comedy wasn't funny at all. Lazy script writing instead of the more challenging drama without a comedy script. Ann's performance as part of an ensemble was all done in close up which seemed to deflect from whether she was lost on stage or whether her stationary position was actually part of the dance routine of which she was a part.

(17) There is no real apparent explanation for Driscoll's behavior in needing to get into the taxicab and driving around and later fleeing from King Kong. Was he really trying to save people from King Kong or what? He couldn't have been concerned for Ann, where would he start looking in the city the size of New York.

(18) There is the inconsistency in photography from real live shots to animated shots particularly in the late King Kong chase scene in New York where both the street and building and later the ice pond looked frighteningly like Polar Express animation scenes. The flyovers with the planes and the Empire State Building had several difference live and animated shots detracting from the action sequences.

(19) Both sunsets scenes with Ann and King Kong (on the island and on the Empire State Building) are not even close to the gorgeous sun scene used while Ann is on the ship on course to the mysterious island with her on the edge of the ship with a haunting face with the sun in the background and Driscoll looking on.

(20) By the end of the movie Driscoll and Ann's relationship is cemented too easily and smoothly considering prior emotional events and separation.

With all the overblown physical action thrills in this movie, I found the best scenes in the movie were the silent moments without physical action parts between characters. Denham discovering Ann. Driscoll and Ann looking at each other on the exterior of the ship. Ann and King Kong exchanging looks. Even Denham and his assistant exchanging looks in the theater (one of the most touching, emotionally twisting scenes of the movie).

I think Tabuno hates "King Kong" more than I did, but I'm also amazed when I hear the love so many people have for this film. As a technical achievement in special effects, it's great. But the story isn't that impressive at all. There were far too many bloated and meaningless scenes in the first two acts, and the dialogue is atrocious all the way through. And as far as the acting is concerned, I've seen way better performances from everyone involved. If I were scoring it for Metacritic, I'd give it a 60, maybe a 70. It was enjoyable, maybe above-average, but I just don't get the hype surrounding it.

quote:

ericg75 posted:

I think Tabuno hates "King Kong" more than I did, but I'm also amazed when I hear the love so many people have for this film. As a technical achievement in special effects, it's great. But the story isn't that impressive at all. There were far too many bloated and meaningless scenes in the first two acts, and the dialogue is atrocious all the way through. And as far as the acting is concerned, I've seen way better performances from everyone involved. If I were scoring it for Metacritic, I'd give it a 60, maybe a 70. It was enjoyable, maybe above-average, but I just don't get the hype surrounding it.

Several things about this movie are likely very appealing to the mass audience and perhaps a few critics.

(1) The lack of controversy and substantive, mental convolutions while experiencing the movie. You don't have to think, only experience it. There isn't much of a plot. It's really two-dimensional in a disguised as a much more emotionally sensitive, humanized way.

(2) The beauty-beast connection allows the public to feel good about themselves, thinking that they have experienced a growth in moral sensitivity as we are exposed to the inner emotional and likely intellectual abilities of the beast (who is not a beast afterall). There are several scenes that are universal in emotional intensity and sympathy. It's actually a sad story.

(3) There's the new faddish high tech special effects (that will be outdated by next year, just look at Mission Impossible 3). The special effects keep getting better and better and the supposed seamless live action and special effects are improved to the point where the audience can actually enjoy the movie instead of focus on the special effects as special effects. Perhaps this is the breakthrough movie for the general public where special effects has reached a crucial point in its development.

(4) The movie presents some new twists, almost a distinctive upgrade of the use of special effects, especially with the dinosaurs and the focus on the herd and the multitude of carefully choreographed movements of impressive moment (setting a new bar that will be surpassed in a year or two).

(5) Taking the special effects, the simple but richly developed plot it has the impression of sophistication without the substance. [It's my razzle dazzle theory from Chicago].

Mark f attempted to post the following at 11:30 pm on January 11, 2006:

"I guess I'll have to say this, hopefully in a friendly manner. Your problems are YOURS. Don't try to force your problems on those who love it. Don't expectI guess I'll have to say this, hopefully in a friendly manner. Your problems are YOURS. Don't try to force your problems on those who love it. Don't expect..."


I'm assuming this comment is in my response to my posting my lengthy criticism of King Kong. What I don't understand is the above focus on "force your problems on those who love it." When I read the logo of this website it clearly states "We Deal With Criticism." Yet I find it curious that when criticism is raised, I am accused of forcing my problems on those who love this movie. When did criticism become problems?

I find it fascinating that for all the technical criticisms, I have yet to find very much substantive cinematic responses as if all that matters is whether or not one loves a movie. Again if all this website was concerned with is whether or not one person loves vanilla or chocolate ice cream perhaps we could stop this discussion. Perhaps we could close all the film schools in the country because technique isn't important anymore. A critical film dicussion requires a comment and a response, not let's not talk about it any more because I love this movie and you don't.

Obviously I didn't respond like that. tabuno, you seem to have some misconception about the forums. Do you want me to list 50 things wrong with each of the movies that you like, and then we go back and forth, accomplishing nothing? I don't like to repeat myself, but apparently you do. I like to let everybody post their thoughts and let people draw their own conclusions.

I hate to mention this at this late date, but yes, anybody CAN believe anything they want about film. I'm not going to go into the film classes I've taken, the books I've written for, and the different theories of film I've studied and taught, but it does all boil down to your dreaded chocolate/vanilla scenario. I always had a problem with the person who tried to constantly start fights to draw themselves in the limelight. Anybody who takes it upon themselves to take the moral high ground will accept the fact that they believe that they have to talk down to others. Their insecurity was a lesson, but not something healthy to experience on a constant basis.

I don't WANT you to adopt my position, and I will allow you to demean me (by implying that my "unsubstantiated" opinion is leading all of us to our downfall) every chance you get, even though I don't really understand why you do it. Actually, I DO have an inkling of why you do it, but my bringing that up is ALSO not what these forums are about.

I don't want to discuss your "criticisms". I mentioned earlier that they are ALL opinion. They are NOT FACTS. I'm sorry if you can't believe this, but your "criticisms" are NOT facts. Often, your opinions make no sense to me EVEN after you explain them OVER AND OVER. How can I rebut them? They are the emotional opinions of a person who NEEDS to get those opinions out there, OVER AND OVER. I don't need to do that. I say what I believe and then I let it go. I tried to share something with you LONG AGO about this movie and your response was, "Well, OK, maybe that's legit, but hell, I just thought of 15 other things which bother me..." about utterly pointless stuff which you somehow believe is VERY IMPORTANT!

I refuse to get into a pissing contest where I rebut your unrebuteable "accusations", and then I lambaste you for every little thing which you enjoy, and yeah, you enjoy some movies which would lead into some fights, but no, none of the fights would be any more enlightening than this thread right here has already been.

Peace in any and all lives you are lucky enough to experience or grow from.

Mark f:

I offer opinions (as you said) and you think I'm FORCING people to change their minds? I know I'm not that all-powerful. I'm interested in what other people have to say about my opinions because I'm willing to risk my opinions with people who disagree with me since I'm an OPEN minded person. You state that I talk DOWN to people. I know I don't have the TRUTH and that is why I put myself out there to find out what other people believe. I don't put down other people, I put down a movie because I believe there are technical flaws in a movie. If you don't care to have a critical discussion that's your business. But don't tell me and others on this Board that I am FORCING my problems on other people. This is a dicussion board to talk about what we think about films. If I believe that a scene from KING KONG that emphasizes beauty in regards to a sunset (as you yourself corrected me and to which I appreciate your observation) is diminished by the way the shot was made, I don't believe I'm FORCING anybody to believe it. I'm offering reasons and ideas as to why. I don't see me people a gun to somebody's head and telling them that I'm right. Instead I am readily open to other people's opinion as to why this scene is beautiful in their opinion. Instead of me talking down to people, I feel you are talking down to me, telling me what this discussion board is supposed to be about and how I'm supposed to act and feel on this Board.

Correction: I don't see me putting a gun to somebody's head and telling them that I'm right.

If that were true, would you have to post the exact same posts at multiple threads? Would you feel the need to RE-post your opinons everytime that somebody disagrees with you? You can't let two positive posts about something you disagree with go without "raining on the previous posters' parade." You've been going around here telling people that they have to engage your "opinions", and if they didn't, then YOU are apparently "right". This is certainly what I take from your posts where you take the "high ground". You don't think that YOU are the one stirring the pot around here? Well, the pot's boiling, but it might not turn out to be anything you care to eat.

ONE other thing: You don't read or comprehend others' posts. You constantly quote people and then argue the exact opposite of the quote you make, which obviously means that you don't read or pay attention to the other person.

Not to say that they were the worst films of the year, but I was HORRIBLY HORRIBLY HORRIBLY disappointed with Crash, 2046, and Last Days.

In no particular order, the worst 5 films of 2005 with a metacritic score 70 or above were:

King Kong (81) - This had way too many silly parts and video game-like CGI shots to be considered one of the year's best films. It makes this list because it's overrated.

Murderball (87) - People responded to its very inspirational subject matter, but the film itself is not very well-made and hardly groundbreaking. But it does prove that even disabled people can be competitive jerks.

Batman Begins (70) - Come on, it's just another superhero movie that merges forgettably into the ever growing pile of other superhero movies. "But dude, it's the best Batm--" So what.

Ballets Russes (80) - This made the list because it is something you might normally catch on PBS some night, watch for 20-30 minutes, then keep channel surfing while checking back once or twice to confirm that it is merely interesting.

Sin City (74) - This is the second most overrated movie of the year, after King Kong. This one is just plain trying too hard to be cool, which makes it stick out as sorta, well, uncool.

Don't bother to reply with angry posts in defense of these films because I actually liked all of them. I put them on the list because I saw problems with them that others seemed to overlook. Plus, I liked too many other films better.

So what would those other films be?