Movies you seen Recently
King Kong (2005)
Can't believe I liked this movie when I saw it in the cinema. It is shit acting (especially from Jack Black). The action takes way too long. It has great special effects, but that's just about that's all to it.
Following his success with the Lord of the Rings trilogy Peter Jackson has unfortunately made this movie in exactly the same style. What worked for a fantasy epic of Middle Earth does not work when used to recreate a story which involves a lot more suspense, tension and subtle horror.
The film has its good points - the original scenes of New York are very impressive, and the natives of Skull Island are a great deal more creepy than in the original. But the movie is overly long, padded out by unnessacery special effects sequences that do nothing but show off what computers can now do. The endless parade of dinosaurs and the overdone fight scenes are somehow less impressive than the original plasticine monsters.
What is most worrying is the decision to turn the movie into some kind of love story with several extended scenes between Kong and Anne Darrow. It is very hard to take seriously, and some of the scenes had me cringing as they were completely hammy and out of touch with the rest of the action.
In all the movie is enjoyable as a piece of entertainment but lacks the magic and the impact of the original. Instead of a masterpiece it is more of a light hearted action romp.
If you want to watch this classic, and you are not a graphic whore. Rent out the original King Kong, which was made in 1933, NOT the 1976 one. You have to remember that this is an old film, but they effects where ground breaking at the time. However, if you cannot grasp that concept and look underneath the dated effects; don't waste your time trying to watch it.
Can't believe I liked this movie when I saw it in the cinema. It is shit acting (especially from Jack Black). The action takes way too long. It has great special effects, but that's just about that's all to it.
Following his success with the Lord of the Rings trilogy Peter Jackson has unfortunately made this movie in exactly the same style. What worked for a fantasy epic of Middle Earth does not work when used to recreate a story which involves a lot more suspense, tension and subtle horror.
The film has its good points - the original scenes of New York are very impressive, and the natives of Skull Island are a great deal more creepy than in the original. But the movie is overly long, padded out by unnessacery special effects sequences that do nothing but show off what computers can now do. The endless parade of dinosaurs and the overdone fight scenes are somehow less impressive than the original plasticine monsters.
What is most worrying is the decision to turn the movie into some kind of love story with several extended scenes between Kong and Anne Darrow. It is very hard to take seriously, and some of the scenes had me cringing as they were completely hammy and out of touch with the rest of the action.
In all the movie is enjoyable as a piece of entertainment but lacks the magic and the impact of the original. Instead of a masterpiece it is more of a light hearted action romp.
If you want to watch this classic, and you are not a graphic whore. Rent out the original King Kong, which was made in 1933, NOT the 1976 one. You have to remember that this is an old film, but they effects where ground breaking at the time. However, if you cannot grasp that concept and look underneath the dated effects; don't waste your time trying to watch it.
-
Mik
- Born under a bad sign
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Beyond your borders
- Contact:
I don't think it's a problem of gfx, there was alot wrong with that movie.
As far as GFX, I think it's a problem of their usage, just because you can show more doesn't mean you should.
For example a half naked lady can be sexier than a naked lady, less is more.
Also, it still looks fake. Silly to say, cause plasticine monsters and men in rubber suits wheren't exactly photo realistic either. But half these things remind me of who framed roger rabbit.
As far as GFX, I think it's a problem of their usage, just because you can show more doesn't mean you should.
For example a half naked lady can be sexier than a naked lady, less is more.
Also, it still looks fake. Silly to say, cause plasticine monsters and men in rubber suits wheren't exactly photo realistic either. But half these things remind me of who framed roger rabbit.
Hulk was awesome.
it'll be disappointing if the newer hulk with the better storyline doesn't match the gfx quality of the previous movie with the bland story.
but one of the major reasons it worked so well is because they put shit loads of effort into the facial design and animation, and skinned the living shit out of the model.
in lots of movies that have monstrous creatures they seem content to just make something that looks scary and give it a default ugly look. and a scarier than normal expression.
with the first hulk film they treated the character like a human, and his facial expressions acted accordingly.
the movie itself may generally suck. but till this day, I think they remain unmatched as far as 3d presentation goes.
it'll be disappointing if the newer hulk with the better storyline doesn't match the gfx quality of the previous movie with the bland story.
but one of the major reasons it worked so well is because they put shit loads of effort into the facial design and animation, and skinned the living shit out of the model.
in lots of movies that have monstrous creatures they seem content to just make something that looks scary and give it a default ugly look. and a scarier than normal expression.
with the first hulk film they treated the character like a human, and his facial expressions acted accordingly.
the movie itself may generally suck. but till this day, I think they remain unmatched as far as 3d presentation goes.
I liked Indiana Jones 4. But the ending trully killed it for me. Indiana Jones was basically a treasure hunter. And the things he found and the stories that were made were always generally about some item never found on Earth that everyone has heard about in some point in time in their lives. Why the hell did they bring in Aliens? That was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off track. I loved how they brought back his old girlfriend and all. Even the cliche'd kid part wasn't too bad. But the Aliens, killed it completely. :huh: :wacko:
Edit: They should have made it about the lost city of atlantis or some shit. That would have at least been more realistic for an Indiana Jones flick.
Edit: They should have made it about the lost city of atlantis or some shit. That would have at least been more realistic for an Indiana Jones flick.
Last edited by April on Sat May 31, 2008 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Mik
- Born under a bad sign
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Beyond your borders
- Contact:
Uhh didn't Raiders of the lost ark kinda allude to the ark as some kinda I win device ? No offense but the idea of some kinda anicent nuke is fairly far fetched too.
I haven't watched it admittedly but aliens, why not ? it's not like making a 4th movie after what a billion years since the last one was for anything but money anyway, it's what annoys me about some sequels, the story didn't NEED to be told. Sure you could do a million and one Jones movies simply by the nature of the format (see the TV show, which I actually liked tbh). But could have easily not done it and there would be any need to say more, no questions to answer other than .. what happened to the point where he died ?
You know those bits at the ends of movies 'Jimmy went on to win an oscar and was found dead at a Motel 6, in a bathtub full of lobsters and sourcream, he was 13' that's all you need really.
I haven't watched it admittedly but aliens, why not ? it's not like making a 4th movie after what a billion years since the last one was for anything but money anyway, it's what annoys me about some sequels, the story didn't NEED to be told. Sure you could do a million and one Jones movies simply by the nature of the format (see the TV show, which I actually liked tbh). But could have easily not done it and there would be any need to say more, no questions to answer other than .. what happened to the point where he died ?
You know those bits at the ends of movies 'Jimmy went on to win an oscar and was found dead at a Motel 6, in a bathtub full of lobsters and sourcream, he was 13' that's all you need really.
Clash of the Titans (1981)
I remember watching this movie when I was rilly young. This is a movie before CGI, and compared to most movies now where it is all about CGI (and nothing else really) it is worth watching. It has a decent plot, a heck alot of action and the soundtrack is awesome. So why do I rate this a 3 rather than a 5?
Well, as I said the plot is decent. However, it could be better. The thing that annoys me is that alot of these epic films add or take things away from a movie. I mean we are looking at a Greek myth here. Where Perseus saves Andromeda from the Kraken. Dame Maggie Smith played a fantastic role in this film as Thetis, goddess of the sea. In Greek myth, however, she wasn't a goddess, but a sea nymph. That would make her a demi (or half)-goddess, and she certainly wouldn't have had a place on Mount Olympus. I think the writers have got her confused with Tethys, daughter of Uranus and Gaia. Tethys is an aquatic sea goddess and mother goddess of Oceanids. Also Calibos, the spoiled son of Thetis, is not found in any of the Greek myths. It is said that Calibos was based on Caliban from 'The Temptest' by William Shakespeare because of his beastly apprearance.
Also, Perseus, in the actual legends, never rode on Pegasus (it what was Renaissance Europe that generated this belief), he has winged sandals. He was never given a mechanical owl, and he never crossed the River Styx, he never killed Ceto (NOT the Kraken) with Medusa's head, it was Polydectes that demanded the head of Medusa. Queen Cassiopeia compared her daughter to that of the sea Nereids which anguished Poseidon. He released Ceto on the city. The oracle of Ammon said that no relief would be found until Andromeda was given as a sacrifice to the sea monster. Perseus slew the monster and freed Andromeda. On returning to Seripos he discovered that his mother, Danae, had to take refuge from the violent Polydectes, Perseus killed him with Medusa's head. The film never mentioned this, nor the oracle fulfilled (that Perseus would kill his grandfather).
The only real thing plausible about the plot of movie was that Perseus was guided by his father Zeus, and the Goddess Athena.
For it's special effects, at the time, it must have been mind blowing. The highlight being medusa which was a technical marval at the time considering all of her hair had to move (Being snakes and all). However, this isn't one of Laurence Olivier's best films, he overacts terribly as Zeus. The ancient theatre used in the picture is of late-Roman design, and, therefore out of date be several centuries. On a whole, I quite like this film for it's action scenes, and I'd reccomend this film over any new action movies of present.
I STILL wanna see the 4th Indiana movie though
I remember watching this movie when I was rilly young. This is a movie before CGI, and compared to most movies now where it is all about CGI (and nothing else really) it is worth watching. It has a decent plot, a heck alot of action and the soundtrack is awesome. So why do I rate this a 3 rather than a 5?
Well, as I said the plot is decent. However, it could be better. The thing that annoys me is that alot of these epic films add or take things away from a movie. I mean we are looking at a Greek myth here. Where Perseus saves Andromeda from the Kraken. Dame Maggie Smith played a fantastic role in this film as Thetis, goddess of the sea. In Greek myth, however, she wasn't a goddess, but a sea nymph. That would make her a demi (or half)-goddess, and she certainly wouldn't have had a place on Mount Olympus. I think the writers have got her confused with Tethys, daughter of Uranus and Gaia. Tethys is an aquatic sea goddess and mother goddess of Oceanids. Also Calibos, the spoiled son of Thetis, is not found in any of the Greek myths. It is said that Calibos was based on Caliban from 'The Temptest' by William Shakespeare because of his beastly apprearance.
Also, Perseus, in the actual legends, never rode on Pegasus (it what was Renaissance Europe that generated this belief), he has winged sandals. He was never given a mechanical owl, and he never crossed the River Styx, he never killed Ceto (NOT the Kraken) with Medusa's head, it was Polydectes that demanded the head of Medusa. Queen Cassiopeia compared her daughter to that of the sea Nereids which anguished Poseidon. He released Ceto on the city. The oracle of Ammon said that no relief would be found until Andromeda was given as a sacrifice to the sea monster. Perseus slew the monster and freed Andromeda. On returning to Seripos he discovered that his mother, Danae, had to take refuge from the violent Polydectes, Perseus killed him with Medusa's head. The film never mentioned this, nor the oracle fulfilled (that Perseus would kill his grandfather).
The only real thing plausible about the plot of movie was that Perseus was guided by his father Zeus, and the Goddess Athena.
For it's special effects, at the time, it must have been mind blowing. The highlight being medusa which was a technical marval at the time considering all of her hair had to move (Being snakes and all). However, this isn't one of Laurence Olivier's best films, he overacts terribly as Zeus. The ancient theatre used in the picture is of late-Roman design, and, therefore out of date be several centuries. On a whole, I quite like this film for it's action scenes, and I'd reccomend this film over any new action movies of present.
I STILL wanna see the 4th Indiana movie though