Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[Not Afraid]

I didn't mind Minority Report. It was a Phillip K Dick novella first you know. That has to count for something.

[mousepod]

Just because I called it "shameless" doesn't mean I didn't like it. Count me in, too.

[innerSpaceman]

^ OMG, the fan base for Minority Report just doubled!

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It (United 93) isn't for everyone. As far as "you're not an American if you don't see it", fortunately I have heard none of that.

Yeah, I never heard any of that about this film either. Though there are many people who are still 9/11 overloaded. And it's certainly a gut-wrenching film that may be too sad or emotional for some people at some times.

Many of you here might know that zapppop has a phonographic memory. He remembers with uncanny precision everything he hears. What is less well known is that he has a photographic memory as well. I took him to see United 93, and that was a terrible mistake. He cannot shake disturbing imagery. It won't go away from his consciousness, and it will disturb his dreams tremendously.



I happen to like true life stories of fantastical happenings. Truth is almost always stranger, and better, than fiction. And since I can barely remember where I put my keys, any emotional damage is quickly forgotten.

[Alex]

I was moderately approving of Minority Report and Rotten Tomatoes shows a 92% rating for it so you can't be all that alone.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yay, iSm and I agree on 'MR'. But there have been films we've agreed upon in the past.

Speaking of disturbing imagery, the 'eye scene' in 'Minority Report' is hard to shake. Eww. It reminded me of a clip from the 'Andalusian (sp?) Dog' that is also hard to shake. Very disturbing.

I noticed that Spielberg has some shocking imagery in his films. The eye scene in 'MR', the slaves being dragged off the boat in 'Amistad', the heart in 'Temple of Doom', 9/11 references in 'War of the Worlds' etc.

[Mousey Girl]

ISM, I am wondering what your thoughts are after seeing King Kong.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, it could have been ok with a little trimming of the horrific over-the-top stuff. Cut away before the brontosaurisi all tumble over each other in a rolling ball of dino feet and tails. Cut away before T-Rexes are swinging on vines. Leave giant bugs menacingly approaching, but cut stuff where they suck human heads or where the boy who's never held a rifle manages to shoot insects off people's bodies without hitting men. That would be a start.


I love every moment in New York City during the Great Depression. There's something about the way it was filmed ... the comedic style, the art direction, the color timing that I found simply perfect.

(Ok, maybe the ice dancing part could go.)


I like how Ann Darrow manages to "tame" Kong and eventually come to feel affection for him. I like that Carl Denham is a madman moviemaker on the lam. I actually didn't hate Jack Black in the role, and I even sorta bought Adrien Brody as the quirky romantic lead, Jack Driscoll. Certainly, the re-enactment aboard ship of the old King Kong scene between Darrow and Driscoll illustrated how stilted the characters and performances were in the original movie.


But somehow the performance of Kong seemed better in the old one. Though technically superb and very expressionfull, I didn't really warm to this Kong like I did the little puppet with the constantly shifting rabbit fur at the hands of Willis O'Brien. This Kong seemed too much like a merely giant gorilla instead of some kind of, i dunno, tortured, quasi-human soul. Oh, I felt some pathos for him, and the Empire State Building scene was magnificently realized. But the character of Kong, and ultimately this film of Kong, fell flat for me.

I just don't understand the why of it. Technically subperb, visually gorgeous, but ... other than to prohibit the Jeff Bridges / Jessica Lange / Dino DeLaurentis travesty from being the last word on the subject ... I don't really see any compelling reason for this film to have been remade.


But, a few cuts of the absurdly silly stuff, and it's a downright ok movie. Certainly a better remake than Poseidon. This one did try to expand on the story's characters ... and that's gotta count for something..

[Gemini Cricket]

Wow. I was just looking at that top 10 moneymakers (domestic) at boxofficemojo.com:

1 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 --1997
2 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 --1977
3 Shrek 2 DW $441,226,247 --2004
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $435,110,554 --1982
5 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $431,088,301 --1999
6 Spider-Man Sony $403,706,375 --2002
7 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Fox $380,270,577 --2005
8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King NL $377,027,325 --2003
9 Spider-Man 2 Sony $373,585,825 --2004
10 The Passion of the Christ NM $370,782,930 --2004

Wow. Nothing's going to touch 'Titanic' for awhile, eh? I remember it being successful but not that successful. Amazing.

[scaeagles]

I thought Titanic sucked. Hated everything about it.

Hated The Phantom Menace. (I didn't hate Revenge of the Sith....wasn't great, but I didn't hate it.)

Everything else on there I enjoyed, with the exception of Passion, which I have never seen.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I can't believe Revenge of the Sith beat out Return of the King - and where are the other LotR films?