|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| 1) Posted by: Vassago March 6, 2006 4:08 PM I can't believe you liked that Batman movie. The whole "kill this guy to prove your loyalty" scene was obviously contrived and movie-ized, I mean why didn't he just kill the guy god. I also have issues with movies where everyone is an increadibly bad shot (like in gi-joe and the a-team shooting thousands of rounds/lasers and never hitting anyone), and I thought the end where the mansion gets burned down when Liam comes back was completely predictable and *yawn* boring. |
| 2) Posted by: Scott March 7, 2006 2:19 PM This is coming from the guy who liked Doom. |
| 3) Posted by: clifgriffin March 21, 2006 10:44 PM Hey Scott, I don't remember if you remember me from ye ol' FK way back when. But I agree with your analysis of Batman Begins. In fact, I'd have to say only an idiot would find that movie anything but amazing. Laters, |
| 4) Posted by: Scott March 22, 2006 11:23 PM Clif, you're a blast from the past. Hope all is well in your world and I'm glad we agree on fine cinema. |
| 5) Posted by: joe May 29, 2006 10:51 AM I watched the new King Kong DVD on my laptop 3 times. Also 3 other of the older King Kongs. I've previously watched many Batman movies and wouldn't buy its DVD. I'd like to see Poseiden, and some movies on WW2--especially the Reich. PS--"The world is a stage..." |
| 6) Posted by: Scott May 30, 2006 9:54 AM I enjoyed King Kong as well. The island natives were stunning. But the movie was about 30-40 minutes too long and that's really what kept it from being in "The Best" category. |
| 7) Posted by: joe June 17, 2006 6:14 AM Yea, King Kong was kinda long. The long scene of all the "giant" bugs, lizards, slugs, etc. were edited in the first run in '32. The idea was added in the new King Kong, making it last the extra 30 some minutes. The scene was only morbidly exciting anyway. It seems all too many contemporaneous movies/films center around the cop/robber and murders/forensics. Original and thought provoking plots have been replaced with razzle-dazzle. The Advertisements have become the primary motives it seems--the movies' qualities--secondary. Rocky, Terminator, etc. are exceptions. And really old movies from '20s and '30 were w/o so many advertisement considerations. The Twilight Zone and Outer Limits were original stuff. And on top of that, there were no "subliminal takes" lasting all of split seconds. These were outlawed eventually. The "all-time" Top 100 List are primarily (proportunately) older movies. We've gone from good clean soap commercials to snake oil balogna sharlatins. In other words, the useful intermissional ads of old have gone to the styles of what's your credit card number. Too bad, too many seem to "buy" into it. There were better movies when there were only 2 or 3 channels on our TV sets. Quantity has obfuscated quality. This similarily goes with books. They are so hard to "filter." They are seldom on the Top 10 Best Seller's List. All the criteria here is whose "buying" it now. In other words--relative to the old classics--there were no "best" movies in 2005. What was the best movie of last month? None! What were the best movies in Drive-ins. Who cared? It wasn't the purpose of many in "attendance." For instance in politics--polls have become the thing. In movies--box office sales have become the thing. Mozarts to MTV... An exception: Spiderman rules over Batman. But compare the original Bonanza to the "new" Bonanza, etc. The Day the Earth Stood Still! All Gone With the Wind! The sons of old actors, likewise, have almost always fallen short of their expectations. King Kong has stood the "test-of-time." And surprisingly, out-did the original. I'm still waiting for something equivalent to the Honeymooners or I Love Lucy. OK--so I'm an "old guy." |