2003 Movie Discussions

[Christopher]

I agree with your first one. That wasn't a great shot.

I didn't like how conventional the ending was, either. I mean, you have this violent, intense horror movie, then it ends like a Hollywood happy-go-lucky horror movie. Mind boggling.

Another part I didn't like about it were all the jump scenes thrown into it. I haven't seen the movie since opening weekend, but I remember a scene when you see a shadow cross over a small part of the screen, and the soundtrack has this loud THWACK to let you know you did, indeed, just see something in the corner of the screen. That annoyed me to no end. I think it would be more effective for a scene like that not to accentuate the shadow movement with the musical score. To keep the score the same (or if there wasn't any music at the time, I don't remember), so that way, the audience will wonder about what they thought they saw. They (the filmmakers) might even create suspense through that method. So it might make it more suspenseful when the wild, crazy, psychotic violence begins.

Other than that, I think the movie stands okay on it's own. I'm certainly biased towards the original TCM, but I do beleive this one is effective. But I do believe what Brendan and myself have said would improve the film. I didn't really appreciate seeing that much of Leatherface either. In the original, of course, you see the killers, that's part of the craziness. It's just you see Leatherface without his.......well, leatherface.

[Brendan]

I agree with everything you said  . Your right about the sounds added for jolting effect, stupid really.

I just finished watching School of Rock and let me tell you, it's one of the best movies of last year. Jack Black is always great and he just brings so much energy to his roles that it gets the audience going as well. Go rent it (along with The Rundown) and enjoy.

And I've finally been able to make my top ten for last year. Number ten moves around a bit though...:

#1. Mystic River
#2. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
#3. Lost in Translation
#4. Finding Nemo
#5. Open Range
#6. Kill Bill Volumne 1
#7. Phone Booth
#8. 28 Days Later
#9. School of Rock
#10. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

Notables: Bend it Like Beckham, Dark Blue, Elf, Old School, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, The Rundown, Thirteen, X2: X-Men United (there are more, it's just I still haven't seen some of last year's movies  .)

You can go here to see my star ratings for a whole bunch of movies from last year.

[dane with no name]

Maybe I've already seen the best Jet Li movie, which was Kiss of the Dragon. I've also seen The One, which was okay.

Anybody know of any other good Jet Li movies?

Sure, check out Hero, it´s his latest flick (as far as i know anyway).   some compare it to crouching tiger, hidden dragon, but i find the story in hero much more complex with a better story (and starring my favorite martial arts actor Donnie Yen.(shanghai knights, iron monkey) )
If you want to go old school style, a lot of his older material is cool to watch as well. (especially Monks of shaolin temple 1(with some of the best drunken style i´ve seen) , and Once upon a time in china 1.) If you can live with the hokey dialouge (and bad translation) you´re in for a treat.
 

[dane with no name]

Has anyone seen Van Helsing yet?
Saw it last week and even though i found the movie too crammed with monsters (it led my thoughts to that horribly LXG ) i was well entertained throughout the entire movie. Beckingsdale jackman did an okay job, but i missed the old stylish, capewearing, dracula and i thought frankensteins monster too cliche to be really memorable. Thumbs up on the wolfman and the brides though  

The effects were okay even though it developed into something you´ve seen from an tekken computergame at the end. I think we´re going to see better effects in troy, spiderman 2, and the day after tommorow (and hellboy, once it gets to europe) but all in all it was a nice movie to see with your beerbuddies before hitting the nearest bar      

[Brendan]

Van Helcrap is a 2004 movie dane  , not a 2003 one.

[Christopher]

I saw Freddy Vs. Jason over the weekend. The basic idea of it I thought was interesting; Freddy wanting to get his power back over the kids of Elm Street, so (in some odd way that I do not understand) he is able to loose Jason out so he'll kill, and will make everybody remember Freddy again. But the movie didn't really execute this very well. From the beginning of the movie, I thought it might really suck, then for a brief time, I thought the movie might be interesting after all. As it turned out, it's not that great overall.

[Doug]

I saw Cradle 2 the Grave with Jet Li and DMX the other night. It had some nice action scenes, but overall, not much there.

Maybe I've already seen the best Jet Li movie, which was Kiss of the Dragon. I've also seen The One, which was okay.

Anybody know of any other good Jet Li movies?

Fist of Legend is really good.  It's a redoing of Bruce Lee's second movie The Chinese Connection (AKA Fists of Fury outside the U.S.).  It's probably my favorite.

[Christopher]

I know it was released in 2002, but...I saw The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers today. I know we had a thread about it a while back. Actually, that thread was a result after Return of the King won a bunch of Oscars and some people actually thought the complaining that happened on the board was due to jealously over LOTR getting Oscar attention instead of Mystic River. (I was just reviewing the Oscar thread prior to posting here )

Anyhow, I'd say The Two Towers is a little better than The Fellowship of the Ring. I thought as I was watching it that most likely most people go into these movies with a lot of enthusiasm, and that's probably why they like them so much. While I've enjoyed the films so far, I'm not likely to go out and buy any of them for my own collection. I figure they're the type of movies I'll watch once, then there's no telling when I'd ever watch them again. They're okay movies, though.

[AKA23]

I think that they are very good movies, but I'd agree that The Two Towers for me was slightly better than the first one. I actually think that like the Star Wars films, the second one is the best in the series.

[Chessie]

The whole LOTR trilogy is awesome, no doubt, but I thought that number three was better then two or one, and one was better then two...  Maybe all the epic battles were too much for me or something I don't know.  Just my opinion.  

[Brendan]

I watched Love Actually tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. I believe I said somewhere within the dark, nasty caverns of this topic that I liked the Hugh Grant/Studio Canal films. I still don't get why people give him such a bad rap. I heard some people say his performance in About a Boy was crap, when really it was perfect.

Anyways, if you like them there romantic comedies I don't see why you wouldn't like this one. The acting was good all around and the humour was there, but not as much as I thought it was going to be.

I'm not too sure if some Americans will like it though, since the movie basically says almost all American girls are brainless, stupid "easy" girls (i you know what I mean ). And there's a scene with Billy Bob Thornton as the President which pretty much says that U.S. Presidents are all philanders. I think remember people writing into Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column complaining about that and asking if that is how the British see the U.S., I didn't mind so much, but then again I'm not American.

There was also a scene with Hugh Grant, who plays the Prime Minister (if you can believe that  ) where he made a comment during a press conferance, which I don't think he could have gotten away with, at least not with-out damaging the relationship between the U.S. and Britain.

Ah well, it was a good time. Some things left un-answered, but all in all, it's worth a rental I suppose.  

[Christopher]

I watched The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King last night/today. I think it's the best of the three films, though it went on a little too long. The movie technically ends, then there's more stuff tacked on and I don't see why the movie had to go on as long as it did. I'm sure the book is the same way but the movie shouldn't have gone on and on and on.... (much like this post, eh? ).

To get back to the point, this was better than the first two films. The stuff with Gollum was really interesting. What happens to the characters actually seems to matter in this one as well, or at least I felt more for the characters.

[bcm]

  The movie technically ends, then there's more stuff tacked on and I don't see why the movie had to go on as long as it did.

That's the exact remark my husband made too. He hasn't read the book(s), and I guess you haven't either. The book firsters tend to view this differently. There is a whole chapter (the scouring of the Shire) that is missing, which makes the end too short  . And frankly, I really like the Grey havens scene being "real-time", not "movie-time". I can see why people not that fond of the hobbits and Gandalf could get bored. But believe me, I think that after 9 hours (12, if you watch the Extended editions), it's barely long enough to say good-bye  

[Christopher]

Nope, haven't read the books. Judging it as a movie by itself, it goes on a bit too long. I know there's legions of fans for the book who would probably like to see almost every detail from the novels in the films, but that simply could never work for a movie. A book usually has to be stripped away from a little in order to make a movie out of it.

For another example, look at Huckleberry Finn. No movie could ever capture every part of that novel. If it tried, the movie would be mind numbingly dull ("numbingly" - did I just make up a word? ).

[allycat]

Nope Chris - that's legit

IMHO LOTR was just right...having read the novel and seen all the films...I think Peter Jackson left out the right stuff, though it would've been nice to see Saruman again. A pity he filmed the scenes with the great Christopher Lee and then cut them out. I hear they will be restored in the spectacular 4-disc DVD version (which I will buy when it comes out later this year). The ending of Return Of The King was slightly cheesy for my liking, but still very well done. That bit where Frodo wakes up and everyone is round his bed, giving him cheesy grins?

I urge - strongly urge you to read the novel, Christopher, and then please let us know what you think. It may be best digested in 3 volumes rather than one, as I found as it was easier to read on the way to and from work, but in fact, Tolkien intended it to be one volume - it was the publishers' idea to split it into 3 volumes, I think because paper was more scarce/expensive at the time, it being post WWII, and also, it was unprecedented to have such a huge novel being published...Tolkien didn't even choose the names of the volumes himself...after all, the last one reveals the ending 'The Return Of The King' ?!

[Christopher]

The ending of Return Of The King was slightly cheesy for my liking, but still very well done. That bit where Frodo wakes up and everyone is round his bed, giving him cheesy grins?

Yeah, that struck me as a little cheesy too.

And what about the gay subtext that runs throughout? (That's just a joke for us who've been around the board long enough )

I don't know when I'd ever manage to make it through the novels. i've got books around my house I haven't read yet that I'd like to read, so LOTR might have to go on a back burner.

For me, The Return of the King is the tightest film of the group. It all works so well together, until the ending. Kinda like Open Range. Very good movie, but it would have had more of an impact had the ending been shortened (I've even got that book sittin' around here someplace ). And yes, I know LOTR is one continuous story, but I didn't truly start to care for the characters until the third one, nearly six hours into it!

[bcm]

I'm just curious, Christopher. I assume the film could have ended after the destruction of the ring.  Would you really not wanna know what happened after that? What happened to Frodo and Sam? Would it have been obvious for you that Aragorn becomes king? How about Arwen (last time we see her she's dying)? Eowyn? Faramir?
  The book wraps all the characters up, it goes on until we know what happened to each and every one of them (including, as Ally said, the important Saruman!). If the film would end after the destruction of the ring, we wouldn't know about any one. Would that really satisfy you? Or do you think that the ones who care that much for the characters to wanna know what happened should just read the book? And the movie-goers have all they need, once the ring is destroyed? Sorry to ask all of this, but when you have read the book first, it's difficult to go back and imagine how you would have felt if you wouldn't have known...

[Christopher]

I think after Aragorn becomes king would have been a nice place to end it (when they all bow to the hobbits). I can't remember if that's right after the ring is destroyed or not. I wasn't saying right after the ring is destroyed, roll credits. There can be resolution to the characters.

I don't care that Sam got married or that Frodo leaves.

You bring up good points, and I know it's good to see what happens to the characters, but when I'm watching a movie and start feeling that it should be ending, then that's just the way I feel. That could change, but I've only seen them the once. I didn't know the story line before watching the films.

[bcm]

Thanks Christopher for answering  
   After talking with my husband about it (he has never read the book), I begin to understand that there are too many characters to really relate to, if you haven't got to know them in the books (kind of "already know them", before watching the movies). I guess that's the main problem, which explains why the ending is too long for you, and much too short for me  

[allycat]

I watched Love Actually tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. I believe I said somewhere within the dark, nasty caverns of this topic that I liked the Hugh Grant/Studio Canal films. I still don't get why people give him such a bad rap. I heard some people say his performance in About a Boy was crap, when really it was perfect.

Anyways, if you like them there romantic comedies I don't see why you wouldn't like this one. The acting was good all around and the humour was there, but not as much as I thought it was going to be.

I'm not too sure if some Americans will like it though, since the movie basically says almost all American girls are brainless, stupid "easy" girls (i you know what I mean ). And there's a scene with Billy Bob Thornton as the President which pretty much says that U.S. Presidents are all philanders. I think remember people writing into Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column complaining about that and asking if that is how the British see the U.S., I didn't mind so much, but then again I'm not American.

There was also a scene with Hugh Grant, who plays the Prime Minister (if you can believe that  ) where he made a comment during a press conferance, which I don't think he could have gotten away with, at least not with-out damaging the relationship between the U.S. and Britain.

Sorry to interrupt the LOTR debate guys...but can I just say (which I meant to say sooner) and ok, it's not a 100% fair comment because I haven't seen this film, but I hate this type of film! Not rom coms...specifically, these British romantic comedies. Four Weddings and a Funeral was ok but overrated, despite the fact that everyone thought it was the best thing since sliced bread (is that an English phrase, or do you guys have it?!). I don't like these films because they paint a specific view of our country (namely, one in which England is so 'quaint' and everyone goes around saying "Golly" or "Gosh", and Hugh Grant charms the pants off everyone. Oh, and the Queen probably comes for tea, because that happens all the time here. Ok, I may have made that last part up ).

Brendan, don't worry, that's not how everyone in Britain sees America/Americans (I presume when you say 'Brits' you mean all of the nationalities...I have to admit I can't stand being referred to as a 'Brit', not because I don't like the association, but just because I don't like the term ) Personally, I would hate to think that Americans believe the picture of England that Love Actually and other films such as Notting Hill and Four Weddings... paint. We're not like that at all, or Hugh Grant, for that matter. Not that he's bad, or anything, but he is rather annoying at times, and let's face it, he only ever plays one character: himself

Anyway, as I said, I haven't seen Love Actually, namely because I felt I would rather walk across a field full of glass than watch this film But as I also said, it's in the same vein as basically all the other Richard Curtis rom coms starring Hugh Grant, and that's why I can't stand 'em. Each to his or her own, though, so this is just my humble opinion, as ever...

Although, to throw a spanner in the works, I enjoyed About A Boy, it was good, though nothing special. I'd much prefer to recommend to people Billy Elliott, which I feel is far more interesting and realistic than the Hugh Grant rom coms. Or East is East, which is an Anglo-Asian comedy, and absolutely hilarious. I have it on DVD. Both of those films paint a far more realistic picture of England (and if you want to include the other countries that make up Britain, such as Scotland, for example, then I also recommend Trainspotting, which is arguably one of the best modern films the British film industry has ever produced.)

Ok, my two cents (or rather, two pence) worth is over...