list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around King Kong on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/King_Kong/229284/default.aspx Title: King Kong
Year: 2005
Director: Peter Jackson
Plot: One of the greatest adventure stories in Hollywood history gets a new interpretation in this action drama from Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson. In the early 1930's, Carl Denham (Jack Black) is a daring filmmaker and adventurer who has gained a reputation for his pictures documenting wildlife in remote and dangerous jungle lands; despite the objections of his backers, Denham plans to film his next project aboard an ocean vessel en route to Skull Island, an uncharted island he discovered on a rare map. Correctly assuming his cast and crew would be wary of such a journey, Denham has told them they're traveling to Singapore, but before they set sail, his leading lady drops out of the project. Needing a beautiful actress willing to take a risk, Denham finds Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a beautiful but down-on-her-luck vaudeville performer and offers her the role; cautious but eager to work, Darrow takes the role, and onboard the ship she strikes up a romance with Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), a respected playwright hired by Denham to write the script for his latest epic. When Denham and Company arrive on Skull Island, the natives react with savage violence, but they happen to be the least of their worries. Skull Island is a sanctuary for prehistoric life, and lording it over the dinosaurs and other giant beasts is Kong, a twenty-five-foot-tall gorilla who can outfight any creature on Earth. The natives kidnap Darrow, giving her to Kong as an offering to appease the giant beast; Denham and his men set out to find her, with Driscoll bravely determined to save the woman he loves. Eventually, Driscoll finds Darrow and Denham outwits Kong, intending to take the giant ape back to New York for display. But Kong has bonded with Darrow, and his attraction to her proves to be his undoing. Andy Sirkis, who provided the body movements for Gollum in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings pictures, performed similar duties on King Kong, studying gorillas so he could mimic their actions, which were then used as the basis for the special effects crew's digital animation of the great ape. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 82
Number of Lists: 65
Number of blog posts: 11
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:58:15 GMTKing Kong2005Peter JacksonOne of the greatest adventure stories in Hollywood history gets a new interpretation in this action drama from Academy Award-winning director <a href="/players/P____95689/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Jackson</a>. In the early 1930's, Carl Denham (<a href="/players/P___195232/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Black</a>) is a daring filmmaker and adventurer who has gained a reputation for his pictures documenting wildlife in remote and dangerous jungle lands; despite the objections of his backers, Denham plans to film his next project aboard an ocean vessel en route to Skull Island, an uncharted island he discovered on a rare map. Correctly assuming his cast and crew would be wary of such a journey, Denham has told them they're traveling to Singapore, but before they set sail, his leading lady drops out of the project. Needing a beautiful actress willing to take a risk, Denham finds Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a beautiful but down-on-her-luck vaudeville performer and offers her the role; cautious but eager to work, Darrow takes the role, and onboard the ship she strikes up a romance with Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), a respected playwright hired by Denham to write the script for his latest epic. When Denham and Company arrive on Skull Island, the natives react with savage violence, but they happen to be the least of their worries. Skull Island is a sanctuary for prehistoric life, and lording it over the dinosaurs and other giant beasts is Kong, a twenty-five-foot-tall gorilla who can outfight any creature on Earth. The natives kidnap Darrow, giving her to Kong as an offering to appease the giant beast; Denham and his men set out to find her, with Driscoll bravely determined to save the woman he loves. Eventually, Driscoll finds Darrow and Denham outwits Kong, intending to take the giant ape back to New York for display. But Kong has bonded with Darrow, and his attraction to her proves to be his undoing. Andy Sirkis, who provided the body movements for Gollum in <a href="/players/P____95689/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Jackson</a>'s <a href=/films/20854/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Lord of the Rings</a> pictures, performed similar duties on King Kong, studying gorillas so he could mimic their actions, which were then used as the basis for the special effects crew's digital animation of the great ape. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide82Tag Target (>10)651163http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t87916dpcqa.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/King_Kong/229284/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/7/42121.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 6:48:33 PM
Body: Filmmaker "Carl Denham" (Jack Black) wants to make a movie at the mythical "Skull Island", but the studio won't fund the project. So, with stolen movie equipment, "Denham" plans to make the film no matter what. However, his leading actress pulled out, and he must find another who will brave the journey. Enter "Ann Darow" (Naomi Watts), an attractive, struggling stage actress/dancer who just lost a job. She agrees to go with "Denham," who tells her that they are going to Singapore. And they head to the docks, where studio officials and police show up to arrest the director. On the ship, "Darrow" meets the tough crew, arrogant actor "Bruce Baxter" (Kyle Chandler) who is a gentleman to "Darrow", and playwright "Jack Driscoll" (Adrien Brody), whom "Darrow" is anxious to work with. Eventually, the island, which is known as "Skull Island", is found and much of the ship's crew, "Denham" and his cast go ashore, where they find freaky looking natives and the largest man-made wall they've ever seen. The natives, who look peaceful at first, then attack their visitors and take "Darrow" into custody. They then offer the blond beauty to their god -- a 25 foot tall silverback gorilla (Andy Serkis, whose movements were recorded for reference to animate the CGI gorilla), who becomes smitten with the actress. As "Darrow" warms up to the giant gorilla, a rescue party/film crew goes into the dense jungle where enormous animals, including dinosaurs, live. Many of the men are killed by the animals and the gorilla, but "Darrow" is saved. But "Denham," who wants to make money, wants to bring back the gorilla to New York City to make a buck. And so, the gorilla is brought back to "The Big Apple" where a modified story of his capture is told as he is presented on a Broadway stage. However, the wild animal escapes when it discovers that for the stage show, "Darrow" was replaced by a lookalike (Julia Walshaw), and it eventually makes its way to the Empire State Building to make its famed climb to the top of the skyscraper. The first thing you will notice while watching this film is that there are some incredible CGI special effects and incredible cinematography. I would strongly suggest that you find a widescreen edition on DVD because the full-screen just doesn't do the movie justice. Not all of the CGI effects in the film, especially when the human cast is in the scene, and they are surrounded by CGI. You can easily tell that they are in front of a blue or green screen and added into the scene during post-production. There are some good performances in this film. In my opinion, out of the entire main cast, Black's performance is one of the weaker performances. Sometimes his performance works, while at other times he just didn't appear to make much of an effort. Also, Brody was just wrong for the romantic leading male in this film. His performance was pretty good, but there are better leading men, who are a lot better looking, who could have worked much better in this role. One huge thing that was a major problem in the movie is that it is over three-hours long. Because of the movie's length, many scenes are drawn-out and lags frequently. One thing that should have been cut down is the time the movie spends on the search for "Darrow" in "Kong's" jungle. I was was wishing for the movie to go forward to NYC and skip the capture of the gorilla. One thing that fans of the 1933 "King Kong" will love is that there are references to that version throughout the film. Peter Jackson, who directed this remake, also used props from the 1933 version that he has personally collected over the years. One scene fans of the original 1933 version will love is that "Denham" films "Baxter" and "Darrow" acting out a scene from the original film word-for-word. There is even a direct reference to Fay Wray, the original "Darrow," Merian C. Cooper, who co-wrote the original "King Kong" and RKO Studios, which released the original 1933 movie. Despite the flaws, this version of "King Kong" is really good. With good performances, amazing special effects, and way too many references to the original 1933 movie, is fun to watch. I personally wish it was at least 40 minutes shorter, or even 100 minutes, which is the approximate run time of the original film.
]]>Thu, 07 May 2009 22:48:33 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/7/2009 6:48:33 PMFilmmaker "Carl Denham" (Jack Black) wants to make a movie at the mythical "Skull Island", but the studio won't fund the project. So, with stolen movie equipment, "Denham" plans to make the film no matter what. However, his leading actress pulled out, and he must find another who will brave the journey. Enter "Ann Darow" (Naomi Watts), an attractive, struggling stage actress/dancer who just lost a job. She agrees to go with "Denham," who tells her that they are going to Singapore. And they head to the docks, where studio officials and police show up to arrest the director. On the ship, "Darrow" meets the tough crew, arrogant actor "Bruce Baxter" (Kyle Chandler) who is a gentleman to "Darrow", and playwright "Jack Driscoll" (Adrien Brody), whom "Darrow" is anxious to work with. Eventually, the island, which is known as "Skull Island", is found and much of the ship's crew, "Denham" and his cast go ashore, where they find freaky looking natives and the largest man-made wall they've ever seen. The natives, who look peaceful at first, then attack their visitors and take "Darrow" into custody. They then offer the blond beauty to their god -- a 25 foot tall silverback gorilla (Andy Serkis, whose movements were recorded for reference to animate the CGI gorilla), who becomes smitten with the actress. As "Darrow" warms up to the giant gorilla, a rescue party/film crew goes into the dense jungle where enormous animals, including dinosaurs, live. Many of the men are killed by the animals and the gorilla, but "Darrow" is saved. But "Denham," who wants to make money, wants to bring back the gorilla to New York City to make a buck. And so, the gorilla is brought back to "The Big Apple" where a modified story of his capture is told as he is presented on a Broadway stage. However, the wild animal escapes when it discovers that for the stage show, "Darrow" was replaced by a lookalike (Julia Walshaw), and it eventually makes its way to the Empire State Building to make its famed climb to the top of the skyscraper. The first thing you will notice while watching this film is that there are some incredible CGI special effects and incredible cinematography. I would strongly suggest that you find a widescreen edition on DVD because the full-screen just doesn't do the movie justice. Not all of the CGI effects in the film, especially when the human cast is in the scene, and they are surrounded by CGI. You can easily tell that they are in front of a blue or green screen and added into the scene during post-production. There are some good performances in this film. In my opinion, out of the entire main cast, Black's performance is one of the weaker performances. Sometimes his performance works, while at other times he just didn't appear to make much of an effort. Also, Brody was just wrong for the romantic leading male in this film. His performance was pretty good, but there are better leading men, who are a lot better looking, who could have worked much better in this role. One huge thing that was a major problem in the movie is that it is over three-hours long. Because of the movie's length, many scenes are drawn-out and lags frequently. One thing that should have been cut down is the time the movie spends on the search for "Darrow" in "Kong's" jungle. I was was wishing for the movie to go forward to NYC and skip the capture of the gorilla. One thing that fans of the 1933 "King Kong" will love is that there are references to that version throughout the film. Peter Jackson, who directed this remake, also used props from the 1933 version that he has personally collected over the years. One scene fans of the original 1933 version will love is that "Denham" films "Baxter" and "Darrow" acting out a scene from the original film word-for-word. There is even a direct reference to Fay Wray, the original "Darrow," Merian C. Cooper, who co-wrote the original "King Kong" and RKO Studios, which released the original 1933 movie. Despite the flaws, this version of "King Kong" is really good. With good performances, amazing special effects, and way too many references to the original 1933 movie, is fun to watch. I personally wish it was at least 40 minutes shorter, or even 100 minutes, which is the approximate run time of the original film. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/9/34950.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/11/31116.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/11/2008 2:00:51 PM
Body: I don’t know what is the worse idea, an all-CGI 3-D Smurfs movie, as Paramount had planned, or a CGI/live-action mix, as Sony Animation is now planning for our beloved blue communists friends. I guess if we only think back to Alvin and the Chipmunks and Underdog, it’s easy to think Sony’s new plan for The Smurfs is a terrible idea. But I think the second Scooby-Doo movie worked pretty well as far as cartoon adaptations go, and there’s a chance Hollywood could do a good job again, despite the majority (including Garfield: The Movie, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, the first Scooby-Doo) being on the bad side. That said, I’m still no fan of the trend. However, if it must continue, I think it would be interesting to see any of the following 15 animated series, all of which feature the necessary mix of talking animals (or inanimate objects) and humans, turned into live-action movies with CGI characters: The Yogi Bear Show - I feel it’s inevitable that we’ll be seeing this one soon enough. And if Hollywood is feeling lazy enough, the plot can be a remake of the animated feature Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear! Steve Carell will play Ranger Smith, of course. Help!…It’s the Hair Bear Bunch! - Few people remember this Yogi Bear-like series starring three hippie bears, one of whom had a straggly afro. The movie would involve the usual plot in which the bears escape from the zoo and are chased by the human zoo-keeper and his fat assistant. I’d love to see the sweet production design that goes into the bear’s bachelor pad cave. And aside from the fact that CGI bears would make the invisible motorcycle easier to work with, live-action bears have been proven to be a much worse idea (see The Country Bears). The Great Grape Ape Show - This would be kinda like Peter Jackson’s King Kong, only without the intention of making the CGI look realistic. I’m not sure what the plot would be, but going with the King Kong idea, they could probably just have Grape Ape and Beagle Beagle visit New York (or another city) to allow for plenty of accidental destruction (isn’t that the only reason Transformers‘ last act was in a city?). Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a caveman instead of a talking dog. They could probably just have a guy dressed up in a very hairy costume for the prehistoric superhero, but as long as CGI characters are bringing Hollywood so much dough, they might as well render him on a computer, too. Speed Buggy - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a talking car instead of a talking dog. And I bet audiences will be more comfortable with a CGI talking car than with a CGI talking dog. Dynomutt, Dog Wonder - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with superheroes. Hey, I hear superheroes are big at the box office this century. Actually, I’m really, really surprised we haven’t heard about this one yet. Jabberjaw - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with…. wait, I’m starting to see that most of these Hanna Barbera cartoons are a lot alike. But even more than Scooby-Doo, this would be like the live-action Josie and the Pussycats, except with the benefit of having a CGI shark who plays drums for the group. Because most of the action would take place under the sea, there’s a good chance this would be too expensive to produce. Fangface - It’s like Scooby-Doo but not made by Hanna Barbera (however, it was produced by Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, who also created Captain Caveman, Jabberjaw, Dynomutt and others on this list). Instead of a talking dog, here one of the mystery-solving teens is a werewolf. And despite everyone’s love for Lon Chaney Jr. and the Teen Wolf movies, Hollywood can rarely make a werewolf these days without CGI. It’s Punky Brewster - They could always just base a movie off the original sitcom (though I doubt they ever would), but wouldn’t it be much cuter if there was a CGI character? Fortunately the cartoon series had that leprechaun-gopher thing named “Glomer.” Snorks - I guess there were no humans in this cartoon, but knowing Hollywood’s ability to mess with things, some could surely be added. Either the Snorks somehow venture out of the sea or a friendly scuba diving kid finds them. Though for the latter, the budget could be too high. I wonder if the Snorks could survive out of water… Ghostbusters - Would be allowed for there to be a feature film version of Filmation’s Ghostbusters — you know, the one that wasn’t based on the REAL Ghostbusters? The one that was actually based on a TV series that came before the movie Ghostbusters? Hmm. I guess this one should really go in the list of live-action series calling for CGI/live-action treatment (like ALF…) The Archie Show - Obviously this one could be completely live-action. But that’s no fun. And that TV movie from 1990 was extremely disappointing. Solution: CGI Jughead! Rainbow Brite - Hey, I really liked Rainbow Brite when I was a kid. Is that OK to admit yet? I may have even wanted a plush toy of Twink. Or maybe I did have a plush toy of Twink. Either way, I’d be the first heterosexual male in line at the theater for this one. Rugrats - This one will only be kinda CGI. It can star real kids with CGI mouths, like what they do with animals in the Babe and Dr. Dolittle movies. Oh yeah, and what they do with babies in the Baby Geniuses movies. Of course, the animated Rugrats movies each made significantly more money than the Baby Geniuses movies, so anyone who’d actually take on this idea is an idiot. The Herculoids - I really don’t care if they make it all CGI, mixed CGI/live-action, all 2D animation, or what; all I care about is that I get to see Tundro on the big screen one day before I die. Back when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time, I thought the triceratops was really lame. But it wasn’t because it was obviously animatronic. It was because it couldn’t shoot rocks out of its horn like Tundro. The rest of the Herculoids, especially Igoo and Gloop & Gleep, would also be awesome to see in a movie. In fact, to be honest, I mostly just made this list in order to profess my desire for a Herculoids movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:00:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/11/2008 2:00:51 PMI don’t know what is the worse idea, an all-CGI 3-D Smurfs movie, as Paramount had planned, or a CGI/live-action mix, as Sony Animation is now planning for our beloved blue communists friends. I guess if we only think back to Alvin and the Chipmunks and Underdog, it’s easy to think Sony’s new plan for The Smurfs is a terrible idea. But I think the second Scooby-Doo movie worked pretty well as far as cartoon adaptations go, and there’s a chance Hollywood could do a good job again, despite the majority (including Garfield: The Movie, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, the first Scooby-Doo) being on the bad side. That said, I’m still no fan of the trend. However, if it must continue, I think it would be interesting to see any of the following 15 animated series, all of which feature the necessary mix of talking animals (or inanimate objects) and humans, turned into live-action movies with CGI characters: The Yogi Bear Show - I feel it’s inevitable that we’ll be seeing this one soon enough. And if Hollywood is feeling lazy enough, the plot can be a remake of the animated feature Hey There, It’s Yogi Bear! Steve Carell will play Ranger Smith, of course. Help!…It’s the Hair Bear Bunch! - Few people remember this Yogi Bear-like series starring three hippie bears, one of whom had a straggly afro. The movie would involve the usual plot in which the bears escape from the zoo and are chased by the human zoo-keeper and his fat assistant. I’d love to see the sweet production design that goes into the bear’s bachelor pad cave. And aside from the fact that CGI bears would make the invisible motorcycle easier to work with, live-action bears have been proven to be a much worse idea (see The Country Bears). The Great Grape Ape Show - This would be kinda like Peter Jackson’s King Kong, only without the intention of making the CGI look realistic. I’m not sure what the plot would be, but going with the King Kong idea, they could probably just have Grape Ape and Beagle Beagle visit New York (or another city) to allow for plenty of accidental destruction (isn’t that the only reason Transformers‘ last act was in a city?). Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a caveman instead of a talking dog. They could probably just have a guy dressed up in a very hairy costume for the prehistoric superhero, but as long as CGI characters are bringing Hollywood so much dough, they might as well render him on a computer, too. Speed Buggy - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with a talking car instead of a talking dog. And I bet audiences will be more comfortable with a CGI talking car than with a CGI talking dog. Dynomutt, Dog Wonder - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with superheroes. Hey, I hear superheroes are big at the box office this century. Actually, I’m really, really surprised we haven’t heard about this one yet. Jabberjaw - It’s like Scooby-Doo but with…. wait, I’m starting to see that most of these Hanna Barbera cartoons are a lot alike. But even more than Scooby-Doo, this would be like the live-action Josie and the Pussycats, except with the benefit of having a CGI shark who plays drums for the group. Because most of the action would take place under the sea, there’s a good chance this would be too expensive to produce. Fangface - It’s like Scooby-Doo but not made by Hanna Barbera (however, it was produced by Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, who also created Captain Caveman, Jabberjaw, Dynomutt and others on this list). Instead of a talking dog, here one of the mystery-solving teens is a werewolf. And despite everyone’s love for Lon Chaney Jr. and the Teen Wolf movies, Hollywood can rarely make a werewolf these days without CGI. It’s Punky Brewster - They could always just base a movie off the original sitcom (though I doubt they ever would), but wouldn’t it be much cuter if there was a CGI character? Fortunately the cartoon series had that leprechaun-gopher thing named “Glomer.” Snorks - I guess there were no humans in this cartoon, but knowing Hollywood’s ability to mess with things, some could surely be added. Either the Snorks somehow venture out of the sea or a friendly scuba diving kid finds them. Though for the latter, the budget could be too high. I wonder if the Snorks could survive out of water… Ghostbusters - Would be allowed for there to be a feature film version of Filmation’s Ghostbusters — you know, the one that wasn’t based on the REAL Ghostbusters? The one that was actually based on a TV series that came before the movie Ghostbusters? Hmm. I guess this one should really go in the list of live-action series calling for CGI/live-action treatment (like ALF…) The Archie Show - Obviously this one could be completely live-action. But that’s no fun. And that TV movie from 1990 was extremely disappointing. Solution: CGI Jughead! Rainbow Brite - Hey, I really liked Rainbow Brite when I was a kid. Is that OK to admit yet? I may have even wanted a plush toy of Twink. Or maybe I did have a plush toy of Twink. Either way, I’d be the first heterosexual male in line at the theater for this one. Rugrats - This one will only be kinda CGI. It can star real kids with CGI mouths, like what they do with animals in the Babe and Dr. Dolittle movies. Oh yeah, and what they do with babies in the Baby Geniuses movies. Of course, the animated Rugrats movies each made significantly more money than the Baby Geniuses movies, so anyone who’d actually take on this idea is an idiot. The Herculoids - I really don’t care if they make it all CGI, mixed CGI/live-action, all 2D animation, or what; all I care about is that I get to see Tundro on the big screen one day before I die. Back when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time, I thought the triceratops was really lame. But it wasn’t because it was obviously animatronic. It was because it couldn’t shoot rocks out of its horn like Tundro. The rest of the Herculoids, especially Igoo and Gloop & Gleep, would also be awesome to see in a movie. In fact, to be honest, I mostly just made this list in order to profess my desire for a Herculoids movie. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/kickstandsup/archive/2007/12/18/22945.aspx Post By: kickstandsup
Post To: kickstandsup Blog
Post Date: 12/18/2007 11:45:21 PM
Body: King Kong movie was.... interesting... Special effects, especially when the big ape fought the T-Rex's - incredible... The story line pretty much followed the original movie. Jack Black did a good job and the movie entertained me for the entire movie. If you have an adversion for heights, the ending of the movie can make ya a little bit queazy.. You know the feeling you get when you are on a roller coaster and you are lifted a little bit out of your seat? Some of the slips on the top of the building gave me a similar feeling.Not a bad flick, glad I did not pay full price in the theatre, but would rent on DVD.
]]>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:45:21 GMTkickstandsupkickstandsup Blog12/18/2007 11:45:21 PMKing Kong movie was.... interesting... Special effects, especially when the big ape fought the T-Rex&#39;s - incredible... The story line pretty much followed the original movie. Jack Black did a good job and the movie entertained me for the entire movie. If you have an adversion for heights, the ending of the movie can make ya a little bit queazy.. You know the feeling you get when you are on a roller coaster and you are lifted a little bit out of your seat? Some of the slips on the top of the building gave me a similar feeling.Not a bad flick, glad I did not pay full price in the theatre, but would rent on DVD. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/12/14/22822.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/14/2007 1:00:37 PM
Body: Eventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively. Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples. Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:00:37 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/14/2007 1:00:37 PMEventually Hollywood will learn it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars on a B-movie. It may just take awhile. But if the road towards re-education didn’t begin with Grindhouse, it will possibly start with Roland Emmerich’s 10,000 B.C., the trailer to which is now available courtesy of CHUD.com. The $75,000,000 movie follows a tradition of cheesy Saturday afternoon flicks like 1940’s One Million B.C. and its 1966 remake One Million Years B.C. Of course, back then the B.C. stood for “before computer (effects)” and featured the spectacular — and silly, maybe — visual effects of Roy Seawright and Ray Harryhausen, respectively. Sure, in terms of effects and spectacle, 10,000 B.C. looks cool, just as Emmerich’s The Day After Tomorrow looked cool, but it also has the potential of being unintentionally funny, in the same way the primitive people in Battlefield Earth came off as ridiculous. Emmerich may as well have put in dinosaurs, despite the historical inaccuracy, because this isn’t the kind of movie to be taken seriously, anyway. The one thing the movie may have going for it is it’s combination of historical epics like Alexander with fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings, which gave us its own mammoth-like creatures. I just imagine the story being nowhere near as believable as either one of those examples. Anyway, if attempts to make big-budget B-movies didn’t work for Tim Burton (Mars Attacks!), Peter Jackson (King Kong) or Tarantino and Rodriguez (Grindhouse), could it really work for the guy who already failed such an attempt with Godzilla? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Directors/Re_Re_Re_Re_Total_Film_s_Greatest_Directors_Ever/406/21603/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: Directors
Post Date: 11/11/2007 3:58:03 PM
Body: Ok. Here I am, late to the party as usuall! I was pleasantly surprised by this 'Total Films' list. I was pleased to see ALMOST all of my favorite Horror Movie directors represented! Carpenter, DePalma, Romero, Kubrick, Raimi, HITCHCOCK, Hawks, Siegel, Tarantino, Freidkin et al. I like all the films of Shyamalan, most notably 'Signs', and I think his spot on the list is well deserved. Most noteably missing are Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper.... but then what else would you expect coming from me? .... Anyhow, I was VERY pleasantly surprised to see Peter Jackson at number 9! This is a well deserved honor for this underestimated little director from New Zealand! I thought 'King Kong' was a failure but I saw that coming a mile away! You can NOT remake a 'masterpiece' and expect it to be better than the original! When will these guys figure this out? And if you dismiss his earlier, splattery 'gore-fests', or exploitation fare like 'Heavenly Creatures', you are left with only one thing... "The Lord Of The Rings" ! I am pleased to see that I am not the only one to propel Mr. Jackson right to the front of my 'favorite directors' list based ONLY on the magnificent job he did of bringing this trilogy to life! Also, I was sad to see the 'Italian-Horror' genre all but unmetioned... I think Argento could have made the list, at least...
]]>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:58:03 GMTDr_GorDirectors11/11/2007 3:58:03 PM Ok. Here I am, late to the party as usuall! I was pleasantly surprised by this &#39;Total Films&#39; list. I was pleased to see ALMOST all of my favorite Horror Movie directors represented! Carpenter, DePalma, Romero, Kubrick, Raimi, HITCHCOCK, Hawks, Siegel, Tarantino, Freidkin et al. I like all the films of Shyamalan, most notably &#39;Signs&#39;, and I think his spot on the list is well deserved. Most noteably missing are Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper.... but then what else would you expect coming from me? .... Anyhow, I was VERY pleasantly surprised to see Peter Jackson at number 9! This is a well deserved honor for this underestimated little director from New Zealand! I thought &#39;King Kong&#39; was a failure but I saw that coming a mile away! You can NOT remake a &#39;masterpiece&#39; and expect it to be better than the original! When will these guys figure this out? And if you dismiss his earlier, splattery &#39;gore-fests&#39;, or exploitation fare like &#39;Heavenly Creatures&#39;, you are left with only one thing... "The Lord Of The Rings" ! I am pleased to see that I am not the only one to propel Mr. Jackson right to the front of my &#39;favorite directors&#39; list based ONLY on the magnificent job he did of bringing this trilogy to life! Also, I was sad to see the &#39;Italian-Horror&#39; genre all but unmetioned... I think Argento could have made the list, at least... http://www.spout.com/groups/Directors/Directors_and_remakes/406/18758/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: Directors
Post Date: 8/25/2007 2:50:00 PM
Body: Over on the Top 5 group, tmoney mentioned the forthcoming remake of 3:10 to Yuma in one of his contributions to the Westerns thread. This got me thinking about other directors who have, seemingly at least, chosen to cash in their chips from a particularly good year or stretch of years on a remake. In this case it looks as if James Mangold is turning Walk the Line around into 3:10 to Yuma. I also thought of Peter Jackson and King Kong, Gus Van Sant and Psycho, and Steven Soderbergh and Ocean's 11. This got me wondering if there are other examples of filmmakers choosing this path, and, if so, who and what was the film, and also why a director might choose to do this. Remakes are, more often than not, greeted with growns and skepticism, even though the record is actually mixed (Soderbergh's Ocean's 11, for example, is a much better film than the original, which is almost painfully bad and boring). But, given the widespread perception that remakes are jokes or wrong somehow, what is the attraction for the filmmaker?
]]>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:50:00 GMTShaunHustonDirectors8/25/2007 2:50:00 PMOver on the Top 5 group, tmoney mentioned the forthcoming remake of 3:10 to Yuma in one of his contributions to the Westerns thread. This got me thinking about other directors who have, seemingly at least, chosen to cash in their chips from a particularly good year or stretch of years on a remake. In this case it looks as if James Mangold is turning Walk the Line around into 3:10 to Yuma. I also thought of Peter Jackson and King Kong, Gus Van Sant and Psycho, and Steven Soderbergh and Ocean&#39;s 11. This got me wondering if there are other examples of filmmakers choosing this path, and, if so, who and what was the film, and also why a director might choose to do this. Remakes are, more often than not, greeted with growns and skepticism, even though the record is actually mixed (Soderbergh&#39;s Ocean&#39;s 11, for example, is a much better film than the original, which is almost painfully bad and boring). But, given the widespread perception that remakes are jokes or wrong somehow, what is the attraction for the filmmaker? http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebabe/archive/2007/7/18/15222.aspx Post By: MovieBabe
Post To: MovieBabe Blog
Post Date: 7/18/2007 5:09:00 PM
Body: By Tricia Olszewski When an ape loves a woman, it turns out that he likes to woo the object of his affection the same way upright-walkin’ dudes do—the more sensitive ones, anyway. The beast will cuddle up to his sweetie and peacefully enjoy the sunset. Or gaze into her eyes in the middle of a quiet, snow-dusted street. And when the animal gets confused and frustrated while gallantly trying to walk on ice with her in his arms, he will just fall down and start gliding in circles with his girl, both giggling—yes, giggling—the whole time. At least that’s how it goes in the Hobbit King’s mind. And goes and goes—for 187 minutes, Peter Jackson's King Kong is nearly double the length of the 1933 original. How did Jackson and co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens stretch Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace’s relatively simple story to such epic proportions? Well, the movie is first a smaller-scale Titanic, then a ballsier Jurassic Park—and that’s before the monkey business even gets going. Anybody whining about the quickly spread fact that it takes more than an hour for the breathtaking Kong to appear should be grateful for the leisurely introduction—because once the astounding action starts, it doesn’t let up for a long, long time. The story still begins in 1933 New York, where the Depression has put vaudeville performer Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) out of work. As she’s contemplating a career change outside a burlesque house, a nutty, opportunistic, Orson Welles–esque film director, Carl Denham (a perfectly cartoonish Jack Black), decides that Ann is the right woman to replace the actress who ditched him for an upcoming overseas shoot. (Requirements: pretty face, size 4. “Fay’s a size 4!” Carl blurts, one of Kong’s many winks to the original.) Soon enough, they’re off on a rickety ship to Carl-Knows-Where—and quickly, to avoid the producers who want Carl’s head for wasting their money on an earlier movie. The cranky captain (Thomas Kretschmann) eventually tires of Carl’s vague directives and decides to take the ship home in the dark and fog. But before he can, a crew member cries, “Wall! There’s a wall ahead!” and Phase I of the mayhem begins. Only Celine Dion is missing from Jackson’s depiction of angry waves, tossing about, and general chaos. It’s difficult to discuss what awaits the crew on Skull Island without sounding like a drooling fangirl. The island: a magnificent ruin, its high walls embedded with skeletons. The natives: mobs of The Serpent and the Rainbow zombies, eyes red or rolled right back in their heads, with stringy hair and a taste for human flesh. The sequence in which they attack Carl & Co. during a rainstorm and chase them back to the battered boat is its own little horror movie, and it’s only a hint of what the survivors will face after the fair Ann is offered to Kong. Jackson has claimed that the 1933 Kong was his favorite movie as a kid and that faithfulness to it was his paramount concern—he even obtained models and storyboards from the original, the latter of which were used to re-create the legendary lost giant-spider sequence. But with more than 70 years’ worth of new technology at his disposal, he inevitably made something bigger, scarier, and more spectacular in every way. Kong, unlike his goofy-faced predecessor, is a terrifically realistic being, with discernible expressions (provided by Jackson’s Gollum, Andy Serkis) and a roar that will rattle your seat. But even more frightening are the island’s dinosaurs, whose attacks on the crew are incessant and heart-pounding. Throughout, Lord of the Rings cinematographer Andrew Lesnie alternates between foggy pall and vivid jungle, the latter lit by brilliant orange-pink skies. Given all the aces CGI, it’s surprising that there are a few green-screen scenes that look terribly cheesy, especially when an actor is running parallel to a digital monster. Another quibble is the slo-mo Jackson sometimes uses to needlessly emphasize the drama. Even if the gesture is intended to slyly remind us that we’re watching a reportedly $207 million B-movie, it’s annoying. And following a middle chapter of relentless action, the gooey love stuff that occurs after Kong busts out on Broadway sure takes steam out of this juggernaut—really, when a film’s closing in on its third hour, the audience could probably do without the Beauty/Beast romantic turn around an ice rink. It might be letting Jackson off a little easy to say that he’s merely tweaking cinematic convention. But the story’s tragic end is supposed to be boo-hooey sap, which the filmmakers emphasize by giving Ann a nasty case of Stockholm syndrome and having her reciprocate Kong’s love. But call me fangirl. Besides, the film’s gushy mood shift—which, come to think of it, also ends in a very Titanic way—is small penance for all the stunning stuff that comes before. Jackson clearly made his King Kong with geeked-out love and childlike wonder, and the result is by far the best action movie of the year. The burden the men of Brokeback Mountain carry can be summarized with this terse exchange, which takes place the morning after a freezing night that forced them to share a tent: “You know I ain’t queer.” “Me neither.” The big flaw—or perhaps it’s just a mainstreaming tactic—in Ang Lee’s basically enjoyable film is that before the first instance of frantic unbuckling, you’d believe those statements to be absolutely true. Indeed, even if you know the gist of E. Annie Proulx’s short story (here adapted by Lonesome Dove writer Larry McMurtry and longtime collaborator Diana Ossana), the clues that Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) are interested in each other are verrry subtle. The way they fidget and exchange sideways glances when they’re first hired, maybe. Or Jack’s watching Ennis walk away in his truck’s rearview mirror. And then there’s the time at the guys’ mountaintop camp when Ennis undresses to bathe and Jack steadfastly keeps his eyes averted. But these are cowboys we’re talking about, and some viewers may see the above as simply the way men of few words size each other up or avoid looking at another guy’s prairie. It’s at least clear that over the course of their sheep-herding summer of 1963, goofy Jack and reticent Ennis do develop a sort of friendship, which mostly involves complaining about their steady diet of beans and occasionally wrestling in the grass. When the job ends, the cowboys part ways with barely a nod, with Ennis, a ranch hand by trade, off to marry his fiancée, Alma (Michelle Williams), and settle down in Wyoming. Jack, a rodeo cowboy, returns to Texas, where he meets his future wife, feisty rodeo queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway). Four years and two screaming new Del Mars later, Ennis receives a postcard from Jack asking to visit. When the men once again lay eyes on each other outside Ennis’ home, passion takes over—with Ennis foolishly embracing Jack within Alma’s view. She says nothing as the pair go off on a “fishing trip.” She says nothing when they return. This scenario repeats over the next 20 years, and another of Brokeback’s flaws is how quickly this period whizzes by, with Lee giving little indication of the years passing besides the number of kids around and the style of the wives’ hair. And if you don’t buy the allegedly deep love that was set up in the opening scenes, the men’s decadeslong affair never seems as intense as it’s supposed to. At least not until the later years, when the warm-eyed, puppyish Jack begins suggesting—and then pleading—that he and Ennis set up household in the mountains and quit their loveless lives. Ennis, however, is against it—probably because when he was a kid, his father made him view the body of a gay-bashing victim. Lee’s lackadaisical direction doesn’t sink the movie, however. The script is both heartbreaking and funny, often at the expense of Ennis. (When a supermarket clerk tells him that he can find his wife in the condiments aisle, he responds, “The whuut?”) And cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto makes Brokeback a beauty, especially in the opening scenes of strange mint-green hills and swirled pastel skies that look painted by Michelangelo. The landscape provides a metaphor, of course, with the openness of the country standing in sharp contrast to the restrictive suburbia that Ennis hides in. But it’s in his cramped trailer—filled with a couple who barely talk and the kids they can barely support—that the film finds its truest and most gut-wrenching emotion. The biggest reason the Del Mars’ marriage seems the only genuine relationship in the film is because of Ledger’s and Williams’ career-making performances. Squinting under an ever-present hat and speaking with the low, wearied grumble of a man twice his age, Ledger’s Ennis is stoic and closed-off, offering only occasional hints of the head-on collision smashing in his guts. And Dawson’s Creek vet Williams is devastating as a wife who quietly carries the burden of the truth her husband won’t tell her. A love story in which you can’t feel the love might sound like a dismal failure, but in Brokeback Mountain’s case, it ain’t.
]]>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:09:00 GMTMovieBabeMovieBabe Blog7/18/2007 5:09:00 PM By Tricia Olszewski When an ape loves a woman, it turns out that he likes to woo the object of his affection the same way upright-walkin&rsquo; dudes do&mdash;the more sensitive ones, anyway. The beast will cuddle up to his sweetie and peacefully enjoy the sunset. Or gaze into her eyes in the middle of a quiet, snow-dusted street. And when the animal gets confused and frustrated while gallantly trying to walk on ice with her in his arms, he will just fall down and start gliding in circles with his girl, both giggling&mdash;yes, giggling&mdash;the whole time. At least that&rsquo;s how it goes in the Hobbit King&rsquo;s mind. And goes and goes&mdash;for 187 minutes, Peter Jackson&#39;s King Kong is nearly double the length of the 1933 original. How did Jackson and co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens stretch Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace&rsquo;s relatively simple story to such epic proportions? Well, the movie is first a smaller-scale Titanic, then a ballsier Jurassic Park&mdash;and that&rsquo;s before the monkey business even gets going. Anybody whining about the quickly spread fact that it takes more than an hour for the breathtaking Kong to appear should be grateful for the leisurely introduction&mdash;because once the astounding action starts, it doesn&rsquo;t let up for a long, long time. The story still begins in 1933 New York, where the Depression has put vaudeville performer Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) out of work. As she&rsquo;s contemplating a career change outside a burlesque house, a nutty, opportunistic, Orson Welles&ndash;esque film director, Carl Denham (a perfectly cartoonish Jack Black), decides that Ann is the right woman to replace the actress who ditched him for an upcoming overseas shoot. (Requirements: pretty face, size 4. &ldquo;Fay&rsquo;s a size 4!&rdquo; Carl blurts, one of Kong&rsquo;s many winks to the original.) Soon enough, they&rsquo;re off on a rickety ship to Carl-Knows-Where&mdash;and quickly, to avoid the producers who want Carl&rsquo;s head for wasting their money on an earlier movie. The cranky captain (Thomas Kretschmann) eventually tires of Carl&rsquo;s vague directives and decides to take the ship home in the dark and fog. But before he can, a crew member cries, &ldquo;Wall! There&rsquo;s a wall ahead!&rdquo; and Phase I of the mayhem begins. Only Celine Dion is missing from Jackson&rsquo;s depiction of angry waves, tossing about, and general chaos. It&rsquo;s difficult to discuss what awaits the crew on Skull Island without sounding like a drooling fangirl. The island: a magnificent ruin, its high walls embedded with skeletons. The natives: mobs of The Serpent and the Rainbow zombies, eyes red or rolled right back in their heads, with stringy hair and a taste for human flesh. The sequence in which they attack Carl &amp; Co. during a rainstorm and chase them back to the battered boat is its own little horror movie, and it&rsquo;s only a hint of what the survivors will face after the fair Ann is offered to Kong. Jackson has claimed that the 1933 Kong was his favorite movie as a kid and that faithfulness to it was his paramount concern&mdash;he even obtained models and storyboards from the original, the latter of which were used to re-create the legendary lost giant-spider sequence. But with more than 70 years&rsquo; worth of new technology at his disposal, he inevitably made something bigger, scarier, and more spectacular in every way. Kong, unlike his goofy-faced predecessor, is a terrifically realistic being, with discernible expressions (provided by Jackson&rsquo;s Gollum, Andy Serkis) and a roar that will rattle your seat. But even more frightening are the island&rsquo;s dinosaurs, whose attacks on the crew are incessant and heart-pounding. Throughout, Lord of the Rings cinematographer Andrew Lesnie alternates between foggy pall and vivid jungle, the latter lit by brilliant orange-pink skies. Given all the aces CGI, it&rsquo;s surprising that there are a few green-screen scenes that look terribly cheesy, especially when an actor is running parallel to a digital monster. Another quibble is the slo-mo Jackson sometimes uses to needlessly emphasize the drama. Even if the gesture is intended to slyly remind us that we&rsquo;re watching a reportedly $207 million B-movie, it&rsquo;s annoying. And following a middle chapter of relentless action, the gooey love stuff that occurs after Kong busts out on Broadway sure takes steam out of this juggernaut&mdash;really, when a film&rsquo;s closing in on its third hour, the audience could probably do without the Beauty/Beast romantic turn around an ice rink. It might be letting Jackson off a little easy to say that he&rsquo;s merely tweaking cinematic convention. But the story&rsquo;s tragic end is supposed to be boo-hooey sap, which the filmmakers emphasize by giving Ann a nasty case of Stockholm syndrome and having her reciprocate Kong&rsquo;s love. But call me fangirl. Besides, the film&rsquo;s gushy mood shift&mdash;which, come to think of it, also ends in a very Titanic way&mdash;is small penance for all the stunning stuff that comes before. Jackson clearly made his King Kong with geeked-out love and childlike wonder, and the result is by far the best action movie of the year. The burden the men of Brokeback Mountain carry can be summarized with this terse exchange, which takes place the morning after a freezing night that forced them to share a tent: &ldquo;You know I ain&rsquo;t queer.&rdquo; &ldquo;Me neither.&rdquo; The big flaw&mdash;or perhaps it&rsquo;s just a mainstreaming tactic&mdash;in Ang Lee&rsquo;s basically enjoyable film is that before the first instance of frantic unbuckling, you&rsquo;d believe those statements to be absolutely true. Indeed, even if you know the gist of E. Annie Proulx&rsquo;s short story (here adapted by Lonesome Dove writer Larry McMurtry and longtime collaborator Diana Ossana), the clues that Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) are interested in each other are verrry subtle. The way they fidget and exchange sideways glances when they&rsquo;re first hired, maybe. Or Jack&rsquo;s watching Ennis walk away in his truck&rsquo;s rearview mirror. And then there&rsquo;s the time at the guys&rsquo; mountaintop camp when Ennis undresses to bathe and Jack steadfastly keeps his eyes averted. But these are cowboys we&rsquo;re talking about, and some viewers may see the above as simply the way men of few words size each other up or avoid looking at another guy&rsquo;s prairie. It&rsquo;s at least clear that over the course of their sheep-herding summer of 1963, goofy Jack and reticent Ennis do develop a sort of friendship, which mostly involves complaining about their steady diet of beans and occasionally wrestling in the grass. When the job ends, the cowboys part ways with barely a nod, with Ennis, a ranch hand by trade, off to marry his fianc&eacute;e, Alma (Michelle Williams), and settle down in Wyoming. Jack, a rodeo cowboy, returns to Texas, where he meets his future wife, feisty rodeo queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway). Four years and two screaming new Del Mars later, Ennis receives a postcard from Jack asking to visit. When the men once again lay eyes on each other outside Ennis&rsquo; home, passion takes over&mdash;with Ennis foolishly embracing Jack within Alma&rsquo;s view. She says nothing as the pair go off on a &ldquo;fishing trip.&rdquo; She says nothing when they return. This scenario repeats over the next 20 years, and another of Brokeback&rsquo;s flaws is how quickly this period whizzes by, with Lee giving little indication of the years passing besides the number of kids around and the style of the wives&rsquo; hair. And if you don&rsquo;t buy the allegedly deep love that was set up in the opening scenes, the men&rsquo;s decadeslong affair never seems as intense as it&rsquo;s supposed to. At least not until the later years, when the warm-eyed, puppyish Jack begins suggesting&mdash;and then pleading&mdash;that he and Ennis set up household in the mountains and quit their loveless lives. Ennis, however, is against it&mdash;probably because when he was a kid, his father made him view the body of a gay-bashing victim. Lee&rsquo;s lackadaisical direction doesn&rsquo;t sink the movie, however. The script is both heartbreaking and funny, often at the expense of Ennis. (When a supermarket clerk tells him that he can find his wife in the condiments aisle, he responds, &ldquo;The whuut?&rdquo;) And cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto makes Brokeback a beauty, especially in the opening scenes of strange mint-green hills and swirled pastel skies that look painted by Michelangelo. The landscape provides a metaphor, of course, with the openness of the country standing in sharp contrast to the restrictive suburbia that Ennis hides in. But it&rsquo;s in his cramped trailer&mdash;filled with a couple who barely talk and the kids they can barely support&mdash;that the film finds its truest and most gut-wrenching emotion. The biggest reason the Del Mars&rsquo; marriage seems the only genuine relationship in the film is because of Ledger&rsquo;s and Williams&rsquo; career-making performances. Squinting under an ever-present hat and speaking with the low, wearied grumble of a man twice his age, Ledger&rsquo;s Ennis is stoic and closed-off, offering only occasional hints of the head-on collision smashing in his guts. And Dawson&rsquo;s Creek vet Williams is devastating as a wife who quietly carries the burden of the truth her husband won&rsquo;t tell her. A love story in which you can&rsquo;t feel the love might sound like a dismal failure, but in Brokeback Mountain&rsquo;s case, it ain&rsquo;t. http://www.spout.com/blogs/indianagirl/archive/2007/3/4/6008.aspx Post By: Indianagirl
Post To: Indianagirl Blog
Post Date: 3/4/2007 1:50:00 AM
Body: I have to say this has to be the saddest,most depressing movie that I have ever seen. I mean, they go to his homeland,capture him and continue to torture him, all because he thinks he's procecting the only thing he's ever loved. This movie is definatly not for the soft hearted. I wanted to cry the entire time. I could'nt even finish watching it. I thought the movie was well made & had great effects but was just TOOOO SAD for me!!!
]]>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:50:00 GMTIndianagirlIndianagirl Blog3/4/2007 1:50:00 AMI have to say this has to be the saddest,most depressing movie that I have ever seen. I mean, they go to his homeland,capture him and continue to torture him, all because he thinks he&#39;s procecting the only thing he&#39;s ever loved. This movie is definatly not for the soft hearted. I wanted to cry the entire time. I could&#39;nt even finish watching it. I thought the movie was well made &amp; had great effects but was just TOOOO SAD for me!!! http://www.spout.com/blogs/slipofthetongue/archive/2007/2/25/5768.aspx Post By: slipofthetongue
Post To: SlipOfTheTongue Blog
Post Date: 2/25/2007 1:05:00 AM
Body: It sucks being a guy.  They bite you, shoot at you, gas you, knock you down, strangle you, tear at your flesh and finally shoot at you again (this time causing you to fall off a tall building), all while you are trying to protect your girlfriend!  How f***'d up and belligerant a world we must live in for mankind to create this movie about a giant gorilla with whom we must empathize because most of the human race is so opportunistic and knee jerk violent.  Jackson's remake can be thrilling but unfortunately here are the drawbacks...too long, too bloated, too much CGI, feels like a Universal Studios ride.  Not enough grace.  Not enough wit.  Not enough artistry.  Not enough true scares.  Jack Black is the wrong note.  Really wrong.  Mealy mouthed writer as our only human protagonist?  I like Adrian Brody, but are we really supposed to root for this character? However...here are the positives.  Depression era Manhattan glows.  It's beautiful.  There are some good scares.  And the chemistry between a CG Kong and Naomi Watts is at times genuinely moving...the heart of a movie that is really only about one thing...how the world can crush your dreams and tear you and your loved ones apart (metaphorically speaking).  If only the artistry on display in the love scenes between Watts and Kong could be found in the rest of the film, then we'd have ourselves a real picture!
]]>Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:05:00 GMTslipofthetongueSlipOfTheTongue Blog2/25/2007 1:05:00 AMIt sucks being a guy.  They bite you, shoot at you, gas you, knock you down, strangle you, tear at your flesh and finally shoot at you again (this time causing you to fall off a tall building), all while you are trying to protect your girlfriend!  How f***&#39;d up and belligerant a world we must live in for mankind to create this movie about a giant gorilla with whom we must empathize because most of the human race is so opportunistic and knee jerk violent.  Jackson&#39;s remake can be thrilling but unfortunately here are the drawbacks...too long, too bloated, too much CGI, feels like a Universal Studios ride.  Not enough grace.  Not enough wit.  Not enough artistry.  Not enough true scares.  Jack Black is the wrong note.  Really wrong.  Mealy mouthed writer as our only human protagonist?  I like Adrian Brody, but are we really supposed to root for this character? However...here are the positives.  Depression era Manhattan glows.  It&#39;s beautiful.  There are some good scares.  And the chemistry between a CG Kong and Naomi Watts is at times genuinely moving...the heart of a movie that is really only about one thing...how the world can crush your dreams and tear you and your loved ones apart (metaphorically speaking).  If only the artistry on display in the love scenes between Watts and Kong could be found in the rest of the film, then we&#39;d have ourselves a real picture! http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 258

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 415

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:42:06 GMT258149415Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 363

Number of people who tagged: 114

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:09:46 GMT363114187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/it/MemberTagFilms.aspxit
Number of films tagged: 101

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 117

]]>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:42:42 GMT101106117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/remake/MemberTagFilms.aspxremake
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 203

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:13:01 GMT15571203Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/racism/MemberTagFilms.aspxracism
Number of films tagged: 800

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 136

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT80069136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romantic/MemberTagFilms.aspxromantic
Number of films tagged: 84

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 113

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:24:01 GMT8466113Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/epic/MemberTagFilms.aspxepic
Number of films tagged: 62

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 103

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:03:00 GMT6258103Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/depressing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdepressing
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 74

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT554574Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/writer/MemberTagFilms.aspxwriter
Number of films tagged: 869

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 89

]]>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:37:08 GMT8694189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/touching/MemberTagFilms.aspxtouching
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 110

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:29 GMT8736110Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/long/MemberTagFilms.aspxlong
Number of films tagged: 53

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 62

]]>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:10:04 GMT533562Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/island/MemberTagFilms.aspxisland
Number of films tagged: 1021

Number of people who tagged: 34

Number of times used: 74

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:54:50 GMT10213474Tag