DVDizzy Forum

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

castleinthesky wrote:Two of your protecorates:Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
Walk the Line

I won't comment to much, but I will say that those are wrong.

As much as I loved Walk The Line, it has already won a survivor, so I feel it's done well enough. I was also never a huge fan of Corpse Bride, so I don't know where you got that idea.

He probably thinks I'm protecting Corpse Bride because it's a Tim Burton movie, and I loved both Nightmare and Charlie. But not this time. It was good, but not that good.

I definately don't think Howl's Moving Castle is as great a movie as CastleInTheSky says it is. It didn't even make my top 10 of 2005, which can be viewed in the screening log in a couple of minutes.

Prince Eric wrote:I definately don't think Howl's Moving Castle is as great a movie as CastleInTheSky says it is.

Yeah, you definately don't.

Since I'm bored, here are only 10 reasons why Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith was better than King Kong(or King Krap as I like to call it).

1. The point

Many of those people like to say, "Oh the Star Wars prequels had no point". YES THEY DID!!! They were well-thought out films that taught us how Anikan went to the dark-side. King Kong just told us the same boring story over again. Tell me, which story had more point?

2. The Acting

I will continue to argue in this, I will just say that I believe EVERY actor in Sith played a decent performance. Yes even Hayden. Sure he was whiney, BUT THAT WAS HIS CHARACTER.

None of those could compare to Jack Black. Most of the time he felt like he was reading off of note-cards and said lines like he was ready to go to his trailer. The other guys were pretty unimpressive as well.

3. The Lengh

Diss Lucas all you can want, but NOBODY can deny he's a great editor. Jackson NEEDS to edit his films. I could name a useless 120 minutes in that film!

4. Character Development

Star Wars used all of it's characters. KK used 15 mintues to introduce characters that WEREN'T EVEN IN THE FILM FOR THE FINAL 2/3rds!

5. The Story

King Kong was a mediocre adaptation of something done better in 1933. Star Wars was a creative film done to create a more creative story.

6. The special effects

Once again, YOU CAN'T deny Lucas for making great special effects. I can't name one bad effect in Sith.

In King Kong, when they were trying to land the boat, YOU COULD TELL THOSE HUMANS WERE PASTED ON THERE! Also what about those lame dinosaurs. They looked MUCH MUCH MUCH better in a film made 12 YEARS ago!

7. The impact

I believe people will remember each Star Wars film as time goes on. Who's going to remember those lame King Kong remakes?

8. The voices

General Grevious has a MUCH cooler voice than Kong.

9. The Music

John Williams made an incredible memorable yet powerful score.

I can't even remember the King Kong music, of course part of the reason was because I was hoping they'd kill the gorilla.

10. King Kong got good reviews only because it was directed by a famous director. Frankly if it was directed by somebody else, EVERYBODY would hate that terrible bore-fest.

Okay, I'm glad I got that out!

I guess you're expecting someone to respond, so I'll just post a simple message, you're wrong. Nothing made sense to me, so I'll just continue holding my opinion in high regard.

Prince Eric wrote:I guess you're expecting someone to respond, so I'll just post a simple message, you're wrong. Nothing made sense to me, so I'll just continue holding my opinion in high regard.

The film had horrible special effects, bad acting, pointless story and nausiating battle scenes. Star Wars was better than King Kong in all of those elements I mentioned. What's not to understand?

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:I guess you're expecting someone to respond, so I'll just post a simple message, you're wrong. Nothing made sense to me, so I'll just continue holding my opinion in high regard.

The film had horrible special effects, bad acting, pointless story and nausiating battle scenes. Star Wars was better than King Kong in all of those elements I mentioned. What's not to understand?

I don't understand how you can call performances that consisted of two facial expressions for 120 minutes in anyway good. I don't see what was horrible about the King Kong special effects, they were no more contrived than those in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Oh, and what's more pointless than a story where the ending is already known to the audience? Even people back in the 80's thought another trilogy would be superfluous. End of arguement.

Prince Eric wrote:End of arguement.

Why? Because you're always right? Nah! I'll continue to fight til the end!

We might have known what was going to happen, but that was one of the greastest parts of Sith is that we finally saw scenes we only imagined. King Kong has been remade 20 times already, believe me, THERE WAS MUCH more point in Episode 3 than any of Peter Jackson's films ever will. Nobody hated Lucas' idea for a new trilogyin the 80's FYI, only so called "critics" who thought the first Star Wars was going to do poor at the box office did!

Two facial expressions? That is a lie. I saw that movie and there were certaintly more than just two facial expressions from all the actors. You're just being way too harsh. Besides, what about Jack Black. He was worse than any actor in Sith.

King Kong had horrible special effects as he lifted some of the effects right out of the Return of the King video game. Also I don't see how a close-up on CGI versions of the humans can be consider "good" effects.

End of arguement!

If you two have time to argue in this thread, why don't you have time to vote in my survivor game?

Whatever Timon/Pumba fan, I don't want to listen to anymore of your skewed opinions. I don't think either film can be considered a great one. At least I can go to bed at night knowing that I watch lots of movies and can discern good from bad.

I'll take Jack Blacks quirky characterizations over wooden acting anyday.

Prince Eric wrote:Whatever Timon/Pumba fan, I don't want to listen to anymore of your skewed opinions. I don't think either film can be considered a great one. At least I can go to bed at night knowing that I watch lots of movies and can discern good from bad.

Hey you were the one who wanted to aruge. I think in the end, you just wanted to insult me, but whatever we all have our own opinions and none of us can be "right". If you want to stop, we'll stop.

But I just want to fix a little error in your last post:

I'll take Jack Blacks lame acting, making it look REALLY obvious he was reading a note card over okay acting anyday.

I didn't want to argue. You were criticizing movies you have not seem, and that really needs to stop.

I don't know where that quote came from, but year, you're right, even if Jack Black's acting is "lame," I'd prefer it to the Star Wars dupes - even Natalie Portman says she viewed her roles in the movies as a joke and didn't feel like exerting herself, so funny!

Prince Eric wrote:I didn't want to argue. You were criticizing movies you have not seem, and that really needs to stop.

The only movie I was criticizing was "King Kong". I saw that film during my Christmas vacation and I had to chose from either that of "Cheaper By the Dozen 2". I would've walked out early, in fact I was planning on it, but I didn't as me, along with the rest of my family, had nothing better to do and I was afraid that when I came home, a certain UD member would say I wasn't quailified to judge the movie!

If you're referring to Brokeback and Howl, you're right, I never did see them, I have some negative info on their backrounds, but you're right, I never saw them, I admit it, but I never judged the films at all. In fact, I even edited my picks!

Prince Eric wrote:I don't know where that quote came from, but year, you're right, even if Jack Black's acting is "lame," I'd prefer it to the Star Wars dupes - even Natalie Portman says she viewed her roles in the movies as a joke and didn't feel like exerting herself, so funny!

1. I was joking so all I did was rewrite your quote!

2. Did Natalie Portman REALLY say that? Well if she did, I wouldn't be too surprised. She probably just prefers dramas and romance comedies instead of action "blockbusters" so she would've had the same experience if she was on "King Kong" or "The Lord of the Rings", so you could hardly blame Star Wars!

Look I'm not saying Christensen or Portman were "great". I though Ian was great, and Ewan McGregor and all the other actors were really good, but those two were probably slightly above averege at best.

But hey, they were not nearly as bad as you, and a few others, make them out to be, and for the "little" efforts they made, they were pretty good!

As for Black, I could tell he was "trying" but he ended up being lame. He was obviously rushing most of the time like he was ready to take a 20 minute break from shooting, and he said those classic lines so terrible, they could be made for comic relief. Not to mention it was completely unbelieveable and at time it looked like he was actually reading a giant card of what he was supposed to say. He did a MUCH MUCH MUCH WORSE job than any actor in Sith THAT'S for sure.

Memo to Peter Jackson- while you actually hire an editor for your next film, make sure to never use an actor who plays in alot of "B-rated" comedies to get most of your screen time in what's supposed to be a "action-drama".

BTW- It's a real shame we're argueing in the "Poll and Games" section! I could've gotten post counts with some of this good stuff I'm writing!

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:
BTW- It's a real shame we're argueing in the "Poll and Games" section! I could've gotten post counts with some of this good stuff I'm writing!

You? Writing good stuff? Oh, man, you got jokes! What a laugh. Thanks for bringing a smile to my face, so I guess we can call it a day.

Eric- Learn to read. My stuff is slightly more intellegent than you make me out to be.

BTW, criticize me all you want, but at least I don't diss all movies that are supposed to be fun and then rave about small movies that come from foreign countries that cost less than 1 million dollars to make that are directed by some director's name you can't pronounce.

Copyright goes to dvdJunkie as I stole a line I remember reading about Prince Eric

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:Eric- Learn to read. My stuff is slightly more intellegent than you make me out to be.

BTW, criticize me all you want, but at least I don't diss all movies that are supposed to be fun and then rave about small movies that come from foreign countries that cost less than 1 million dollars to make that are directed by some director's name you can't pronounce.

Copyright goes to dvdJunkie as I stole a line I remember reading about Prince Eric

DvdJunkie was referring to someone else. You must be describing someone else. Look at my top ten list, no foreign entries this year. Duh.

Prince Eric wrote: DvdJunkie was referring to someone else. You must be describing someone else. Look at my top ten list, no foreign entries this year. Duh.

Eric- Seriously, learn how to focus on someone's post. I said I copied 1 line from dvdjunkie! I didn't copy an ENTIRE statement!

Besides, I really forgot why we're argueing again. The overall point is that I think King Kong was terrible. I've seen it, so you can't say I haven't.

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was not my favorite film of all time. It was one of my favorites of the year though(Batman Begins is a close 2nd and another film I don't want to mention is a close 3rd). You seem to base everything on "art". Can't you see a film without basing it on what you divine "Entertainment Weekly" thinks? Can we/I call you "Entertainment Weekly's slave" as you do nothing but use opinions from that precious magazine? A shame you can't enjoy a fun "blockbuster" every once and a while since EW won't let you.

Oh and just for you, I've decided to write a brand new review:

"King Kong", not the 1933 movie, not the sequel, not the remake with Jeff Bridges, but the new one made by the hobbit director, is SO GREAT. Everything about it was SO great. Jack Black's facial expressions when saying lines like "It was Beauty Killed the Beast" was SO GREAT. The special effects were so great. I loved when the even had a close-up on the humans CGI FORM!!! They action scenes were SO GREAT! Even the BORING PARTS! I would love to gush about it more, but I'm getting bored, I would love to give King Kong a 10/10, but it's just SO great, it deserves MORE!

Are you happy now?

Again, haven't I said that I don't really think King Kong is a great movie? It's problematic, definately. I responded to your post becasue you initially referred to THREE movies as crap, two you had not seen, and then you started a tangent on King Kong, for whatever reason, I don't know. It's not like a first-class director is going to lose sleep because a devotee of George Lucas doesn't like his work.

Why does everyone automatically associate me with Entertainment Weekly? Our opinion differ significantly, even though I think the film criticism of both their staff critics is some of the best stuff in the nation. EW gave Batman Begins and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory "As," both films I did not particularly like. They also loved King Kong: I didn't. You seem to only read the posts I've written that suit your agenda. You seem to forget my defenses of the X-Men films and the occasional smart comedy. Trust me, I have my act together.

Boy's your bickering is getting old

Constant Gardener
Brokeback Mountain
Howl's Moving Castle