DVDizzy Forum

Where the Wild Things Are: I thought it was a pretty good movie. The story was solid, the acting (both live action and voice) was fantastic, and the cinematography was beautiful. I also applaud how they went with puppets and animatronics for the creatures rather than using CGi and calling it a day. It gave the creatures presence and your heart went out to them.

But my problem with the film is that at times it felt like it was being pretentious with the childhood life talk and was taking itself seriously. The movie was great when it was all about Max and the Wild Things enjoying themselves and having a great time. But the minute it tried to dive into serious psychological talk about growing up, the sun dying and such it lost a lot of charm.

Don't get me wrong its a good movie. But I felt that it tried hard to add substance to what would have been a simple movie. Having read about its trouble production I wish I had seen Eric Goldberg's version. Knowing him, it would have likely kept the heart and the original story intact, and bring it to life with stunning animation.

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) 8/10 - review deleted.

Crocodile Dundee (1986) 8/10 - review deleted.

After enjoying Star Trek (2009) 8/10 and some of the original series I caught on TV, I thought I'd give the original movies a spin:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) 5/10 - this movie is just as bad as they say it is. How could Robert Wise, director of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) 8/10, screw up scifi when he seemingly perfected it years before? Easy, he took a page from Stanley Kubrick and tried to imitate his 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) 6/10. The result, like 2001, long, boring and pointless with many unnecessary scenes. Unfortunately for Trek, nobody is overanalyzing it and getting meaning where there is none to make it into something its not (aka justify its mediocrity). In the end, the movie was hardly enough story for one episode, let alone a movie, so expect 20 min shots with no meaning and nothing happening (ie staring at a cloud or flying by one ship).

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982) 7.5/10 - much, much better. This is the Trek I remember from the show and the new movie. Less Kubrick and more Lucas. The characters are no longer stale, humor has been injected back in, this time we actually have a bad guy, and lots more action. Two completely different movies, while the other got off to a bad start, this one regained my faith and any possibility of my watching any more of them. PS: Knowing this was based on the episode Space Seed, I did a quick google search, and watched it in HD on CBS.com prior to watching the movie.

Overall, the Star Trek movies are a mixed bag, so were the Star Wars movies, but I think the new movie set the bar pretty high for the old ones. I'll admit I like the show but am not fan and have only seen a few episodes (about half were good, the other half were terrible) That said I feel I know enough of the characters that I enjoyed the second one.

Cordy_Biddle wrote:Soapdish: Hadn't seen this romp in a while but it made the perfect double feature with "How to Lose Friends...". This backstage look into the cast-members of a long-running soap opera stars Sally Field as the resident "diva" whose personal life begins to unravel when a former flame (Kevin Kline) is signed back onto the show. Fantastic support-cast includes Whoopi Goldberg as the no-nonsense writer, Robert Downey Jr. as a sycophantic producer; and Cathy Moriarty as the resident femme fatale.

OMG, I LOVE Soapdish! This and Tootsie are my two favourite movies about soap operas. I would include Nurse Betty, but it's much too violent and less grounded in soap-opera-reality than the other two.

jpanimation wrote:Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) 5/10 - this movie is just as bad as they say it is. How could Robert Wise, director of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) 8/10, screw up scifi when he seemingly perfected it years before? Easy, he took a page from Stanley Kubrick and tried to imitate his 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) 6/10. The result, like 2001, long, boring and pointless with many unnecessary scenes. Unfortunately for Trek, nobody is overanalyzing it and getting meaning where there is none to make it into something its not (aka justify its mediocrity). In the end, the movie was hardly enough story for one episode, let alone a movie, so expect 20 min shots with no meaning and nothing happening (ie staring at a cloud or flying by one ship).

Well, one thing you have to keep in mind with Star Trek: The Motion Picture is that its story was originally meant as a two-part television episode (the first one, to boot) of the scrapped "Star Trek: Phase II" series. Rather than bring back "Star Trek" as a weekly television series (on what would have been the Paramount Network, something what wouldn't happen until 1995), it was decided to turn it into a feature film. So they took the series opener, "In Thy Image" and adapted it for the big screen. As a story, if it were condensed to 90 minutes it should work more effectively. The issues and themes presented regarding V'ger and its "creator" along with the general uneasiness between Kirk and Decker would have translated better as a television episode. In a 132-minute theatrical film / 145-minute extended television version / 136-minute director's cut, it's just too much talking and not enough action. It's one of the few things that Trekkies and casual moviegoers agree on regarding The Motion Picture (which some have dubbed "The Slow Motion Picture" and "The Motion-less Picture").

At the same time, the filmmakers also knew that bringing "Star Trek" back, in any incarnation, would be something that fans would easily feel was just for *them* (which is why I'm glad that Abrams' version had the tagline "Not your father's Star Trek"). Thus, when there are seemingly endless scenes of the camera panning over the Enterprise, it's basically a fan service. "Look, we brought her back! And look, IT'S ON THE BIG SCREEN!" I still don't understand why they went with such a stark and bland production design (the infamous "pajamas" uniforms, and the lack of any color at all, really), especially when the series itself was such a colourful one.

jpanimation wrote:Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982) 7.5/10 - much, much better. This is the Trek I remember from the show and the new movie. Less Kubrick and more Lucas. The characters are no longer stale, humor has been injected back in, this time we actually have a bad guy, and lots more action. Two completely different movies, while the other got off to a bad start, this one regained my faith and any possibility of my watching any more of them. PS: Knowing this was based on the episode Space Seed, I did a quick google search, and watched it in HD on CBS.com prior to watching the movie.

I was always annoyed that no DVD version of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ever included "Space Seed" as part of the special features. I mean, the movie does stand well enough on its own without having to view "Space Seed" beforehand (just as The Wrath of Khan stand well enough on its own without seeing The Motion Picture). But still, its exclusion always puzzled me.

jpanimation wrote:Overall, the Star Trek movies are a mixed bag

Just wait until you get to Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Words really cannot describe what that film is without being either overtly defensive of its intentions or overtly harsh of the final product. I consider it a "delightful disappointment" because while the whole thing just reeks of plotline/continuity/science fiction/Trek inconsistencies, it's got a lot of heart, especially in the portrayals of the personal relationships between the crew. And it answers the big questions the only way that "Trek" can, in a lighthearted matter with some serious undertones.

albert

Return of the Jedi (1983) - Not as good as the first two films, but overall a good conclusion to the original Star Wars trilogy.

Next weekend, I should watch the prequel trilogy (I still need episodes II and III though)

Oh, I just thought of another thing about Wild Things... They were too civilized!

Yeah, they were wild at times, they acted like monsters on occasion, and even threatened to eat Max at one point. But their mannerisms were almost out of character for them.

Escapay wrote:

Cordy_Biddle wrote:Soapdish: Hadn't seen this romp in a while but it made the perfect double feature with "How to Lose Friends...". This backstage look into the cast-members of a long-running soap opera stars Sally Field as the resident "diva" whose personal life begins to unravel when a former flame (Kevin Kline) is signed back onto the show. Fantastic support-cast includes Whoopi Goldberg as the no-nonsense writer, Robert Downey Jr. as a sycophantic producer; and Cathy Moriarty as the resident femme fatale.

OMG, I LOVE Soapdish! This and Tootsie are my two favourite movies about soap operas. I would include Nurse Betty, but it's much too violent and less grounded in soap-opera-reality than the other two.



albert

I loved "Nurse Betty"...until the scalping scene.

pap64 wrote:Oh, I just thought of another thing about Wild Things... They were too civilized!

Yeah, they were wild at times, they acted like monsters on occasion, and even threatened to eat Max at one point. But their mannerisms were almost out of character for them.

They were meant to characterize all sorts of emotions, including the civilized ones.

Quite frankly, I really enjoyed the movie, and that's just a minor detail.

ajmrowland wrote:

pap64 wrote:Oh, I just thought of another thing about Wild Things... They were too civilized!

Yeah, they were wild at times, they acted like monsters on occasion, and even threatened to eat Max at one point. But their mannerisms were almost out of character for them.

They were meant to characterize all sorts of emotions, including the civilized ones.

Quite frankly, I really enjoyed the movie, and that's just a minor detail.

Not saying that its a detail that ruins the movie. Just found it a tad odd.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Aww.

The Fox and the Hound has some good moments, though. I like the very beginning and ending of the film. They're both exciting, full of suspense, very well timed and well edited (mother fox fleeing from the hunters, and the attack of the bear). I also like the scene in which the old lady brings Tod back to the forest; that's real sad.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Sure, TF&tH isn't as action-packed as some other films (at least not until near the end), but it's a movie that makes you think. The movie really is about the evolution of characters as they get older, not so much a particular journey they went on, like so many films deal with. [...]

That's clearly the intention of the film, and while the idea is good, the execution leaves much to be desired. The pacing is too slow and too little happens to hold my attention. It makes the film drag on.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I think that the characters are extremely likeable- even Amos Slade (likeable in terms of him being a villain who isn't as bad as other villains, if that makes any sense- I don't think that he's a dull character, or whatever, is what I'm trying to say).

I don't think Amos Slade is likeable at all. I'm very much opposed to hunting for sports (really I'm against all hunting, but I can see some reasons for it, but pleasure is not one of them), so I have no sympathy for a character who sets out a trail of horrible traps to catch the protagonist, and later tries to smoke him out. Even after Tod has saved Amos from the bear, Amos still wants to kill Tod.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I mean, you really don't like Copper or Tod or Widow Tweed or Big Mama?!? So likeable, IMO.

I find their personalities very underdeveloped, making for very bland characters. Essentially, they're nothing more than plot-elements, driving forth the story, instead of rounded characters.

blackcauldron85 wrote:And you think the animation is crude?!? I think that TF&tH is one of Disney's most beautiful-looking films! I'm having a hard time believing this one...what makes you think the animation is crude?!?

Maybe 'crude' was not the right word. I certainly think it's below-par for a Disney movie.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I'm not trying to attack your opinion, but I'm genuinely curious.

Don't worry. Even if you were attacking my opinion, why would that be bad? It's a discussion forum after all.

I'm opposed to hunting, too, very much, but I just think that Amos Slade is...interesting, I guess the word is. I don't think that he's too dull. At the same time, I don't think that he's the greatest villain or anything, but I don't find him dull.

Thanks for responding!

blackcauldron85 wrote:I'm opposed to hunting, too, very much, but I just think that Amos Slade is...interesting, I guess the word is. I don't think that he's too dull. At the same time, I don't think that he's the greatest villain or anything, but I don't find him dull.

You're right, he's certainly not dull. But after watching Snow White's evil queen, it's a bit of a disappointment.

@ jpanimation:

I think Empire of the Sun is Spielberg's best work.

I don't know.... "The Fox in the Hound" is not one of my favorites, but I still enjoy it. I can see both sides of this arguement. The timing isn't great (especially with Dinky and Boomer!), and the songs are rather blah. As for the animation, I can understand why it isn't as good as usual, because it was sort of "practice" in a sense for the new guys just coming from Cal Arts and whatnot, since the Nine Old Men were on their way out. Sure, those new guys went on to do excellent things, but in the early 80s, they were all novices. But I like most of the characters, and the heart of the movie: Tod's relationships with Widow Tweed, Copper, Big Momma, are all very interesting to see, and I especially love how Tod and Copper make peace again in the end. It's a good film. Not one of Disney's best, certainly, but it is enjoyable.

Recently viewed for the first time:
Monsters vs Aliens
The Wild
Bee Movie

note: Monsters vs Aliens was the only one from above list that I actually liked.

Watched again:
Super Size Me
Kung Fu Panda

Now watching:
Snow White and the Seven Dwarves

Lady Luck: Entertaining "B-programmer" from 1936, starring Patricia Farr (a lovely second-tier Barbara Stanwyck type) as a manicurist who wins a bundle in a horse race sweep and then gets involved in a murder mystery.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs: I won't go lengthy review on this one. All I will say is it's not bad, but not nearly as good as the first two(big surprise there). My one major complaint: that ALL the bonuses have been left off the rental BD! Now that's just rude!

Recently I've watched:

A Bug's life
Aladdin (with subtitles from the audio-commentary turned on)

I like to say one thing more about Hunchback of Notre Dame and the Disney version: in the original novel, Quasimodo was indeed deaf, but not really dumb, he could speak, though with some difficulty. I can understand that Disney ignored this element in their version: just imagine how communication between him and others would have been - with gestures and hand-written notes I presume and constant misunderdstandings? Maybe it could have worked, but it could also turned out to be to tiring for younger viewers.

The Patsy (1928) 6.5/10 - another King Vidor silent staring Marion Davies. This movie is just average all around and is never as good as one would expect from a King Vidor film. I guess this silent is still better than any of his talkies but the whole thing is just very predictable. I've never been a fan of Marion Davies and never found her to be the screwball comedy queen of the silents as everyone suggests.

Min and Bill (1930) 6.5/10 - another average early talkie full of clichés. Marie Dressler is just average as usual but Wallace Beery is exceptionally lovable here (probably my favorite role of his besides his portrayal of Long John Silver in Treasure Island (1934) 7.5/10) Dorothy Jordan makes one of her few talkie roles here before getting hitched to FREAKING Merian C. Cooper. One thing to take note of is the blatant disregard of polluting the ocean as trash is just dumped in the ocean.

BTW, for WDW buffs. Disney MGM-Studios has a restaurant on Echo Lake called Min and Bill's Dockside Diner. The name and caricature on the sign is a reference to the main characters in this movie and the boat that houses the restaurant was designed to look similar to the wedding yacht in the movie.

The Big Trail (1930) 6/10 - this film looks spectacular. This is possibly the best looking film ever made during the 1930's as it was filmed in 70mm and widescreen (yes, two things unheard of at the time and usually associated with movies 20 years younger). I've never seen so much detail intact on a 30's film before and it just looks stunning (this is one 30's film that will definitely benefit from Blu-ray). The cinematography is also great as you didn't see very many early talkies at all filmed on location away from a soundstage, as seen here, due to limiting sound equipment. What initially got me interested in this film was two things 1) it was directed by Raoul Walsh who made two of my favorite James Cagney crime dramas (The Roaring Twenties (1939) 7.5/10 and White Heat (1949) 8/10) and 2) this was one of John Wayne's earliest staring roles and he really looks good. Technically this whole thing is a marvel, except for the terrible sound, but I just wish the story was a little better.

I watched Pretty in Pink with my best friend.

Tonight I watched Funny Games. I was at Blockbuster with a friend and she saw this for sale and started getting all excited and immediately bought it along with 2 other movies. I had never heard of it before so I was curious about it. We watched Funny Games and I'm not really sure what to think of it. It was too long, but it wasn't that bad of a movie. Parts of it reminded me of The Strangers, which was a great movie. I'm not really sure what to think. It was just okay. The ending was creepy, though, yet somewhat predictable.