Premium Members Michael Stumpf Posted June 2, 2004 Premium Members Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Was anybody else thinking...."man this movie won how many Oscars?" I thought it was dreadful (so did my fiance'). It was fight sequence after fight sequence after fight sequence. And horse shot after horse shot after horse shot. Peter Jackson must own or love horses. He had more shots of trotting horse than he did of Frodo in that movie. I enjoyed the first two in the trilogy, but good lord, 3 hrs and 15 minutes on this last one that could have been told in a buck and a half! More cheesy CGI shots anyone? And was anybody else itching for the ending goodbye sequence to actually END! Those slow mo hugs and goodbyes were just nauseating! You know, I usually don't bag on movies so much, but when they get SO MUCH acclaim, I'd expect near brilliance. This was a turd if I ever smelt one. How many shots do you think were necessary to have with high 3000 foot sharp cliffs? Then the never ending mountainous terrain and castles built into the sides of impossibly steep cliffs? And what's up with the PG-13 rating? Say the "F" word a time or two or show a tit or two on screen and you get an "R" rating. But with this show, you can show non-stop violence, heads being chopped off and flung in catapults, bodies being trampled and thrown about in battle, a finger being bit off, burning a man (or two) alive at the stake, choking a man or two to death, etc etc etc but only get a PG-13??? I'm not a parent or a censorship advocate, but I was a bit taken aback by the rating. They must have paid old Jack Vallenti a pretty penny to let that one slide by. Anyway, sorry for the extensive rant, I just fought to stay awake in this part three sleeper, and almost felt like I had to fast forward through the fight sequences after they got to...oh I don't know the 6th or 7th one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 I was actually bored by all three. Repetitive and overstuffed. At a certain point fairly early on I started thinking "Get on with it already!" and it just got worse from there. I think another five minutes in the theater and my wife would have chewed her arm off to escape. I put in the time on the other two but could never quite figure out what everybody else seemed to see in them. Faithful to the books? Yeah, who cares? Still boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guillermo nespolo Posted June 2, 2004 Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 well it is what it is ...i like it ...but your are right if u dont like it its a taste thing... its a popcorn movie... what i really really hate are movies like lost in translation ....they tray to be deep but they are nothing but a wanna be picture...(not trying to be political correct..) i hope that now that quetin tarantino its banging sofia ...she stays home and rise quentin little devils... :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members David Allen Grove Posted June 2, 2004 Premium Members Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Yea, they were long movies. I got a kick out of the 2 or was it three false endings in the third movie. It got to be a sort of joke.. the screen would fade to black, people started clapping.. then it faded up with another scene.. people laughed.. faded to black, people clapped again, faded up to another scene.... you get the picture. I've never clapped at a movie except when I'm seeing one with someone that actually worked on the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members David Allen Grove Posted June 2, 2004 Premium Members Report Share Posted June 2, 2004 Way to go Frank Marshall!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------ Producer Says 'Indy 4' Will Not Rely on CGI 10 September 2003 (WENN) Indiana Jones producer Frank Marshall is determined to shun the current trends in movie making - insisting the upcoming fourth installment of the hit franchise will avoid using computer effects. Frank is adamant the sequel to the hit Harrison Ford adventure franchise will retain the tradition of its classic forerunners by utilizing real stunt work instead of high-tech graphics, giving it the feel of a B-movie. He says, "We didn't have computer effects in those days, we couldn't easily erase things and I think one of the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree rather than erase it later as you can today. In Raiders Of The Lost Ark, that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the excitement and the creative energy on the set. When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in The Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-movie feel. We want to make Indiana Jones 4 like we made the first three." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guillermo nespolo Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 david you are 100 % right about that i love cgi shots but not the over use ..of them that it why i found the episode1 and 2 of starwars have nothing to do with empire strike back for me the starwars , for me the best one .... ps somebodie tell lucas that hd is only for pople ho have no money of people ho wants to make money..... long life to the smellig film cans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Daniel Stilling DFF Posted June 3, 2004 Premium Members Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 Hey Michael, I kinda liked the movie, but that's not the point of what I wanna coment. It was great you bringing up the aspect of violence versus sex/language for ratings. I've allways found it absurd the amount of violence that children and young people are exposed to without the parents even having a 2nd thought. But a pair of breasts?? oh no!! my god!!! Once I was shooting in a house, we had a big painting on the wall with some stylized nude girls in it. The mom would come home with her litlle boy, about 7-8 years old, covering his eyes, and running to the bedroom in terror and disgust. In the boys bedroom she would turn on the playstation with Grand theft auto, so the kid could have some fun... What kind of a world do we live in??? Sex is bad, violence is good??? ARRRGGHHHH Daniel :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guillermo nespolo Posted June 3, 2004 Report Share Posted June 3, 2004 thanks good that its a major problem in the states...here in argentina we have the problem that teens geting pragnet..... but for me its all int he problem of education ..for some stupid reason it better to say no than explain why.....and the main cause for some states on the eeuu its easy to get a bereta 9mm than a playboy magazine...its cause the close head that some religion groups have ...i include in there the churh .... i was raise in a catolic school ..and the sex theme was like did not exist ...on the final year of school they make a dance with other school of girls ....just like cows...dont u think... guillermo "we need education and love"nespolo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.