Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Patrick_Gibbs

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
61
Movies and TV / Re: review: Rent
« on: December 22, 2005, 02:09:35 PM »
Quote
I saw a lot of buzz about this movie, but it seemed too much like Chicago which I thought was good, but not good enough that I would want to see it again.

I know Rent has a differnt plot, characters, and setting...but it still looked similar.

Overall, I think I've learned I'm not a big fan of the musical. The dramatic moments of my life did not have singing, dancing, and music in the foreground. So, I tend to feel that musicals are just try too hard to be emotionally manipulative. Hence, I just get bored.


Nothing like "Chicago," other than the fact that they are both musicals. I can understand not liking musicals - I have filp flopped on them a lot. As far as the issue of life not containing singing and dancing, there is defintely a huge suspension of disblief factor to the genre.

62
Movies and TV / Re: review: Rent
« on: December 22, 2005, 02:01:38 PM »
I would never say that "Rent" was no longer relevant." AIDS still  exists, and there is lot more to it than just AIDS. It resonates with social themes that are very relevant to today. Some accuse it of feeling dated, but it takes place in 1989. It shoudl feel a bit dated. (though there were a few anachronisms.).

As for "Phantom," I am a big fan of the original novel, and it was the best telling of the story I have seen. As I said before, the singing in "Rent"  was certainly better. (I will say this, though - if you're talking about crowds in SLC, "Rent" is already gone from the city's biggest theatre, whereas "Phantom" was held over for something like four weeks after they were scheduled to get rid of it, after a run of roughly four months. This is, of course, not really a reflection on the film's quality as much as it is the fact that it connected with local audiences, and in "Rent"'s case, well, let's face it: it's not a Utah kind of movie.

I liked Angel, I just didn't love him the way they wanted me too. I never cared anywhere near as much about him as I did about "King Kong," and while both actors were terrific seperately, I felt no chemistry between him and Collins.

Again, I really liked "Rent."

63
Movies and TV / Re: King Kong
« on: December 17, 2005, 09:44:47 AM »
Quote
I've been debating whether or not to post my thoughts on this movie since I know there are certain people that feel they have to personally attack and insult those they disagree with on this forum when it comes to movies.  However I feel like I should, so I will.

I did not like it.  This movie was the victim of Peter Jackson liking it too much and not being able to edit anything out.  It was, quite frankly, way too long and should have been an hour shorter.  They spent way too long on the ship as well as on the island, there was no reason to be on that island for as long as they were since it didn't do anything for the plot or story.  Yet Jackson felt it was necessary to keep everyone there just to kill redshirts off, and while it looked good, it was boring.

I'm glad they had the quick cut to New York, I would have walked out of the theater (like several others that were there when EUOL and I were watching it) if they would have spent another 30 minutes back.  The NYC scenes were fine, that was just long enough.

With how simplistic of a story that Kong has it couldn't support this long of a movie.


I would like to personally attack and insult you for dissagreeing with me on this one.

But I won't.

Jerk.  8)

64
Movies and TV / Re: King Kong
« on: December 15, 2005, 02:21:02 PM »
Quote
The review has landed: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1213

An incredibly favorable review, and one I agree with almost entirely--we even had the same favorite scenes.


Thanks, Fellsey. I can tell you this - even "Munich," which I await with baited breath, will have a hard time ousting Kong for my number one of the year spot (an article that we will be submitting as soon as we've seen "Munich.")

65
Movies and TV / Re: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
« on: December 12, 2005, 11:59:53 AM »
Quote

It's less than one minute. I paid attention to this when we went to see the movie yesterday.

We enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I liked it much more than Harry Potter 4. Karen, as someone who has reread all the books in the last couple months, was very happy with it, and was only sad that ONE line from the book was left out. I, as someone who has not read the books in over 10 years, was very happy with it according to what I remembered and how I judged its success internally. Good movie.

Are the Gibbs going to do their own review of this one? Does the site only take one review per movie?


We have no intention of doing a review of the film. Skar has already presented a well written review. We do disagree about as strongly as possible, but Skar dissagreed with us on "Jarhead." Different critics, different opinions.

I'd be happ to post further thoughts on it, but this was Skar's movie to review, and do not wish to treadd on his territory.

66
Movies and TV / Re: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
« on: December 11, 2005, 07:09:20 PM »
Quote
"much cuter" is hardly dodgey. I want to see this movie really bad. Skar has not deterred me. But I'm very gladd Eagle, Mr. Gibbs and Ent disagree with Skarsome.


All due respect I meant to Skar's opinion - we simply just have different thoughts on the film.  But the more I thin kabout, the more I really love this movie, and I couldn't not have been more satisifed.


67
Movies and TV / Re: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
« on: December 10, 2005, 12:36:45 AM »
This is also one of my favorite books, and it was one the frist plays I ever did as an actor. My hopes here every bit as high.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I loved this movie! I loved everything about it. I've already seen it twice. I thought the acting was decidedly subtle and the characters were captured perfectly. The CGI is the best I've ever seen on film.


68
Movies and TV / Re: 12 Days of Christmas Movies
« on: December 07, 2005, 11:18:55 AM »
Quote
Okay, I read this and generally agree with it, but I have to ask one thing:

The Polar Express as "the greatest Christmas movie ever made"?

I really hope that particular paragraph was steeped in sarcasm that I'm not just picking up on. After seeing that film two weeks ago I'm convinced that its relationship to quality entertainment is akin to the relationship between matter and antimater. (Though Santa Claus Conquers the Martians beats even it, gaining the status of "entertainment black hole" :))


There was no sarcasm intended in that statement, and I stand by it. I've never seen a movie that captures the excitement of Christmas from a child's point of view the way "Polar Express" does. Not one of the greatest films of all time, but a Christmas classic.

As for "A Christmas Carol," the George C. Scott version is widely agreed upon by many critics to be definitive, and The Muppett version follows the book more closely than most versions, including "Scrooge," the Albert Finney version, which is also quite good. Admitttedly, there is no Rubber Chicken factory in the book, but other than the obviosu changes to make it a Muppett movie, it follows the source material very accurately. Too bad the same can't be said for "Muppett Treasure Island."

Now, I want to say one last thing about the clock system: people are a under a misconception that we have ap roblem with using clocks instead of stars. We could rate movies with waffles, I don't care.

It's the numbering system, whcih has never been clear to us, and in particular the amibiguity of what a "Six clock" movie is. "Little Women" is a classic example: you won't find a major critic in the nation who didn't give that movie four stars. It's a masterpeice. But because it's not a genre buster, it apparently doesn't rate six clock, which leaves it with empty clocks, which to me implies that the reviewer thought it could have been better, which is simply not the case.

69
Movies and TV / Re: 12 Days of Christmas Movies
« on: December 06, 2005, 07:14:22 PM »
Quote
I've talked to the Brothers Gibb, and we have settled on the following: all movies will now be given a five-dimensional coordinate based on its movement through the interlocking planes of acting, directing, length, explosions, and cheesecake. Each plane has its own "terrain," so to speak, but we project that the typical bad movie will be graded as a 4, a good movie will be Green, and an excellent movie will be Rabbit.


And one movie per year shall be designated as a "Wellington", based on how well it conforms to Socratic philosphy. Of course, in order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to review films backwards (or, in the case of "Memento", forwards).

70
Movies and TV / Re: 12 Days of Christmas Movies
« on: December 06, 2005, 06:07:35 PM »
First of all, this is a list of classics that spread over a number of years. That alone explains the number of six clockers. Apart from that, let me explain the scores on this article.

"Die Hard" was not only a good as it could have been for what it was trying to be, but it revolutionized the action genre. It broke the mold. Hence the six clocks.

On the other hand, "Catch Me if You Can" and "Little Women" are much better movies. They may not have revolutionized any genres, but they were perfect films. There is no way they could have been better.

It is very hard to rate movies using the six clock sytem, because it makes no sense whatsover. It forces the reviewer away from rating a movie based on it's quality.

Where did people get the idea that it's a critic's job to hate movies? That's ridiculous. And when you see our year end list, you see some movies that we really hated - or wait for our upcoming review of "Aeon Flux."

From now on, we will be submitting our reviews with star ratings, on a one to four star system, poor to excellent. We would ask that therse ratings be posted, but that the editor should feel free to try and assign clocks ratings based on reading the review. We are never going to understand this  system, and we give up on trying.

71
Movies and TV / Re: The Legend of Zorro
« on: November 14, 2005, 04:47:59 PM »
Quote
His nationality was wrong, but no worse than Banderas's--in fact, given Mexico's hatred for Spain, it was probably better. But I've come to forgive that in movies, provided teh character was done well. And Hopkins does almost everything well (the lone exception being Bad Company, but honestly--could anyone have done that well?).


The other exception being "The Silence of The Lambs," one of the most overrated movies and silliest performances of all time.

Otherwise, I like Hopkins, particularly in "Amistad," and "The Remains of the Day."

72
Movies and TV / Re: The Legend of Zorro
« on: November 04, 2005, 11:24:42 PM »
"The Mask of Zorro" was what it was - the essence of classic "Zorro." It sounds to me like you didn't want something that was true to the feel of Zorro.

I like "Mask of Zorro" and "GoldenEye," though they do both drag in places. "GoldenEye" certainly isn't a great film, but no Bond movie ever was.

Frankly, "Sin City" and "From Dusk 'Til Dawn" are two of the only movies I have ever walked out on in my life. "Sin City" was very well done, but it was too graphic for my personal taste (again, I think it was an impressive peice of filmmaking) and "Dusk" was stupid BEFORE they started turning into vampires. As soon as that happened, I refused to watch the rest of it.

Again, all of this opinion, and everyone has their own.

73
Movies and TV / Re: The Legend of Zorro
« on: November 04, 2005, 10:11:58 PM »
Quote
I cant help but feel that this movie would have been better if Robert Rodriguez had directed it.


I think Robert Rodriguez very possibly could have made the film substantially worse than it was, and that is saying something. I don't get why people like him so much. It doesn't impress me in the least that he made "El Mariachi" for $7,000 when it looks like he made it for $700, and "From Dusk 'Till Dawn" is a travesty. I'll admit that "Sin City" had some impressive visuals, but in general I think very little of him as a director.

74
Movies and TV / Re: review: Good Night, and Good Luck
« on: October 28, 2005, 09:38:28 PM »
This movie has political undertones, but is very defintely not grandstanding. The story is told from a fact based point of view, and while the film is definetly taking sides, it does so without completely dissmissing the other point of view. Toward the end of the film, a major character questions whether he has been on the right side, or whether perhaps McCarthy was right.

You compare this to a film like "The Majestic," which I will  admitt I really liked, but took a very heavy-handed, in your face approach making a hero out of anytone who was accused of anything under the McCarthy regime, and this is really quite fair and balanced. I also really liked the fact that this movie really wasn't about Hollywood blacklisting, which is all most film makers seem to care about when dealing with McCarthy.

Clooney is to be comended for telling a balanced a fair story, which certainly reflects his political beliefs, but does not distort the facts in order to support them.

75
Movies and TV / Re: review: Good Night, and Good Luck
« on: October 28, 2005, 11:30:18 AM »
Quote
If you'd like to tailor your reviews to fill Spriggan's needs all you really need to do is comment on the quality of the CGI.  If it's good he'll see it.  If not, he won't.  If the film doesn't use CGI he wonders why anyone bothered to make it.  All it would take is a single sentence.

I wouldn't bother if I were you though.


LOL.

For the record, we enjoy a good FX driven as as anyone, (we've probably seen "Jurassic Park" 400 times), and are lifelong ILM fans. There's nothing wrong with enthusiasm about effects. Even then, I do like to see something else along with the effects, and I think Spriggan shares some of our hang ups about bad effects.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10