Welcome to RocketMonkeys.com!

This is my personal site, where I store my rants, pictures, and movie reviews. Have a look around, register and leave comments.
-James

Show: all rants [movies] pictures

Page: Previous << 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 >> Next

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Posted by james on March 6, 2006

(post.rating: 4)
Rating:

IMDB   Apple Trailers

Kinda freaky, but not the horror movie you'd expect. Lots of scary images but without too much special effects. Seems to want to be a thought provoker, but ... somehow seems short lived.

Flight of the phoenix

Posted by james on March 6, 2006

(post.rating: 3)
Rating:

IMDB   Apple Trailers

Mundane, annoying characters. Dennis Quaid and Giovanni Ribisi excel at being annoying characters. But who wants to watch really annoying people be obnoxious for 113 minutes? Pretty shallow flick with lots of racially based stereotypes. That always tells me that the writers were too lazy to go for more generic stereotypes. But at least we... nope, nothing.

King Kong

Posted by james on March 6, 2006

(post.rating: 7)
Rating:

IMDB   Apple Trailers

First off, it has some really beautiful shots. Peter Jackson really has a thing for the beauty of single, individual shots. Unfortunately, he's also fallen in love with gratuitous and overused slow motion. You really start to feel the disjointed nature of this movie; it's like the script called for a crazy 100 minute monster romp through old-town New York, and instead we got Kate &amp; Leopold (albeit hairier). And at a cost too; 187 minutes! (That's more than 3 hours, folks) It's like turning a New York sidewalk chalk sketch into a Sistine Chapel. The movie just has a real focus on single moments, it wants to dwell and spend too much time on milking every scene for the beauty it contains.

At certain points you think the director said "We need this scene in here" and the editor accidentally cut each one twice as long. A scene comes on, you get the gist, you get a few extra moments to appreciate it, and then you get another 4-5 seconds (an eternity in modern editing) to... do what? Scratch yourself? Wonder what's coming next? Think about how much you have to pee and what holding that in is doing to your urological tract? I don't know. But I have another theory, which goes something like...

[Peter Jackson walks onto the set]
Peter J: "Ok, now look into the creature's eyes. No, he's going to be over to your left. Not that much left, more up! Ok, good, now react to the hugeness of the beast. Keep looking! Keep reacting! Ok, right now you're going to be in slow motion, so don't make any sudden movements. It's ok, we'll edit that out. No, the beast is more to your left!"

[Meanwhile, back in the <strike>hall of justice</strike> editing room]
Editor: "I think we need to cut this a little shorter. You've got 4 solid hours of footage here, and we haven't even added slow motion."
Peter J: "I'm Peter Jackson, b****! I'll make the movie 9 hours long! I directed the Lord of the Rings movie!"
Editor: "Weren't there lots of those movies, like a trilogy or something?"
Peter J: "No, there was only one! The studio decided the audience would need snack/bathroom/intravenous-nutrition breaks, so they split it up."
Editor: "Oh my god... you're insane!"
Peter J: "I'm Peter Jackson! Now lick my shoes!"


Page: Previous << 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 >> Next