Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Moherfucker Jackson. You better not have done a King Kong on this and stretched out the wrong scenes for far too long.
Him on Hobbit next. Mr Shit.
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/1189344-lovely_bones/
Seems to give an example of what I've been thinking of late on reflection of him. That Peter Jackson is an overrated indulging director that fanboys jerk off to, too much. One of the very top best directors out there at the moment my arse. Grrrr rant, grrr ranty ranty ratty rant rant ranty.
Fried Gold wrote:I'm hoping the Hobbitses films are given ridiculously overblown amounts of cash to work with
magicmonkey wrote:I also understand that most of Jacko's films are shot in New Zealand, and he attempts to put an American facade on them (The Frighteners), and here he does the same.
stereosforgeeks wrote:Terrible terrible movie. There is a HUGE REASON this was moved from awards contender into the dregs of January. It's a cinematic joke. You seriously feel embarassment for all involved.
The acting is ridiculously hokey on all accounts. Normally fine actors are given nothing to work with. The characters all ill conceived. The grandmother for instance is one of the worst cliches in movie history. There's not one ounce of humanity in the whole film. The cgi eye fuck fest doesnt do anything meaningful.
I was actually planning on reading the book at some point, but after seeing the movie I can't even imagine the film even had good source material. Otherwise something better would've certainly come from it.
Do yourself a favor and avoid at all costs. It is as bad as I say.
Al Shut wrote:Fried Gold wrote:I'm hoping the Hobbitses films are given ridiculously overblown amounts of cash to work with
And I'm hoping you forgot a 'not' somewhere in that sentence
John-Locke wrote:magicmonkey wrote:I also understand that most of Jacko's films are shot in New Zealand, and he attempts to put an American facade on them (The Frighteners), and here he does the same.
Most of the film was shot in Pennsylvania
stereosforgeeks wrote:Terrible terrible movie.
stereosforgeeks wrote:I was actually planning on reading the book at some point, but after seeing the movie I can't even imagine the film even had good source material. Otherwise something better would've certainly come from it.
Pacino86845 wrote:I'm reading the book these days, taking a break from usual reading with it. It's not very long, fairly well-written page-turner so far. I'm still not too far into it but I'm sure I'll be done soon, then I can get back to The Dark Tower series.
Nachokoolaid wrote:But even if you're hating on this, you gotta admit that Stanley Tucci brought his A game. And the folks that did his prosthetics deserve some props too.
Nachokoolaid wrote:Obviously I disagree. I think he completely disappeared into the role. The subtle changes to his voice and appearance were effective. And yes, sometimes the script sort of made it seem obvious, but I don't fault Tucci at all. In fact, I think he was great IN SPITE of some weaknesses with the script.
I would have liked to have seen some more shot of him being a "normal guy," because I think it would have helped the audience believe that this guy didn't stand out so much, but again, I don't think that's Tucci's fault.
Pacino86845 wrote:Heavenly Creatures, funnily enough, is the only Peter Jackson feature I haven't seen yet (besides The Lovely Bones).
Peven wrote:my 17 year old daughter read the book and enjoyed the story but was thoroughly unimpressed with the writing, said she thought it was "simple"
darkjedijaina wrote:this could probably go into another topic, but what is it with teenage audiences these days? bayou and i just got back from seeing this and the audience was just horrible. someone had a baby that was crying, other people didn't turn their phones off, others were laughing inappropriately and then there was serious clapping, and it wasn't even the end of the film! i wanted to scream at all of them to shut the eff up, but i didn't. but stuff like that takes you right out of the movie. i didn't read the book, so i can't compare, but i thought the movie was okay, i probably would have enjoyed it more or took something else out of it were it not for the teenage wasteland surrounding us.
Fried Gold wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:Heavenly Creatures, funnily enough, is the only Peter Jackson feature I haven't seen yet (besides The Lovely Bones).
I've requested that Kirk ban you for this. You should be receiving notification of your departure soon.
BuckyO'harre wrote:I believe bastard_robo's MOVIE THEATER ATTENDEES Discuss! was meant for sharing our encounters,and describing the special hell in which those folks belonged.
Spandau Belly wrote:Hey guys, I haven't seen this movie, but I read some of the reviews and their plot descriptions of it being about somebody solving their own murder after death and I was wondering how this compares to DEAD HEAT in that respect? My main question being is their a zombie pig?
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:I'm reading the book these days, taking a break from usual reading with it. It's not very long, fairly well-written page-turner so far. I'm still not too far into it but I'm sure I'll be done soon, then I can get back to The Dark Tower series.
AAAAAAAHHHHH you Prat!!! I'm on the last bok now and gonna beat the shit out of you to the end.
And then I'm gonna make sure in my own secret hidden way where you can't see it coming, I'm gonna SPOIL it for you!!!!!!!!!
TheBaxter wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:I'm reading the book these days, taking a break from usual reading with it. It's not very long, fairly well-written page-turner so far. I'm still not too far into it but I'm sure I'll be done soon, then I can get back to The Dark Tower series.
AAAAAAAHHHHH you Prat!!! I'm on the last bok now and gonna beat the shit out of you to the end.
And then I'm gonna make sure in my own secret hidden way where you can't see it coming, I'm gonna SPOIL it for you!!!!!!!!!
i beat BOTH of you and now i'm gonna spoil the book for YOU - Roland is a ghost
thomasgaffney wrote:TheBaxter wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Pacino86845 wrote:I'm reading the book these days, taking a break from usual reading with it. It's not very long, fairly well-written page-turner so far. I'm still not too far into it but I'm sure I'll be done soon, then I can get back to The Dark Tower series.
AAAAAAAHHHHH you Prat!!! I'm on the last bok now and gonna beat the shit out of you to the end.
And then I'm gonna make sure in my own secret hidden way where you can't see it coming, I'm gonna SPOIL it for you!!!!!!!!!
i beat BOTH of you and now i'm gonna spoil the book for YOU - Roland is a ghost
I thought Roland was Luke Skywalker's father AND the name of his childhood sled...
TheBaxter wrote:i haven't seen this movie, but i read the book. it was OK at best. it's certainlty not the masterpiece a lot of people have made it out to be. remember, most of the people who think the book was a masterpiece only read it because it was on Oprah's Book Club.
thomasgaffney wrote:TheBaxter wrote:i haven't seen this movie, but i read the book. it was OK at best. it's certainlty not the masterpiece a lot of people have made it out to be. remember, most of the people who think the book was a masterpiece only read it because it was on Oprah's Book Club.
no it wasn't
Fried Gold wrote:Imagine what would've happened to John Steinbeck if Oprah had never recommended his books.
so sorry wrote:thomasgaffney wrote:TheBaxter wrote:i haven't seen this movie, but i read the book. it was OK at best. it's certainlty not the masterpiece a lot of people have made it out to be. remember, most of the people who think the book was a masterpiece only read it because it was on Oprah's Book Club.
no it wasn't
no it wasn't a masterpiece or no it wasn't one of Oprah's Book Club books?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests