lzcutter Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I know it's not a "classic" film in the sense that many define, but with so many lovers of serials and movies was wondering what y'all thought of this one? Finally caught it on Showtime tonight and loved all the movie homages and references. Am I alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I liked a lot of it, too. Very 1930s. The opening several minutes of the mechanical monsters were an almost shot for shot redoing from an old Superman cartoon from thes 1940 called, "The Mechanical Monsters," and the filmmakers never credited it, not even on the commentary I heard on the DVD. Lynn, the cartoon is in public domain and you can probably find it anywhere cheaply. I would be very interested in seeing what you think about the two after you have had a chance to compare them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanceycravat Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I saw this in the theatre. I wanted to really, really like it but thought the story had way too many holes. I loved all the tech aspects but ultimately was disappointed as it could have been great if they spent another month on the story. Yancey Message was edited by: yanceycravat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlywdkjk Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I also desperately wanted to like it but kept groaning watching Gwenyth Paltrow trying to be Barbara Stanwyck...or Rosalind Russell...or Jean Arthur. It ranks up there with the other honorable - but failing - films such as "The Hudsucker Proxy" and Stephen Frears "Hero" that have the best intentions of recreating a classic-style film but can't pull it off successfully. Kyle in Hollywood (But I still laughed loudly at "The Hudsucker Proxy". "Ya know...for the kids!") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbabykmd Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I would have like it more but I hate movies where things come flying at me at high speeds. I did like Hudsucker Proxy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constarkel Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I pre-ordered this DVD when it was first announced. It looked like it would be right up my alley. The 1930-40's sci-fi/art deco style of movie is absolutely gorgeous. With the benefit of a better script, this could have been a great movie. As it was, I enjoyed it very much for the visuals. I hope that, based on its weak showing at the box office and less than flattering critical reviews, that Hollywood does not give up on making this kind of movie in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackBurley Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 As I recall, the makers of this movie were really unconcerned about the script. It was merely a technical excercise. This was the movie with no physical sets; it was all green screen and computer graphics. So the visuals are strong, but the plot is weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 I added this to my Netflix list. I didn't see it because a friend said not to bother, but he doesn't have any knowledge of older movies or any appreciation for Art Deco, so I shouldn't have listened to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzcutter Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 Matt, I'll be interested to hear what you think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanceycravat Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I'd be interested to hear what you have to say as well. I was interested in seeing this film for the same reasons you described. On the big screen it was visually stunning but all of that falls to the wayside when my head explodes from having to sit watching something that could have been superb if the film makers had taken more care in the story. All movies start and end with story. STORY, STORY, STORY. Even the recent King Kong is another example of a movie I couldn't wait to see. That experience was destroyed again by a lesser story relying on visual effects. Yancey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vallo13 Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I like the visuals in Sky Captain, but the story needed work .The same thing with 1991's "The Rocketeer" really thought it was a homage to serials of yesteryear but it had a weak story. Hollywood need to stop "wowing" us with visuals and go back and write some better story lines. Then maybe I'll go back to the Movie theater. vallo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarhfive Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 yanceycravat, Quote: "All movies start and end with story. STORY, STORY, STORY" I love the RKO movies of the 1930s and 1940s because of the stories. Even if the production of an RKO movie is "B" ("C", or "D"), the story is usually "A". I have watched exactly 107 RKO movies, so I am an expert. Rusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanceycravat Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Glad I'm not the only one who feels that the story is the most important part of the movie. For a while I've been thinking it must be me! Yancey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I haven't seen it yet, but with movies like these I don't have any expectations as far as story goes. I love serials, but they all have a brainless plot and that's because the first priority is for them to be fun. They could have a great story and not be fun, so I'd choose the fun factor with these type of movies. Even the original King Kong doesn't have exceptional writing nor above B movie acting. It's a classic because it's fun to watch. I even think the new Kong was an improvement story-wise, though. Their take on Kong as a giant dysfunctional child was good and the mother/child relationship between Darrow and Kong is more believable than Kong falling in love with her. But they didn't dwell on it and I thought Jackson caught the excitement of the old action B flicks. That is, when they finally get to the island. Before that, I thought I was watching King Long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackBurley Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 It was a very slow boat to that island... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I thought the jungle scenes in the recent remake went on too long and was glad when they got Kong to NYC. After all, when I think of the original Kong, I think of the NYC sequence. At 3+ hours, my butt was sore when I walked out of the film. Excellent remake, but LONG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackBurley Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I thought one of the stars of the new King Kong was the color and lighting. Beautiful usage of color; it looked like a new print of a 2-strip technicolor process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattHelm Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 The color was great. One thing I like about Jackson's use of CGI is that he uses it to get camera shots not otherwise possible. Why move the camera when you can movie the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts