|
Post by coke & comics on Jan 23, 2016 14:12:05 GMT -5
Moderators? Thoughts on 12 Monkeys. Ape movie or nay?
It's got the word "monkeys" in the title.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 23, 2016 19:04:54 GMT -5
After Netflix spoiled my plans, rewatched the Peter Jackson King Kong. It was better than I recalled. I don't think I've seen it since theatres. The disk I got had a theatrical and extended version. I watched the extended version. *While the film is indulgently long, it didn't feel long. *It's hard to argue it wasn't faithful to the story of King Kong. *The dinosaur CGI felt oddly cheap, given how good Kong himself looked. Guess they put all their effort there and the occasional brontosaurus was an after-thought. *I ended up giving it 3.5 stars. I had previously had it down as a 3 star film. And I wanted to dock it points for being a remake and so indulgent. But the scenes between Ann and Kong were just so charming and enthralling. They did a magnificent job making you care about Kong by looking into his eyes. From their initial conflicts to watching a sunrise together, to sliding around on a frozen pond... it was just such a thrill to watch that I gave it the extra half star. I think it's a pretty great film myself, it perhaps doesn't fill me with the sheer joy the original does but the work on the relationship between Kong and Ann is phenomenal. Jackson's Kong has to be the best digital character yet to be realized on screen, he has an actual physical presence and an incredible amount of personality to him and I think that praise should be be split equally among the animators and Serkis. And I know what you mean about the dinosaurs coming off a bit cheap, from far away they are great and in the T-rex fight they were good but that whole stampede sequence, especially the part where they all start falling down into a heap just doesn't match up well with what the actors are doing. Rather than being a money issue though I think it's just a matter of complexity, with the speed of the action and the sheer amount of interaction required between the animation and the actors I just don't think the technology is advanced to the point where we can do it convincingly yet. Personally I'd give it a 4. And while I'm on record with saying that I'd allow 2001 for that first glorious scene I'm not sure 12 Monkeys qualifies as I don't think there are any monkeys at all unless I'm misremembering. Still, it's a fun film to watch.
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Jan 24, 2016 2:58:29 GMT -5
And I know what you mean about the dinosaurs coming off a bit cheap, from far away they are great and in the T-rex fight they were good but that whole stampede sequence, especially the part where they all start falling down into a heap just doesn't match up well with what the actors are doing. Rather than being a money issue though I think it's just a matter of complexity, with the speed of the action and the sheer amount of interaction required between the animation and the actors I just don't think the technology is advanced to the point where we can do it convincingly yet. Personally I'd give it a 4. And while I'm on record with saying that I'd allow 2001 for that first glorious scene I'm not sure 12 Monkeys qualifies as I don't think there are any monkeys at all unless I'm misremembering. Still, it's a fun film to watch. I was thinking precisely of the stampede scene. And I'm sure we can do it. And I'm sure Jackson can do it. He did it many times in Lord of the Rings. And the Kong scenes in this film were seamless. I think the animators and Jackson just put all their effort into getting Kong perfect.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 24, 2016 7:23:38 GMT -5
And I know what you mean about the dinosaurs coming off a bit cheap, from far away they are great and in the T-rex fight they were good but that whole stampede sequence, especially the part where they all start falling down into a heap just doesn't match up well with what the actors are doing. Rather than being a money issue though I think it's just a matter of complexity, with the speed of the action and the sheer amount of interaction required between the animation and the actors I just don't think the technology is advanced to the point where we can do it convincingly yet. Personally I'd give it a 4. And while I'm on record with saying that I'd allow 2001 for that first glorious scene I'm not sure 12 Monkeys qualifies as I don't think there are any monkeys at all unless I'm misremembering. Still, it's a fun film to watch. I was thinking precisely of the stampede scene. And I'm sure we can do it. And I'm sure Jackson can do it. He did it many times in Lord of the Rings. And the Kong scenes in this film were seamless. I think the animators and Jackson just put all their effort into getting Kong perfect. I really can't recall a scene with that much animation interacting so much with physical actors at that kind of speed in another film.
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Jan 29, 2016 15:16:32 GMT -5
Greystoke has beaten out Battle for the Planet of the Apes as my new favorite newly watched film this month. I thought it was pretty awesome. Christopher Lambert. Naked children. And it's the last film of Ralph Richardson! Who plays Joseph FIndley in one of my all-time favorite films: The Wrong Box.
I ran out of ape films in my Netflix queue. And my Netflix queue seems to have gone haywire. I am supposed to get two movies at a time. Sometimes I get a 3rd if one shipment gets delayed. But for reasons I cannot comprehend, I have 3 at home and 2 on the way. My queue was not updated enough to refine these films. So they are mostly the leftovers from previous months. I have My Darling Clementine leftover from the western month. It came from Beneath the Sea from our undersea terrors month. I forget what The Hidden is or why it was in my queue. And I think The Fury was just a film I wanted to watch.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 29, 2016 17:52:35 GMT -5
Greystoke has beaten out Battle for the Planet of the Apes as my new favorite newly watched film this month. I thought it was pretty awesome. Christopher Lambert. Naked children. And it's the last film of Ralph Richardson! Who plays Joseph FIndley in one of my all-time favorite films: The Wrong Box. I ran out of ape films in my Netflix queue. And my Netflix queue seems to have gone haywire. I am supposed to get two movies at a time. Sometimes I get a 3rd if one shipment gets delayed. But for reasons I cannot comprehend, I have 3 at home and 2 on the way. My queue was not updated enough to refine these films. So they are mostly the leftovers from previous months. I have My Darling Clementine leftover from the western month. It came from Beneath the Sea from our undersea terrors month. I forget what The Hidden is or why it was in my queue. And I think The Fury was just a film I wanted to watch. Greystoke is one of my favorite Tarzan films! I love the opening.
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Jan 31, 2016 4:10:35 GMT -5
I watched the animated Tarzan (I think I will win this month), which was the only Tarzan film I had ever seen prior to watching Greystoke this month. I still really like it. I think I loved it more in my youth. I recall getting much more into the music once than I did on this viewing, but I still think the Phil Collins songs are solid. The story is a good one: they really capture the "torn between two worlds" despite never leaving the jungle. Keeps the mimicry explanation for how he learns language. I liked it.
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Jan 31, 2016 16:47:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 31, 2016 20:18:24 GMT -5
I watched the animated Tarzan (I think I will win this month), which was the only Tarzan film I had ever seen prior to watching Greystoke this month. I still really like it. I think I loved it more in my youth. I recall getting much more into the music once than I did on this viewing, but I still think the Phil Collins songs are solid. The story is a good one: they really capture the "torn between two worlds" despite never leaving the jungle. Keeps the mimicry explanation for how he learns language. I liked it. The animated Tarzan is a great film too, I loved the scene with Tarzan looking at his reflection in the puddle and the speech his mother gave. And I love your theme for next month, I've considered doing Disney animated films in the past and I'm glad some one else was on the same page.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 31, 2016 20:35:18 GMT -5
Sorry I was a complete non-entity this month. For some reason, I just don't ever end up watching films around this time of year. Based on past history, I'm likely to get a lot more involved again when March rolls around. Maybe I'll get in a few Disney films with the girls in the meantime
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 2, 2016 14:49:19 GMT -5
I watched Robin Hood. Disney greatness has always come in spurts. They seem to have one great film and then follow it up well for a few years every so often. I think Snow White set a high bar they were able to continuously rise to for a few years. Then it lulled. Then got reinvigorated by Cinderella. I think the '70s are part of one of their longer lulls. It would take Little Mermaid to reinvigorate the line. As a child, this was probably my film of the era. Compared to what Disney was doing in the '50s, the animation seems somewhat crude. But the story is a basically good one. The battle against a tyrant. Disney animation would return to similar themes with Hunchback of Notre Dame. And the music is pretty excellent. Roger Miller narrates, and writes and sings some songs. You've got a Johnny Mercer song. It's hard not to like a movie where Roger Miller plays a whistling rooster.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 3, 2016 11:03:33 GMT -5
I watched Robin Hood. Disney greatness has always come in spurts. They seem to have one great film and then follow it up well for a few years every so often. I think Snow White set a high bar they were able to continuously rise to for a few years. Then it lulled. Then got reinvigorated by Cinderella. I think the '70s are part of one of their longer lulls. It would take Little Mermaid to reinvigorate the line. As a child, this was probably my film of the era. Compared to what Disney was doing in the '50s, the animation seems somewhat crude. But the story is a basically good one. The battle against a tyrant. Disney animation would return to similar themes with Hunchback of Notre Dame. And the music is pretty excellent. Roger Miller narrates, and writes and sings some songs. You've got a Johnny Mercer song. It's hard not to like a movie where Roger Miller plays a whistling rooster. The music is pretty great and the story and characters are fun, but after re-watching it as an adult a few years back I was surprised just how much of the animation was just reused bits from previous films. There are a few other Disney films that used this trick as well but I think this one relies on this crutch the most: heck it even borrows from itself.
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 7, 2016 20:15:58 GMT -5
I rewatched Hunchback of Notre Dame. I have always had a fondness for the film, and found it almost as good as I recall. (I think I was more forgiving of animation flaws in my youth than I am now). The songs still worked, as did the characters and story, and that's the main thing.
It's an odd film, as it's not clear who it's for. Despite its rating and marketing, I don't really consider it for children. Take for example the Heaven's Light/Hellfire sequence. Quasimodo falls in love with Esmeralda, and compares it the glow he has often seen in young lovers as he looked on from above. He thought of her as an angel and that glow as heaven's light. In contrast, Frollo sings about how she is a witch who has cast a spell on him, and comes to the conclusion that she will give into to his lust for her, or he will kill her and see her condemned to hell.
Choose me or your pyre... be mine or you will burn!
It's a smart contrast, a good song, particularly the Frollo part, set agains the background chorus of the Catholic Confiteor in Latin.
I think it's a great scene. But at whom is it aimed. This idea of a man who considers himself pure, but has lustful thoughts, and blames the woman, rather than himself, for the guilt that comes with them... it's not quite the theme of a children's film. In any way shape or form.
And thus I think the film only works for an older audience. Except that, in most every other way, it's clearly a children's film. Other themes simplified (the rebellion against a tyrannical and unjust magistrate), and filled with talking gargoyles for comic relief. So it's not clear that this film would work for adults, except for adults who like children's films.
Basically me. I think the film is for me. I was 15 when it came out. That's just about right. I still like children's films even as a nominal adult. And I don't mind children's films which are not kid-appropriate, as I'm not actually a kid.
A very strange film.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 20:23:49 GMT -5
I rewatched Hunchback of Notre Dame. I have always had a fondness for the film, and found it almost as good as I recall. (I think I was more forgiving of animation flaws in my youth than I am now). The songs still worked, as did the characters and story, and that's the main thing. It's an odd film, as it's not clear who it's for. Despite its rating and marketing, I don't really consider it for children. Take for example the Heaven's Light/Hellfire sequence. Quasimodo falls in love with Esmeralda, and compares it the glow he has often seen in young lovers as he looked on from above. He thought of her as an angel and that glow as heaven's light. In contrast, Frollo sings about how she is a witch who has cast a spell on him, and comes to the conclusion that she will give into to his lust for her, or he will kill her and see her condemned to hell. Choose me or your pyre... be mine or you will burn!It's a smart contrast, a good song, particularly the Frollo part, set agains the background chorus of the Catholic Confiteor in Latin. I think it's a great scene. But at whom is it aimed. This idea of a man who considers himself pure, but has lustful thoughts, and blames the woman, rather than himself, for the guilt that comes with them... it's not quite the theme of a children's film. In any way shape or form. And thus I think the film only works for an older audience. Except that, in most every other way, it's clearly a children's film. Other themes simplified (the rebellion against a tyrannical and unjust magistrate), and filled with talking gargoyles for comic relief. So it's not clear that this film would work for adults, except for adults who like children's films. Basically me. I think the film is for me. I was 15 when it came out. That's just about right. I still like children's films even as a nominal adult. And I don't mind children's films which are not kid-appropriate, as I'm not actually a kid. A very strange film. one of THE best Disney Films soundtracks. . oh some others come close ("Beauty and the Beast", or "Fantasia").. but this one is just about perfect.
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 7, 2016 20:28:35 GMT -5
I rewatched Hunchback of Notre Dame. I have always had a fondness for the film, and found it almost as good as I recall. (I think I was more forgiving of animation flaws in my youth than I am now). The songs still worked, as did the characters and story, and that's the main thing. It's an odd film, as it's not clear who it's for. Despite its rating and marketing, I don't really consider it for children. Take for example the Heaven's Light/Hellfire sequence. Quasimodo falls in love with Esmeralda, and compares it the glow he has often seen in young lovers as he looked on from above. He thought of her as an angel and that glow as heaven's light. In contrast, Frollo sings about how she is a witch who has cast a spell on him, and comes to the conclusion that she will give into to his lust for her, or he will kill her and see her condemned to hell. Choose me or your pyre... be mine or you will burn!It's a smart contrast, a good song, particularly the Frollo part, set agains the background chorus of the Catholic Confiteor in Latin. I think it's a great scene. But at whom is it aimed. This idea of a man who considers himself pure, but has lustful thoughts, and blames the woman, rather than himself, for the guilt that comes with them... it's not quite the theme of a children's film. In any way shape or form. And thus I think the film only works for an older audience. Except that, in most every other way, it's clearly a children's film. Other themes simplified (the rebellion against a tyrannical and unjust magistrate), and filled with talking gargoyles for comic relief. So it's not clear that this film would work for adults, except for adults who like children's films. Basically me. I think the film is for me. I was 15 when it came out. That's just about right. I still like children's films even as a nominal adult. And I don't mind children's films which are not kid-appropriate, as I'm not actually a kid. A very strange film. one of THE best Disney Films soundtracks. . oh some others come close ("Beauty and the Beast", or "Fantasia").. but this one is just about perfect. I probably almost agree. Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz were really on. Fantasia is hard to compare as it mostly uses older compositions, rather than its own. I think the '90s Disney films mostly had pretty great soundtracks, including Aladdin and Lion King. But Hunchback's is great, particularly: Bells of Notre Dame God Help the Outcasts Heaven's Light/Hellfire
|
|