Chen G.

Yeah, my passing knowledge of Tolkien's biography didn't suggest that it would make for very compelling piece of cinema, but the movie works well enough. Its very handsomely photographed, actually.

The marketing on that one made me think I’d hate it. It’s a testament to Spielberg’s skill that I didn’t. I still didn’t think much of it, though.

That’s where my thinking is it. I think Indy 5 is doomed to fail because: a) it’s a sequel in a series is quite simply done and over with and b) it’s an action-adventure film whose hero is pushing 80. I’m actually very happy Spielberg isn’t directing this.

Honestly, this is good news. Spielberg doesn’t need to be attached to this pathetic attempt at a sequel.

The Indy series did end well-rounded, see Last Crusade, the. There should never have been a fourth Indy film.

It doesn’t quite achieve greatness for me, but in the comic-book/superhero landscape it’s very good.

I don't much stock in the "bland" label. Its more the winking-at-the-audience humour that gets me. It destroys that which movies mean to me.

Plus he can focus on something that isn't guarenteed to suck, being: a) a film in a series that ended two entries prior and b) an action film where the hero is fucking 80! To me, its the last nail in the coffin of this abomination, and we're all better for it.

you’re nuts. It’s the best performance in the trilogy, and the best character of the whole series.

I feel for both, which is why - for all the issues - I do like King Kong. But I feel more for Thorin, throughout.

I wouldn’t quite say that, but what is true is that Jackson turned Kong into a tragedy, and while its good, its not as earned as in The Hobbit. There are two tragic threads in Kong: Denham “destroying the things he loves” and Kong dying before Ann’s eyes. But the latter is only tragic in that the character dies: neither Kong nor Ann bring this fate upon themselves through their actions, which is the whole point of tragedy. Like Frodo in The Lord of the Rings, they’re not tragic character, per se: they’ve just been placed in a tragic situation. Denham is closer to the tragic, Aristotelian mould, but because he’s so nutty and consumed by his own ambition from the very beginning, there’s little by way of sense of a tragic fall about him. Reminds me of the girls in Heavenly Creatures in a way, or how Jackson introduces us to Denethor as an already power-hungry individual. What’s more, when Kong dies the movie just...ends. Even tragedies usually have a denouement of some kind. Although the film is already so long that it’s hard to complain too much. By comparison, Thorin’s death is classically tragic because it is the result of his own actions, which stem from his tragic fall; and we receive a wonderful denouement that doesn’t diminish the tragedy more than it has to.

Its more glacial than any of them, the effects are worse, performances more uneven, the scale less warranted and the tragedy less earned. So no. Its still very affecting at the end, which is what makes or breaks a film. So yeah, a good movie - but Jackson's worst "big" film nonetheless.

You don't need to cut too much out of Kong (which I agree is very glacial) to make it flow a lot better. It would be great at around 2.5 hours. Trying to cut it down any more will probably make it feel much too fragemented. Its worth bearing in mind that tragedies benefit from a slower tempo just like comedies benefit from a faster one. Should it have been three hours? Hell no: even Jackson has bemoaned the editing of the film and expressed a desire to recut it. But you really don't need to cut too much out of it.

If you don't enjoy the end result, does that really matter, though?

Yeah sure. The point of your post that I was replying to was with regards to The Exorcist. I don't think about it too highly as a horror movie: I think about it very highly as a drama about a man with a crisis of faith.