Sounds like a line out of Brokeback Mountain. :shock:
I use to be big into Laser Disks. I have several CAV collection editions where you had to flip the disk every 30 minutes. I don’t think I finished a single one of thoses. I eventually got a laserdisk player that would play both sides so that I wouldn’t have to flip the disk on CLV releases. I was so happy once they started releasing DVDs on one disks.
When I was younger, I could sit down and watch a 4 hour movie at one time. So I saw some of those movies then but I wouldn’t watch one now.
As I said to Jim, I saw long movies when I was younger. When I watched Godfather II, I watched it all at once. Scareface is once that I have only seen about 3/4th through because something would come up and I couldn’t finish watching it.
I didn’t say that there isn’t a reason to stop watching a movie, just that once its been interrupted, its ruined and I would have to start over from the beginning.
Probabably the second one. As you get older, you’ll find that you can’t abuse your body as much as you do when you are young. So there shouldn’t be nothing disturbing as that.
As for not being able to pause the movie… yeah, its weird. Movies are like an alternate reality that you are suppose to watch from beginning to end, No stops. Anything takes me out of this reality kills it for me. I can’t pick it up later. I get rather frustrated.
I have no problem with long movies in general, but they have to warrant their length. Which is why King Kong’s length doesn’t encourage me to see it - I’m baffled as to how a film about a special-effect that smashes the shit out of things can justify lasting for three hours…
But the critics seem to love it and I’m happy to be told otherwise by people who’ve seen it. What else is there going on that fills it out so much?
There was a TV interview with Naomi at the premiere in Wellington, last night - apparently most of the time with Kong she had Andy Serkis right there to act to, so she said it wasn’t a problem.
No they aren’t.
No they aren’t.[/quote]
They aren’t for you, they are for me. If you can just start watching a movie from any random part and still enjoy it, it probably isn’t worth watching in the first place.
I’ll need to see that. Must be the campy horror version?
No they aren’t.[/quote]
They aren’t for you, they are for me. If you can just start watching a movie from any random part and still enjoy it, it probably isn’t worth watching in the first place.[/quote]
I may be old and, therefore, unable to sit through a 3-hour plus movie without pause. However, I don’t have premature Alzheimer’s and can usually pretty well remember the movie through the time it takes me to go pee and come back and restart the movie from where I left off. That isn’t quite like starting it at “any random part.”
No offense, Rob, but this is a laughable statement.
Pshaw! I was falling all over myself to proclaim my adulation for War of the Worlds.
Now would you people get your butts in gear and see this movie so we can rescue the thread from Rob Merritt’s truncated attention span?
I suspect the answer will be a lot clearer when the box office figures are released this weekend. :)
-Tom
I think some of you somehow think I’m arguing against 3 hour movies. I’m not. I’m just explaining why I don’t watch them any more.
Any ways, Its not that I don’t remember what happen. I do remember but the state of mind is gone. The emotion is gone. The whole point of watching any movie in the first place, to be transported from this reality into another one, is gone once interrupted and it can only be re-entered by going back to the beginning.
I submit that this is entirely the wrong approach to take. If you want to rescue the thread, the thing to do is to pause the thread.
I can’t tell, are you joking?
Well, if you say so.
[quote=“Drastic”]
I submit that this is entirely the wrong approach to take. If you want to rescue the thread, the thing to do is to pause the thread.[/quote]
Well considering that he has to start reading the thread from the first post after every response, hopefully we’ll get it past his bladder’s threshold soon enough. :wink:
I submit that this is entirely the wrong approach to take. If you want to rescue the thread, the thing to do is to pause the thread.[/quote]
Well considering that he has to start reading the thread from the first post after every response, hopefully we’ll get it past his bladder’s threshold soon enough. :wink:[/quote]
Only for the movie version of this thread.
That said, I’m not exactly sure what Tom is thinking by starting a thread so early. Even the early birds are probably not going to see King Kong till tonight. Most of us have jobs that require us to leave our homes. Makes it hard to just rush out to a theater when we are expected to be somewhere.
King Kong bought it.
King Kong. Wow. It’s hard to know even where to begin with this film. Sure, it’s a big budget monster movie, but even better it is a perfectly blank slate to begin all sorts of hermeneutical prances and pirouettes. Yep, it’s a monster movie, but it’s really an updating of Conrad’s the Heart of Darkness! White man’s inner journey into the animal center of his soul! Or maybe it’s about the asymmetry between audience and performer. Just as Ann must perform for Kong to amuse him and calm him, just like hoofin’ it back in Vaudeville, so must Kong perform for the moneyed New York classes – but unlike Ann, who refuses to exploit herself at the beginning nor participate in exploiting Kong at the end – Kong is able to reverse the relationship between audience and performer! Whee!
But my favorite tack is to take the film at face value. That it really is female beauty at its most archetypal (blond, blue-eyed and dressed in virginal white) and male id at its most archetypal (raging, snorting, chest-thumping animality) and that beauty really does slay the beast. Just as Kong protects Ann from the horrors of the jungle, Ann’s beauty soothes Kong and civilizes him. That is, at its core, King Kong has not just a Victorian’s idea of the genders, but a 15-year-old Victorian boy’s idea of the genders. This all culminates in the “date scene” in central park when Kong takes Ann out for some romantic ice skating at night. This belly flop of silliness caused my audience to then begin to openly laugh at the film. Those two star-crossed lovers shared a tender moment before the inevitable attack of “civilized man” (the real monster, y’know!) that always strives to keep apart two people who are separated only by society’s ignorance and the fact that one is 25 feet tall and a different species.
I came out of Kong almost in a state of astonishment. Not at its greatness but at it’s sheer, unadulterated kitsch. Sure, it could have been a two hour monster movie with superb action and special effects. But why stop there when you can pretend to develop this ludicrous fable!? It’s like someone had hired a great painter to do an enormous 50-foot, beautifully framed black velvet painting of Elvis. It’s like some $300, 20-pound, leather-bound, gilded-edged, limited-edition coffee table collection of Boris Vallejo paintings. It’s a 3-hour, $200 million, sumptuosly produced piece of epic junk. And I mean that in a good way.
A little OT but my 9-yr-old may end up seeing it tomorrow with a friend, while her mom and I see John Waters. :) Has anyone with kids seen this? If so, do you think it might be too disturbing?