[quote]Big Kahuna wrote:
Damn that’s a hell of a face, I love this scene just for that face and that music. There’s something undeniably cool about this, all thirty seconds of it. De Niro’s acting has always been precise and efficient on a grand scale, but it has never been honed in as much as when he worked with Scorsese.[/quote]
Has De Niro ever NOT been intimidating? I love that scene too. His gestures just speaks volumes!
“Has De Niro ever NOT been intimidating?”
Yes, when he runs and jumps in the kiddie colored ball pit in “Little Fockers”.
Scorsese is great, his weakness is his editing compared to a true
pain in the ass perfectionist like Kubrick’s editing.
One example of many, but look at the Blocks the kids play with in the Prison visitation
scene in GOODFELLAS, the blocks change position in so many different ways between shots it’s almost comical.
Yes I REALIZE we’re supposed to watching Liotta and Bracco in that scene, but It’s almost like Scorsese is rushing that scene for print no matter what’s going on right there in the foreground.
[quote]Karado wrote:
“Has De Niro ever NOT been intimidating?”
Yes, when he runs and jumps in the kiddie colored ball pit in “Little Fockers”.[/quote]
Nope, still intimidating. You have to remember that he beats the shit out of Ben Stiller at the same time.
There’s something about a face that looks like it’s just eaten an unreasonably aged lemon. De Niro has that lemon face.
I agree, if I saw this in a dark alley I’d crap my undies.
I have a book by him that is about movie cliches and that inspired me to start that thread that thread here on T Nation about Things I’m Sick of in Movies.
[quote]Nards wrote:
I have a book by him that is about movie cliches and that inspired me to start that thread that thread here on T Nation about Things I’m Sick of in Movies.[/quote]
And that was a memorable thread. My favorite example from you was how China town scenes always happen to be on the Chinese new year. I showed that to my gf and even she laughed hard.
Do they have a comment there on how every time someone wakes up from a nightmare in a movie
they always INSTANTLY sit straight up and go “AH!”
[quote]Karado wrote:
I agree, Jurassic Park sucked for the most part, it was the ground breaking special effects,
the emotional John Williams score, and the scary Tyranosaurus scene that were the brief moments of film that were it’s shining moments, but the rest of it sucked balls.
The fact that Gen X’ers like it because of ‘nostalgia’ doesn’t mean shit,
JP sucked.
[/quote]
Nostalgia doesnt have shit to do with it. Its an excellent film by every respect of film craft. Spielberg didn’t come to be known as one of the best directors in modern film history just by accident, the dude knows how to make good films.
In fact the assertion that its only held up by nostalgia is fucking ludicrous.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
I agree, Jurassic Park sucked for the most part, it was the ground breaking special effects,
the emotional John Williams score, and the scary Tyranosaurus scene that were the brief moments of film that were it’s shining moments, but the rest of it sucked balls.
The fact that Gen X’ers like it because of ‘nostalgia’ doesn’t mean shit,
JP sucked.
[/quote]
Nostalgia doesnt have shit to do with it. Its an excellent film by every respect of film craft. Spielberg didn’t come to be known as one of the best directors in modern film history just by accident, the dude knows how to make good films.
In fact the assertion that its only held up by nostalgia is fucking ludicrous. [/quote]
If you think Jurassic Park is that good then you must adore Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws and many of his earlier movies because they are much better than Jurasic Park.
How old were you when you saw it? I was 19 in 1993 and was indeed blown away by the effects but I could still see that the story was just people running from dinosaurs the rest of the time.
I completely agree Nards…Aussie Dave is putting JP on such a high pedestal a fucking Brachiosaurus
would be hard pressed to reach it…JP is good, but not THAT good, and JP’s sequel wasn’t
so hot either, they’re good popcorn flicks Aussie, they are not on the fucking level of Lawrence Of Arabia,
Midnight Cowboy or Dog Day Afternoon.
And the contrarian response to Aussie denying that the love for JP isn’t nostalgia connected
is negated by Hollywood trying to squeeze the shit out of snake by getting every dollar it can re-releasing it 20 years later in 3-D…it’s greed as well, of course.
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
I agree, Jurassic Park sucked for the most part, it was the ground breaking special effects,
the emotional John Williams score, and the scary Tyranosaurus scene that were the brief moments of film that were it’s shining moments, but the rest of it sucked balls.
The fact that Gen X’ers like it because of ‘nostalgia’ doesn’t mean shit,
JP sucked.
[/quote]
Nostalgia doesnt have shit to do with it. Its an excellent film by every respect of film craft. Spielberg didn’t come to be known as one of the best directors in modern film history just by accident, the dude knows how to make good films.
In fact the assertion that its only held up by nostalgia is fucking ludicrous. [/quote]
If you think Jurassic Park is that good then you must adore Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws and many of his earlier movies because they are much better than Jurasic Park.
How old were you when you saw it? I was 19 in 1993 and was indeed blown away by the effects but I could still see that the story was just people running from dinosaurs the rest of the time.[/quote]
and Die Hard is about an off duty cop running around a hotel shooting at cliche terrorists? Is it a bad movie because the story is simple?
Jaws is a fantastic movie, yes. It’s also a very simple movie, its a shark fucking eating people. A complicated story or plot =/= necessarily equal a good movie.
I really don’t see how you could assert that JP is a bad movie. The pacing and setup is excellent, the editing is spot on, the cast were all excellent it had great atmosphere and suspense and yes the SFX were groundbreaking at the time, and still hold up rather well for the most part.
Are you guys seriously saying that its only considered a good film because of the SFX? Because uh by that logic people would be praising transformers as one of the best movies ever made - but they don’t, because it sucks. It was panned critically almost across the board.
[quote]Karado wrote:
I completely agree Nards…Aussie Dave is putting JP on such a high pedestal a fucking Brachiosaurus
would be hard pressed to reach it…JP is good, but not THAT good, and JP’s sequel wasn’t
so hot either, they’re good popcorn flicks Aussie, they are not on the fucking level of Lawrence Of Arabia,
Midnight Cowboy or Dog Day Afternoon.
And the contrarian response to Aussie denying that the love for JP isn’t nostalgia connected
is negated by Hollywood trying to squeeze the shit out of snake by getting every dollar it can re-releasing it 20 years later in 3-D…it’s greed as well, of course.
[/quote]
I never once compared it to any of those films. So please, stop putting words in my mouth.
You on the other hand literally said “the rest of it sucked balls” - thats what I was taking issue with. You cannot seriously be asserting that JP is only considered a good film because of nostalgia and SFX - it would not work.
and How the fuck does that negate my argument? You know what else they re-release in 3D? The phantom menace. and NOBODY loves that piece of shit besides young children. It’s considered a bad film because its poorly directed, bad dialogue and is boring as fuck. It too had SFX at the time of the release that opened new doors in the industry, yet its still considered a bad film by the vast majority of people - I wonder why that is??
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]Karado wrote:
I completely agree Nards…Aussie Dave is putting JP on such a high pedestal a fucking Brachiosaurus
would be hard pressed to reach it…JP is good, but not THAT good, and JP’s sequel wasn’t
so hot either, they’re good popcorn flicks Aussie, they are not on the fucking level of Lawrence Of Arabia,
Midnight Cowboy or Dog Day Afternoon.
And the contrarian response to Aussie denying that the love for JP isn’t nostalgia connected
is negated by Hollywood trying to squeeze the shit out of snake by getting every dollar it can re-releasing it 20 years later in 3-D…it’s greed as well, of course.
[/quote]
I never once compared it to any of those films. So please, stop putting words in my mouth.
You on the other hand literally said “the rest of it sucked balls” - thats what I was taking issue with. You cannot seriously be asserting that JP is only considered a good film because of nostalgia and SFX - it would not work.
and How the fuck does that negate my argument? You know what else they re-release in 3D? The phantom menace. and NOBODY loves that piece of shit besides young children. It’s considered a bad film because its poorly directed, bad dialogue and is boring as fuck. It too had SFX at the time of the release that opened new doors in the industry, yet its still considered a bad film by the vast majority of people - I wonder why that is??
[/quote]
I thought JP was pretty good. Certainly better than the three “prequel” Star Wars. I could NEVER swallow that all that commotion happened before the real original.
As a technically marvelous, highly entertaining suspense/action thriller that opened up a new era of special effects and how they are applied in film, Jurassic Park is a masterpiece.
As a Great Film, with strong dialog, complex character development, a charismatic hero and villain, and any real plot point beyond, RUN AWAY!!!..meh, not so good.
Compare Spielburg’s Jurassic Park with Ridley Scott’s Alien and try and tell me the latter is even in the same league as the former. And yet, the plot lines are reeeeeeally similar. I can remember every character from Alien and could describe each of them to you, including the Alien’s character traits. All I remember from JP was that there were a bunch of dumb dinosaurs, two kids and Jeff Bridges playing…himself.
Fair comparison and right on the money Cortes, and what coincidence too as I was watching ALIEN
for a bit in on HBO in High-Def last night, and just marveled at how well it’s held up in every detail after all these years.
Just amazing…if no one had a clue about the film, it’s stars, and WHEN it was made, you could actually fool 'em and tell them
it was made just last year and they would believe it.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
As a technically marvelous, highly entertaining suspense/action thriller that opened up a new era of special effects and how they are applied in film, Jurassic Park is a masterpiece.
As a Great Film, with strong dialog, complex character development, a charismatic hero and villain, and any real plot point beyond, RUN AWAY!!!..meh, not so good.
Compare Spielburg’s Jurassic Park with Ridley Scott’s Alien and try and tell me the latter is even in the same league as the former. And yet, the plot lines are reeeeeeally similar. I can remember every character from Alien and could describe each of them to you, including the Alien’s character traits. All I remember from JP was that there were a bunch of dumb dinosaurs, two kids and Jeff Bridges playing…himself.
[/quote]
Yes but right there alone you’ve already identified they are entirely different styles of films. You could make the same comparison of Jaws to Alien.
And you seem to be implying I’m comparing it to those other films by saying its a fantastic film. I’m not.
What Im taking issue with is the contention that JP only works because of SFX and nostalgia - thats fucking ridiculous. Like the example I used before, the phantom menace pioneered many new SFX technologies in the industry when it came out, it has excellent CGI and is a flashy spectacle, but it fucking SUCKS in every aspect of its filmmaking.
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
As a technically marvelous, highly entertaining suspense/action thriller that opened up a new era of special effects and how they are applied in film, Jurassic Park is a masterpiece.
As a Great Film, with strong dialog, complex character development, a charismatic hero and villain, and any real plot point beyond, RUN AWAY!!!..meh, not so good.
Compare Spielburg’s Jurassic Park with Ridley Scott’s Alien and try and tell me the latter is even in the same league as the former. And yet, the plot lines are reeeeeeally similar. I can remember every character from Alien and could describe each of them to you, including the Alien’s character traits. All I remember from JP was that there were a bunch of dumb dinosaurs, two kids and Jeff Bridges playing…himself.
[/quote]
Yes but right there alone you’ve already identified they are entirely different styles of films. You could make the same comparison of Jaws to Alien.
And you seem to be implying I’m comparing it to those other films by saying its a fantastic film. I’m not.
What Im taking issue with is the contention that JP only works because of SFX and nostalgia - thats fucking ridiculous. Like the example I used before, the phantom menace pioneered many new SFX technologies in the industry when it came out, it has excellent CGI and is a flashy spectacle, but it fucking SUCKS in every aspect of its filmmaking.[/quote]
Jaws is totally comparable to Alien. It’s practically the same story. As is Jurassic Park. Style has nothing to do with this.
A film is what it is regardless of style or genre. Alien is a Great film. The Seven Samurai is a great film. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is a Great film. Any of these films are as different from one another as they could possibly be, but they are great for the same reasons: extremely memorable, charismatic, compelling characters working with excellent dialog within the parameters of a tight, clean, engaging plot. In the hands of a good director and cinematographer, properly edited, these elements are generally agreed upon to form the foundation of a Great film.
(Just quickly before I continue, I want to be clear: I understand you are not saying JP is a “Great” film.)
So, and I’m not trying to be cute here, would you care to share some of the memorable elements that elevated JP above The Phantom Menace? Because honestly, The Phantom Menace was at the forefront of my mind as I was writing about the conspicuous absence of strong, charismatic characters or dialog. I will admit JP contains a few ingenious moments like the tremors in the water glass scene. The final 10 minutes of Star Wars Episode Three almost put me in a state of ecstasy so powerfully was it executed, but I literally cannot even remember the 2 hours of the movie that came before that other than Yoda turning out to be really badass. The reason that last scene affected me so deeply, I think now, wasn’t even because it was done so well, but because it was the ONLY scene in the entire new trilogy that actually FELT like the older trilogy, which WAS a masterpiece.
In my mind, Jurassic Park is not altogether that much better its stop motion animation forebears. It set the bar for special effects, it was a thrilling, entertaining ride, but it was not E.T., it was not Planet of the Apes, it was not Blade Runner, it was not Spirited Away. It wasn’t even in the same league, except perhaps in the way that godawful James Cameron movies buy their way into that league.
Aussie you’re diggin’ yourself into a deeper hole, you said earlier: “Its an excellent film by every respect of film craft.”
but now you’re sayin: “And you seem to be implying I’m comparing it to those other films by saying its a fantastic film. I’m not.”
So lemme get this straight, it’s not a “fantastic” film, but it’s an “excellent” film?
You also commented: "What Im taking issue with is the contention that JP only works because of SFX and nostalgia - thats fucking ridiculous.
And I say NO it’s not…JP is a bore especially in between the action and SFX scenes, it’s not a bad film and I DID enjoy
it overall, you’re just putting it on this pedestal that’s way too high. I liked the sequel only a bit more only because
it wasn’t so boring, the Dino effects were noticeably MUCH better, and the late great Pete Postlethwaite was in it.