I couldn't agree more.

Posted by Fall Guy from pool0164.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (209.179.198.164) on Saturday, August 10, 2002 at 2:12am :

In Reply to: Good points posted by Belosch from ppp-206-170-6-55.rdcy01.pacbell.net (206.170.6.55) on Saturday, August 10, 2002 at 0:23am :

Spielberg is very, very good, but he does have a tendency to get too mushy for my taste. He's isn't always doing that, and Schindler's List was A-okay.
Good to see another LOTR fan here. Yes, I thought the first movie was quite good. In fact, it was much better than I had expected and even hoped. And as you already said, Jackson's action scenes are only fair. Spielberg is exceptionally skilled, and I have watched Duel many times just to enjoy Spielberg's technique. He was trying out a great number of angles and such.
FG

: Spielberg can falter badly when he gets caught up in treacly sentimentality (the blue fairy sequence was downright PAINFUL). But now and then he succeeds, like in the epilogue of Schindler's List, where the scene at the grave was filmed with tasteful restraint. He simply took the actors, which were previously filmed in perfect camera angles, lighting, etc., and placed them humbly, unobtrusively, alongside the actual survivors THEMSELVES. It was that understatement that made the scene so emotionally soaring (for me, anyway).
: Your also DEAD-ON about SPR, where, after the first extraordinary 30 minutes, there's a feeling of "air being let out of a balloon." It feels like "Now we got a bunch of guys standing around the cliffs of Normandy, and we better get a STORYLINE goin'!" And the resulting story is SO conventional compared with what came before.
: It's also true that Spielberg EXCELS at dynamic, kinetically exciting action sequences ("Duel," anyone?"). As a point of comparison, though I WORSHIP Peter Jackson's achievement in bringing LOTR to the big (and now small) screen, I don't think his action sequences are as strong as Spielberg is capable of, In the Indy films, the "calling card" is the action, whereas in LOTR, during a couple action scenes I was waiting to get on to the next part. Still a great movie, though. And Spielberg, despite his flaws, is still a great director at his best.
:
:

Follow Ups:

I haven't posted in some time, but conversations on PJ always bring me out... - Jimmie 2:13pm 08/16/2002

Better things are yet to come? - Fall Guy 5:02am 08/17/2002

FG.....wait for the Heavenly Creatures SE release.... - Jimmie 4:07pm 08/17/2002

Will do. Thanks for the tip. (nm) - Fall Guy 11:00pm 08/17/2002

I don't know about that last part, but thanks for the insights and tips! NM - Belosch 1:16am 08/17/2002

No worries!! (NM) - Jimmie 4:08pm 08/17/2002

Post a Followup

Name:

E-Mail: ( default )

Subject:

Message:
: Spielberg is very, very good, but he does have a tendency to get too mushy for my taste. He's isn't always doing that, and Schindler's List was A-okay. : Good to see another LOTR fan here. Yes, I thought the first movie was quite good. In fact, it was much better than I had expected and even hoped. And as you already said, Jackson's action scenes are only fair. Spielberg is exceptionally skilled, and I have watched Duel many times just to enjoy Spielberg's technique. He was trying out a great number of angles and such. : FG : : : Spielberg can falter badly when he gets caught up in treacly sentimentality (the blue fairy sequence was downright PAINFUL). But now and then he succeeds, like in the epilogue of Schindler's List, where the scene at the grave was filmed with tasteful restraint. He simply took the actors, which were previously filmed in perfect camera angles, lighting, etc., and placed them humbly, unobtrusively, alongside the actual survivors THEMSELVES. It was that understatement that made the scene so emotionally soaring (for me, anyway). : : Your also DEAD-ON about SPR, where, after the first extraordinary 30 minutes, there's a feeling of "air being let out of a balloon." It feels like "Now we got a bunch of guys standing around the cliffs of Normandy, and we better get a STORYLINE goin'!" And the resulting story is SO conventional compared with what came before. : : It's also true that Spielberg EXCELS at dynamic, kinetically exciting action sequences ("Duel," anyone?"). As a point of comparison, though I WORSHIP Peter Jackson's achievement in bringing LOTR to the big (and now small) screen, I don't think his action sequences are as strong as Spielberg is capable of, In the Indy films, the "calling card" is the action, whereas in LOTR, during a couple action scenes I was waiting to get on to the next part. Still a great movie, though. And Spielberg, despite his flaws, is still a great director at his best. : : : :

Optional Link ( default )

URL:

Title:

Optional Image Link ( default )

URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com