Best Comedy of the Year

Post by **Delphine** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:25 am

The Glass Elevator? I could never find it. :/

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:43 am

Roald Dahl was king at my elementary school.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:46 am

I hated The Glass Elevator.

Kishi · Post by **Kishi** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:39 am

plasticwingsband wrote:Nathan Lane

I'm not familiar with Nathan Lane, so I actually mistook him for Kevin Meaney.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:31 am

Glass Elevator sucked so much ass compared to The Chocolate Factory.

plasticwingsband · Post by **plasticwingsband** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:45 am

Kishi wrote:
plasticwingsband wrote:Nathan Lane
I'm not familiar with Nathan Lane, so I actually mistook him for Kevin Meaney.

Matthew Broderick = Simba
Nathan Lane = Timon

and I am aware of the fact that Chocolate Factory was a book first but that doesn't change the fact that Gene Wilder is Willy Wonka.

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:00 pm

Double-S- wrote:Glass Elevator sucked so much ass compared to The Chocolate Factory.

Did not!

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:55 pm

and I am aware of the fact that Chocolate Factory was a book first but that doesn't change the fact that Gene Wilder is Willy Wonka.

I actually felt that way for the longest time, but ever since I saw Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka, the 1971 movie in general doesn't seem to do it for me anymore, including Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka.
~Neo

Post by **Segaholic2** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:17 pm

Johnny Depp sucks, and so does Tim Burton.

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:08 pm

Johnny Depp sucks, and so does Tim Burton.

Your opinion means nothing to me, so there.
~Neo

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:45 pm

Segaholic2 wrote:Johnny Depp sucks, and so does Tim Burton.

But you like Jim Carrey. Oh, Tsui...

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:04 pm

I just saw it.

Pros:
+ Massive amounts of Naomi Watt's cleavage
+ An interesting story
+ 3 jaws snapped in the course of 5 minutes

Cons:
- Terribly, terribly, dreadfully long
- The story loses steam often
- Adrian Brody stops speaking 2/3rds through the movie. It makes sense, but come on.

Zaranth · Post by **Zaranth** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:52 pm

Saw King Kong during the weekend. I haven't seen the original, so I can't compare, but I found Peter Jackson's remake to be enjoyable. The special effects were great, the T.Rexs and Kong really kicked ass (though the dinos were dead in five minutes

) and it basically kept me interested the whole three hours in the theater. It did drag in some parts, but it was far from being a sucky film.

My dad did complain that Jack Black didn't deliver the last line like the actor did in the original, but considering that I've only seen him in goofy character roles up to this point, I will admit that he can do a serious role well enough.

I also give this movie props for letting the token minority (that black dude who was part of the ship's crew) stick around for at least an hour into it (before he bit the dust).

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:46 am

They could not have been Tyrannosaurs because Tyrannosaurs only have two fingers on each hand. In some shots there was clearly a vestigal third digit. Perhaps they were Allosaurs or just generic monster-dinosaurs.

Ngangbius · Post by **Ngangbius** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:07 am

They were supposed to be Venasaurus(sic?) Rexes. The idea was that the dinos kept evolving due to avoiding extinction.

And yeah I've seen Jackson's King Kong and it was my first time I've actually saw a Kong movie since I've only seen clips of the orginal movie and Simpsons paroding it in a Tree House of Horror episode. It was enjoyable despite being slow at some parts.

God, the spider pit scene creeped me out. Giant worms and roaches. *shivers* Though, I want to know how that gun newbie kid accurately shot the bugs that was crawling over rapidly flailing Driscoll without accidentally shooting him?

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:08 pm

Movie magic.

Gwilym · Post by **Gwilym** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:39 pm

Johnny Depp sucks, and so does Tim Burton.

Thank you. AGREED. Depp cannot possibly ever match Wilder in terms of being googley eyed crazy.

~Neo

Senbei · Post by **Senbei** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:35 pm

Gwilym wrote:
Johnny Depp sucks, and so does Tim Burton.
Thank you. AGREED. Depp cannot possibly ever match Wilder in terms of being googley eyed crazy.

~Neo

Wait... are you Gwilym, or Neo? I'm so confused...
I apologize, but I couldn't resist.

Anyway, I think the majority of Burton's films kick ass. I even immensely enjoyed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory right up until they actually entered the factory. Then everything went downhill, mostly due to its molasses-like pace. But everything else, Charlie, his family, their diagonally-aligned house... it was pure gold.

Gwilym · Post by **Gwilym** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:40 pm

Yes, if we just make everything crooked and mash spirals everywhere, all will be good.

And no, I'm not Neo.

~Neo

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:20 pm

Gwilym wrote:
Johnny Depp sucks, and so does Tim Burton.
Thank you. AGREED. Depp cannot possibly ever match Wilder in terms of being googley eyed crazy.

~Neo

STOP FUCKING WITH MY MIIIIIIIIIIIIND

j-man · Post by **j-man** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:08 pm

They could not have been Tyrannosaurs because Tyrannosaurs only have two fingers on each hand. In some shots there was clearly a vestigal third digit.

I heard that got explained in the film. It was something like that they were dinosaurs that had evolved the extra finger over the 65 million years they had been hidden from the rest of the world. Or something. It's ridiculous, but if there ever was a film to ask you politely to suspend disbelief it's King Kong.

Also, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was fucking awesome. The whole "Wonka's father" subplot aside, it was so faithful to the book I wanted to break down and cry right there in my girlfriend's room (where I was watching it). Having said that, though, if they had to add the aforementioned subplot, I'm sorely glad they got Christopher Lee in to do it. Darkly humorous, vaguely sinister and deliciously twisted, which is how I remember the book, to be honest.

Also to note, Roald Dahl lived like 10 minutes from me his entire life. Most of his books were set in Buckinghamshire, mentioning my town and surrounding villages, and we even have a museum to his work in the town centre, which is more fun than it should be at the ripe old age of 18. I squealed with delight when Veruca Salt was shown to live in Buckinghamshire in the film, too. Squealed like a little girl. Mm hmm.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:06 pm

Ngangbius wrote:They were supposed to be Venasaurus(sic?) Rexes. The idea was that the dinos kept evolving due to avoiding extinction.

j-man · Post by **j-man** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:35 pm

I think the point I was going to make was that they kept the 3-digit thing as an homage to the original movie, but it got lost somewhere in the transition from brain to finger to interwebs. Still, there it is.

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:14 pm

Also, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was fucking awesome. The whole "Wonka's father" subplot aside, it was so faithful to the book I wanted to break down and cry right there in my girlfriend's room (where I was watching it). Having said that, though, if they had to add the aforementioned subplot, I'm sorely glad they got Christopher Lee in to do it. Darkly humorous, vaguely sinister and deliciously twisted, which is how I remember the book, to be honest.

Agreed. It's rare for me to ever enjoy a movie remake of another movie from like 20 years back most likely adapted from a book, but Tim Burton not only made Charlie and the Chocolate Factory enjoyable, I actually perfer it over the original and that's from watching the 1971 version like 20 times. Now that I look back, the older version just feels plain compare to Tim Burton's.

Also to note, Roald Dahl lived like 10 minutes from me his entire life.

Seriously? That's awesome.
~Neo

PBJClock · Post by **PBJClock** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:28 pm

I thought Tim Burton's Willy Wonka to be a little scary. When you think about it, it's creepy that these kids are being punished for being kids . . . but they were all portrayed as brats so it was ok.

to go back on topic however I hated every aspect of king kong and found myself hating more and more as the story progressed. Or maybey Peter Jackson wanted to make a 3hr long childrens movie, when I saw the movie the theatre was full of kids.

(...)