Strevlac

fair enough and you're right. I do get grumpy when I watch something that I think is crap that gets unanimous praise. Or certain filmmakers. And vice versa.

But IMO it's more interesting when strong-minded people with a wide perspective weigh in with their thoughts on cinema as an art than just reading how great the latest movie is or banal minutia about Tom Bombadil or The Force or whatever.

Supermallet

I think there's room for all of that discussion. And I think that Jackson is a highly skilled filmmaker (and storyteller), although definitely not to the level of Kubrick. He hasn't had as long of a career as Spielberg, but is less afraid to go dark than Spielberg is.

MasterofDVD

I think Jackson's recent work is amazing but I could watch The Frighteners weekly if I had the time. I remember the first time I rented it in college and my wife and I had just started dating. I made her watch it with me and I instantly loved the film. Years later my wife broke the news to me that she almost broke up with me the next day because she hated the movie so damn much.

When the updated DVD on the movie came out with all the behind the scenes stuff that was on the laserdisc I was pretty sure I had died and gone to heaven.

CloverClover

After watching Fellowship of the Ring again... where did THAT filmmaker go? That is a masterpiece. If he kept working on that level he could've been the new Spielberg. As everyone already said his work has gotten big and dumb.

Supermallet

I still think The Two Towers extended cut is the best LOTR film.

CloverClover

Have you seen the first one? The others are alright, but the first one is a great work of filmmaking. It just sweeps you away. Movie magic.

clckworang

I'm a longtime fan of Peter Jackson. Dead Alive is just a total blast to watch, and Meet the Feebles has received quite a few watches as well. I also really liked Heavenly Creatures, so I remember being very excited when it was first announced he was going to be directing the LOTR movies. Return of the King does overstay its welcome a little bit, but I think he did a great job with the films.

I haven't watched The Lovely Bones or The Hobbit yet, but my hair wasn't blown back by King Kong. I thought it was technically well done but way too bloated. I still love his early efforts, though.

I agree. I've always thought Two Towers was the strongest entry.

dekker

That's a classic story about you and your partner's reactions. Talk about difference of opinion! I really like The Frighteners and bought the 3 disc
DVD set in Australia.

Mattflix

For me the LOTR movies are near-perfection. I can watch the 4-hour extended editions, and when I'm done I'm upset that it's over.

That being said, I haven't been able to get into anything else Peter Jackson had made.

Solid Snake

Near perfection isn't what LOTR is but that first one is. The others? Well...that's where it jumps up on down if you want to get critical about it. And I love the shit out of them but, for example, ROTK has some issues.

Mattflix

The LOTR series press all my buttons the right way. Fellowship definitely had a greater danger to it that seemed to be lost later as the characters seemingly became invincible. But aside from that I have no real problems with the series. I think you need to take it as one 12-hour movie and not think of them individually. Considering that, ROTK isn't one long battle with a bloated ending; it's the third act of the story.

Solid Snake

Doesn't matter how you take it, it still has issues. Doesn't stop me from loving it though.

Matthew Chmiel

When Peter Jackson has limited resources, he makes the best of what he has and is at the top of his game. For example: Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, Dead-Alive, and Heavenly Creatures.

When Peter Jackson has to answer to suits, we're given solid films. For example: The Frightners and The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

When Peter Jackson has complete control and unlimited resources, he's a fucking hack. For example: King Kong, The Lovely Bones, and The Hobbit.

Time Warrior

I agree with the above post absolutely. Jackson is the kind of director who works best with a challenge - low budget, few resources, etc. Give him that and he produces genius (Bad Taste.) Give him a huge budget and lots of time and he produces boring bloated rubbish.

Honestly he would have thrived under the old Hollywood studio system directing B quickies. He is the kind of director who should never have a choice about subject, budget, casting, etc. He is a functional journeyman (not something to be ashamed of) but no more than that.

Ghostbuster

I think Jackson is the ideal candidate to direct a live-action Berserk. The manga/anime Berserk is similar to Lord of the Rings (medieval setting, supernatural elements, epic scale), but it's darker and more violent. I haven't seen Jackson's early films, but I know some of them were horror films.

Tarantino

Hipster.

Mr. Cinema

Well fuck all of this hate for King Kong. I still think it's one of the best epic action adventure movies of the last several years. The run time doesn't bother me. I think the story moves along rather well and the action scenes, particularly on Skull Island, are great. With a 3 hour epic, you need everything to be grand, and I think the movie hits on all cylinders. And let's not forget the great and physical performance from Naomi Watts. Overall, it's just a damn good entertaining film.

Solid Snake

About Watts. She easily has a better scream than Fay Wray.

Supermallet

King Kong put me to sleep. Cut out the dinosaur chase and the insects, also 2/3 of the characters.

Solid Snake

I like Kong a lot but this could have leaned out the film in a very good way. While both of those scene aren't bad..they literally add nothing to the plot.