How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I've followed Peter Jackson's career for a while, ever since he directed low budget horror films. I still like Bad Taste and Dead/Alive. I'm also a big fan of Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners with Michael J Fox. To me he reached his peak with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

But since then I think he's been hit and miss. King Kong was at least an hour too long and The Lovely Bones seemed average compared to his previous output. I haven't seen The Hobbit yet but it has received mixed reviews.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

He is running the risk of ending up like George Lucas, who basically lost his career to the Star Wars ghetto. I'm sure George cries himself to sleep on a bed of money but it's a shame he didn't diversify more like say, Spielberg has.

I like King Kong but it is VERY padded, and never did see The Lovely Bones. Tintin, which I guess he had some input on, was also rather a letdown for me. The Hobbit is nowhere as bad as its press has been though, and as a fan of LOTR I quite liked it -- but I kind of worry Jackson is spending his prime film career years in Hobbitland, I'd love to see him do another Heavely Creatures-type film. I still do wish that Guillermo had finished the project with Jackson producing, it would've been a different tone for The Hobbit.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

Yes I think he's stuck in Hobbitland at the moment. I also think he's lost the ability to edit his films. They're way too long these days. The Hobbit should have been one concise two hour film IMO, not three drawn out epics. I remember in a Rolling Stone interview, Jackson said after LOTR he wouldn't do another 3 hour film. What happened?

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I think PJ is great - but I'd like to see him tackle something more low key after The Hobbit is all wrapped up. I absolutely LOVE Braindead, Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners and LOTR. I think there is an hour of King Kong that is incredible, but it is sandwiched between a boring beginning and heavy handed ending. The Lovely Bones was a rare misfire, missing the mark completely. Even when he makes movies that might overstay there welcome, there is still a lot of greatness in there.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I think he's very capable director who tends to get lost in technology and the worlds it has created, causing him to lose focus on making a good film, but rather focusing more on making a spectacle.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

Well he's made more money, more blockbusters and received more Academy Awards than I'll ever receive. I'll continue to watch and enjoy his movies as they come out.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MfkHkdu5IEI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

He had an interesting indie career, and as far as his mainstream work everything has been sub par except for the LOTR movies.

King Kong was bloated, boring, and overwrought, and The Lovely Bones was unwatchable.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I was watching the Red Letter Media review of the Hobbit, and while I didn't agree with every criticism, one of them made the point that Peter Jackson loves excess. In his early films, the excess isn't in the runtime, but in the content. Think about the amount of gore in Braindead. Total excess. Now he has the money to be less excessive in the content, and more excessive in the runtime. Thought that was an interesting observation.

I love his output through LOTR. King Kong I can't watch in its entirety anymore. Never saw The Lovely Bones. Hobbit was good but is bloated. I wonder if he likes making long movies or if he thinks that the audience expects it of him now.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

He's good, but needs to learn that it is possible to make movies that last two hours or less.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I suspect neither, but maybe the former. He's just a big kid with keys to the Hollywood castle, and he's got all the best toys. I think he becomes so immersed-in and married-to the worlds he creates that each frame of footage is like a child to him, so judicious editing is probably akin to murdering the movie.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

The LOTR trilogy is perfection...but the rest of his filmography is frankly underwhelming. I think "The Frighteners" sucked as well as "Heavenly Creatures"

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I mostly love Peter Jackson's work. For some reason, long runtimes and slow pacing don't bother me. I don't think I've ever complained about it for any movie in my entire life.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

He's highly overrated.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

He's nothing special to me, but that's largely because I was never a big fan of the Lord of the Rings which is what everyone else loves him for. King Kong was pretty mediocre (and too long).

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

Peter Jackson does his best work when he's answerable to someone -- anyone. A producer, a studio head, whatever. When the buck stops with him and he has free reign to do whatever he wants, his work suffers in abundance. King Kong is terrible. The latter two LOTR films can't compare with the greatness of the first. Hobbit is a 4 out of 5; what kept it from greatness was his usual bloated flaws.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

He's a big kid who loves playing with toys, but he's not much of an artist or even a very good filmmaker. Heavenly Creatures was good (not great).

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I don't think he has anywhere near the directorial skill that he's credited with. I really like the LOTR trilogy but I still think it's a bit vanilla. This was perhaps inevitable given the budget and risk. The first film is by far the best. The trilogy overall didn't take too many risks and sticks to a lot of action movie tropes. Dead/Alive is just silly and not very funny compared to some other horror comedies. I actually like a lot of King Kong, but that movie remains an uneven mess. Didn't see Lovely Bones or Heavenly Creatures.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I prefer his earlier work and I think the weight that he lost has added to his movies. They're good movies. I like most of them but they get tampered a bit by adding everything and the kitchen sink. The man made Dead Alive, Meet the Feebles, and The Frighteners so I kind of hope he goes back to his horror roots one day. He certainly can afford to.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

Haven't seen anything of his before Heavenly Creatures, so I rank them like this:

LOTR Trilogy
Frighteners
Hobbit
King Kong
Heavenly Creatures
Lovely Bones

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I consider Peter Jackson one of the world's greatest filmmakers. He has the same level of imagination and skill in making films as Stanley Kubrick or Steven Spielberg. As others have said, Jackson is a bit akin to a kid who loves playing with his toys. That seems to be a reasonable assessment to me. It doesn't make a Peter Jackson film any less mesmerizing to myself. He loves the worlds he creates and the stories told. I consider it a part of his charm as a filmmaker.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

Whoa. He's nowhere near Kubrick. Not even Spielberg is near Kubrick. I love Spielberg more than Kubrick cuz he's my childhood and then some but Kubrick is better than those both combined.

He has massive imagination when it comes to technical work and how to implement but his storytelling is much weaker than his ability to direct.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the clarity of his storytelling. The problem is that he likes to keep telling the story beyond what the story requires.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

Which is an issue in his storytelling. There's a really good story there, we all know that...it's just that...he drags a bit too much. And it is a good story but be it due to his fandom, ability as a writer, or whatever issues arise.

After I finished watching the movie, which I enjoyed very much, I was more interested in how he made this film much more. I can't wait for the jam packed BDs at some point.

Re: How do you rate Peter Jackson as a film maker?
 

I don't know, when I think of bad storytelling, I think of an inability to tell a story. Or not having a story to tell. Look at Resident Evil: Retribution. Nothing even happens in that movie, just the barest amount of plot necessary to blow shit up real good. I watched that movie and couldn't tell you why anything happened the way it happened. That's bad storytelling.

What Peter Jackson does is tell stories that are too long, but I never have a problem understanding what's happening, why it's happening, or what's motivating the characters. And it's been that way since Bad Taste. He is not a bad storyteller.