Ditto.
Let me add (just so this isn’t just a “me too” post) that the stupid, insipid tacked on ending totally negated Jude Law’s character’s whole reason for being.
Crouching Tiger / Hidden Dragon
A wonderful movie overall, except that the pacing takes a massive stumble when we cut to the romance-in-the-desert flashback. The past romance should have either been done in a shorter segment, or cut up and revealed gradually through the movie, instead of force fed to the audience in one large chunk.
While important to the story, as edited currently it totally disrupts the flow and suspense of the plot, and feels like it is just a “chick flick” concession slipped in as an afterthought.
Not a great movie, but…
CastAway
Delete the line “3 years later”. Show us how Hanks’ character got to be proficient at living on an island ferchrissake!!! That’s what everyone came to see. Then you delete the line “6 months later”, show us how he reacclimated to society, and you’ve got a fantastic movie. It’d probably 7 hours long, but at least it would be interesting. The original *seems * like 7 hours, but is boring as hell.
A.I. is far from being a perfect film, but you haven’t got it right with your interpretation of the ending. The “trite” ending is vital to revealing what the whole movie was about. There is a huge thread about this movie (I can’t search for it now, I’m just a Guest here), that explains what went on, and why it had to have that ending. (IIRC, Cervaise had a lot of insightful comments about the movie). I won’t attempt to rehash everything here, except to mention that they definitely were not aliens.
How much better would the 007 James Bond series be, and his cinematic ownership of the role, if “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” had been Sean Connery’s swan song?
The only other thing I would change is that I’d use the wedding as an excuse to have James bid farewell by calling Moneypenny by her FIRST name… if only so she’d finally have one.
Why should Sex and The City’s Mr. Big get all the closure?
The Last Samurai: A fairly good movie, but for the love of God, why was the last samurai an american?! Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against you americans, but that just bothers me in the movie.
And Loopydude… everyones entitled to an opinion, but come on, be reasonable!
Cheesy, non-WETA effects aside, what about that scene *wasn’t * faithful to the book?
Incorrect. The Elves were very much active in the affairs of humans, since they were very much involved in the final war - though they were fighting on their own turf in the north.
Presently, yes. But the EE could very much change that perception.
See above.
**Harry Potter **
Snapes character in Chamber of Secrets is nearly cut down to nothing.
The Weasley twins are nearly non-existant.
Too much Quidditch, way too much quidditch.
I hate to be picky [1], but this thread is for great but flawed movies. If you want to make sucky movies good, start your own thread. 
[1] Yeah. Sure. Right. :rolleyes:
Thanks for the shout-out. I’ve been flogging the hamsters, but they refuse to produce the thread. Too bad, because I think a pretty good case is made that the “happy” ending to A.I. is actually anything but.
My pick for a good movie that needs an adjustment to become great:
Pleasantville. There are a few problems throughout, but my biggest gripe is with the courtroom ending. Spoilers will follow.
The whole point of the movie, to me, is how the tidy and organized town loses control of itself, and spirals toward chaos before settling to a new equilibrium: less ordered, but more interesting. Having a mob form in the street is the right choice; taking a break and having everybody reassemble in the courthouse, however, deflates the energy that is being accumulated. It provides an opportunity for everybody to take a breath and relax a bit, and it’s a ritual of society, with rules and traditions, that directly contradicts the rush toward insanity.
If I had been Gary Ross, the film’s writer/director, I would have had a trial scene, but I would have made it a kangaroo court right there in the street, following immediately on the gathering of the mob. Angry people glare and point fingers, and then pretend to be civilized by their adherence to a legal proceeding, but it’s a complete sham: they drag out benches and boxes and become rabble instead of spectators. The way it is in the movie, the tension is dissipated by the change in scene, which makes the big reversal at the end of the trial, wherein the J.T. Walsh character slips into color, more of an unjustified reach, a screenwriter being cute instead of telling the actual story. The way I would do it, the gathering mob gives way to a borderline lynching, thus increasing the tension to the screaming point before it finally snaps.
That’s what I’d do. I think it would dramatically improve the power of what is, up to that point, a pretty good film.
My copies of LOTR and TBOLT are in a box in my basement at the moment, or I’d offer up direct quotes to rebut these misconceptions now. Gimme a day.
Oh, Unfinished Tales has a lot to say too.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I’ve seen bits and pieces of this movie, and I finally sat down to watch it in its entirety recently. The ending doesn’t make sense for the characters. I would either: a) change the ending to be closer to the one in the Truman Capote short story or b) replace George Peppard for someone with more magnetism - I had trouble believing that Holly would “belong to” someone as boring and passionless as him.
Loopydude
This thread is about how you would take an already existing movie and make it better. Not how you would take a book, and make a movie of it better then the movie of the book that already exists. Thats a whole new thread in itself.
And regarding The Unfinished Tales, the movie was based on The Lord of the Rings. From the movie it is blatantly obvious that Jackson couldnt get everything in the original book into the movie. How do you expect him to have time to add in pieces of the story that exist in the Tales or in Christopher Tolkiens History books?
Its just not possible.
Dont get me wrong, I for one would love to sit down and watch a movie thats X hours long, that dealt with every aspect of 'Rings, but lets face it, that is never going to happen! At least not in our lifetimes anyway…
Jackson used numerous sources besides The Lord of the Rings to research the film. For instance, you can see in some of the “extras” on the Extended edition of the FOTR, and interview where Jackson expounds on Gandalf’s true nature as an angelic spirit encarnate. Using just TLotR, there would be no way to know this. However, Jackson was quite familiar with two other sources, at least, that would have given him this knowldege: The Silmarillion, and Unfinished Tales. Unfinished Tales contains a section on the lives of Celeborn and Galadriel, some of the writing fairly contemporary to the publishing of TLotR, where Jackson mentions the philisophical (and to a certain extent, theological) reasons why Galadriel played no more than an advisory role in the Quest of the Ring (something to the effect of she had become like Manwe, who was now far, far removed from an active role in the events of Middle Earth by the Third Age, save for sending the Istari). Believe it or not, the role of the Elves in human affairs post the Last Alliance was something Tolkien gave a great deal of though to. They were, in essense, removed, already fading. For Tolkien, this state of things had a deep, philosophical meaning. Plus, it made sense, if you read the story. Jackson, having read these sources himself, and, ostensibly, used them to flesh out his depiction of Middle Earth, could not (or, at least, should not) have been unaware of these structural concerns. Elves at Helm’s deep breaks a carefully crafted picture. For no good reason, as far as I can tell. They come, they fight, they vanish. Other than showing off some funky samuri armor, I can’t see any good reason to have them there, even if one considers only TLotR, and the needs of cinema. Gratuitious; and, for that reason, a sad mistake.
forgive the spelling errors above…it’s late :o
Also, where I say “where Jackson mentions the philosphical…” Trade “Jackson” for “Tolkien”
WE NEED EDITS!
All this talk about the Lord of the Rings movies, and no one has mentioned recasting someone else as Arwen. Anyone else!! A dog in a wig would be more believable! Sheesh. It’s like Fairguy said, “She can act until she opens her mouth.”
Liv Tyler just cannot act, and sadly, it seems she is becoming popular now as an actress due to her looks and her sweet personality. Her looks and her dad (and his name) helped get her foot in the door, and I guess if other stars can also get away with still being considered big names when they’re churning out a yearly pile of dreck, I’d say she has a long career in Hollywood ahead of her.
It’s pitiful.
I’ve heard that the “same thing that happens to everything else” line was supposed to have been implied rather than spoken, which makes the sequence a little less stupid. However I can’t find a cite for it. Can anyone else confirm this?
I didn’t read Peppard as being passionless at all. In fact, I saw him as someone deeply passionate but very restrained/repressed, and therefore attracted to the more openly passionate Holly. From Holly’s perspective, I can see the attraction of someone much more calm, stable, and dependable than herself to cling to.