I agree 100%
I used to think the same thing about the Castle Anthrax sequence in Holy Grail. It seemed overlong, unfunny, and fairly pointless. Plus, I was pretty young and innocent, so I didn’t really understand why Sir Galahad wanted to stay amongst all the peril. 
Years later, I read some of the original Sir Galahad / King Arthur / Sir Gawain stories, and noticed that many of them featured the noble, chaste hero facing temptation from beautiful women (and sometimes men) who would throw themselves at him in an attempt to distract him from his quest. Then I realized that this was exactly the kind of thing the Pythons were doing in the Galahad sequence, and it became a lot funnier. I still think it’s too long, but I appreciate it a lot more than I used to.
“Can’t I just have a little bit of peril?”
“No! It’s much too perilous!”
“I’ll bet you’re gay!”
“No I’m not!”
Loopydude, I dont want to get into a huge debate with you about this. All Im saying is that Peter Jackson did a fine job of recreating The Lord of the Rings, despite all the cuts and improvisations that were made.
And dont get me wrong, like I said before, I agree with some of your points, I was disapointed that certain things were left out, or that certain things were added, but essentially when we watch a movie created from a book, we are watching someone elses interpretation of a book. I just think Jacksons interpretation was very good, no not spot on, but essentially very good.
Fairblue, who would you have cast as Arwen?
sorry to whoever started this thread, I’m not trying to hijack it into an LOTR thread on purpose
It’s not the line that makes the scene cringeworthy, but Berry’s godawful delivery.
Magnolia. I think this was a great two-hour movie that, unfortunately, lasted nearly three hours. I don’t know that I’d even cut any scenes; I’d just trim down the ones that went on way, way too long.
Roger Ebert, who I agree with way more often than I don’t, predicted this in his (very positive) review and said that people who felt this way were victims of “cinematic attention deficit disorder”. Yeah, maybe, Roger–or maybe the movie dragged.
Word on the Godfather II/Clemenza thing. Probably the ultimate example of a big flaw in a great movie. It would have added a whole other dimension. (It’s still one of my favorite movies ever.)
Okay, I’m probably the only person on earth who would call Saving Silverman a “great” movie, but I love it. So there.
But there’s one thing that really bugs me. In the scene where they all meet up with Sandy again, J.D. refers to a bunsen burner accident in high school. He says that he still can’t grow hair on his left nut. Then later in the movie, he tells Wayne that he has three testicles. Shouldn’t the earlier line have been something like “I still can’t grow hair on me leftmost nut?” My husband says the line is just fine, as J.D. has probably designated his testicles left, right, and center. I say that it’s wrong, as in most cases when there is more than two of something, you qualify the description, saying that you are referring to the thing on the far left, or the leftmost or something.
True Grit: Replace Glen Campbell in the lead role with either Dennis Hopper or Robert Duvall, both of whom have smaller roles in the film. Or a studio stock player. Or one of the extras. Or some random guy off the street who was the right size for the costume.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: “Raindrops keep fallin’ on my head . . .”
The Hustler: “You owe me MONEY!” I think this line works much better if it’s delivered quietly, with Bert very still. The screaming and physical intimidation are somehow less menacing than if it were delivered as a statement of indisputable fact. Scott’s delivery was improvised; the original intent was closer to my suggestion, and I believe it would have worked better.
re: Pleasantville: I see what you’re saying, but I think the scene works better as it is. A courtroom scene follows the rules of a 50’s sitcom better than a riot scene, and the non-coloreds are bound by the rules of the sitcom. I do realize that this isn’t entire consistent throughout the movie, which is one of it’s flaws, but I also think the scene as is fits the premise better.
The ending. (Spoiler next paragraph.)
When the Holly Hunter character left her husband and dumped the piano in the ocean, she was pulled overboard by entangling ropes. She was ethereal and otherwordly going down, a creature quite unlike those that she had to share her life with. If it had ended there, it would have been sad, but would have made more sense to me in terms of her character. At least it seemed that way to me when I first saw the film.
I suppose that kicking away the ropes freed her from a form of communication/obsession (her piano) that did not work out well for her. The consequence of her decision to abandon her piano is shown in terms of a light, clean house with lacy white curtains, the ability to vocalize and a metal finger with which she can teach piano (what she threw away?!). It just seemed very incongruous with the rest of the film.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen this movie. Maybe I’ll watch it again to see if I feel the same way.
This might be the post you’re looking for.
The above link is Cervaise’s first post in this thread. I would recommend starting at the beginning.
Interesting reading. I’m surprised I don’t own that film. Oh well, that’s my good deed for the day. 
I disagree. Army of Darknes was awesome and the only way to make it better would be to insert MORE of Ash’s one-liners and maybe throw in a nice little sideplot to make the movie 20 minutes longer or so. They should write another one starting right where they left off, with the witch in the S-Mart. He should spend a little time combatting the evil in our own time, find a way back to where he was in AoD, and kick some more ass. I don’t care how many times he mispronounces Klatu Verata Nikto, it’s still fucking awesome
I even went out and bought “If Chins Could Kill”, but I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet…
I wasn’t talking about Ash’s one liners when I was talking about hokey humor, everything that came out of Ashe’s mouth had me rolling on the floor, I’m talking about stuff like the zombie in the pit doing several backflips before attacking Ash, one of the undeads heads spinning when punched in the face, and the skeletons in the graveyard pulling on Ash’es tongue and poking him in the eyes. These jokes just fell flat for me. And I don’t want a bonus 20 minutes, I want a dagnabbed sequel! I can’t beleive of all the movies out there that have been able to have sequels, AOD isn’t one of them. What gives? We have like 5 Air Bud movies, but only 3 Evil dead movies? The USA desperately needs to rethink it’s priorities.
The Philadelphia Story again. It has always bugged me that Tracy’s father was allowed to sleeze out of his infidelity by blaming it all on his daughter. How the hell did SHE get control of his penis?
LOTR again. Did they do nothing but fight?? Good lord, it seemed like the battles were non-stop, always a small band against unbelievable odds, and the plucky little guys always win. I know the books, but I don’t remember them as being so battle heavy.
Harry Potter again. Way, way too much quiddich. Way, way too little everything else.
Any version of Peter Pan. The book was dark, sly, funny and violent. None of that every ends up on screen. Instead we get that stupid Tinkerbell in our faces.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind Special Edition.
Don’t let us see what the inside of the Mothership is like. Leave SOMETHING to the imagination.
I don’t have anyone in particular in mind. I’m not very familiar with the latest crop of actresses in that age range. Maybe a Kiwi or an unknown? I just know that all of the other actors were totally believable to me as their characters, but she fell flat in every speaking scene she had. (And she was mostly flat in the nonspeaking ones after ruining the character with her bad acting.) She was so NOT believable the first spoilers out on Return of the King (on several different sites I visited) recommended taking bathroom breaks when she was on. That’s kind of sad.
It would have been nice to see an actress play Arwen with the kind of spark that would make Aragorn fall madly in love with her, and be willing to take on the world and conquer darkness to win her hand. (I know that’s not the only reason he fought, but Elrond did set an incredibly high standard for his future son-in-law.)
Liv Tyler has no spark. sigh
Man, what the HELL were they thinking. Nevermind… I don’t want to know.
My fixer-uppers…
Batman: First of all, replace the wooden and uncomfortable looking Michael Keaton with ANYONE. Clint Eastwood might have been good, but perhaps he was too old.
Secondly, replace Jack Nicholson with James Woods. Nicholson was way too bloated to play The Joker.
Third, a good scene of Bruce Wayne changing into the Batman outfit. I mean, come on… that’s a pretty interesting transformation going on there.
Fourth, replace the entire story line with the storyline from The Killing Joke… or maybe that’s going a bit too far.
Apocalypse Now: Replace Marlon Brando with Jack Nicholson.
Ok not to pick nits or unnecessarily go from the general to the specific but…
oh wait.
scratch that.
Kinda dumb, still funny. Didn’t the witch at the S-Mart do that too?
Again, cheesy, but still funny. Why not?
Now THAT, and Bruce Campbell’s reaction to it, was fucking GREAT.
You and me both, brother.
Well technically it is a sequel, but I agree… we need much more.
This here is my BOOMSTICK!
Have you seen the 2003 version?
Oh yes. I LOVED it. I thought it was much more reflective of the book (to those who haven’t read it, do so. It’s dark, sly, funny, wonderful…much different than any movie.) Thanks for reminding me!
That’s the one with the zombies, right?
Everything’s better with zombies.