LotR movies

[bonesmccoy]

I'm with Axe. The third one sucked.

Besides, time travel is the kiss of death to any movie (except the Back to the Future series).

[AxeMental]

You know, I think we like the Harry Potter series because they are kids books not despite, so why shouldn't we want a kids movie (a Golden Voyage of Sinbad vs some Roman Palanski flick (with the exception of the Great Vampire Slayers)? No corny art-f*g deep contimplative Polt. Correct garbage we find in art films, just great adventure, any meaning being obvious and not needing explination. Thats why I hate art films in general, they push the viewer instead of letting the work speak for itself, the WOW effect, as if the story script and cinimatography can't deliver and your own personal life experiances aren't enough for you to put the pieces together...you haven't suffered as much as the director, yuk. Chris Columbus was a great choice for this series, which surprised me as well (not being a fan of the Home Alone movies). He wasn't out to impress any art critics, he was out to impress his kids. Notice they ditched the last guy as fast as possible, and would do anything to get Christoper Col. back.

[foster1941]

AxeMental said:

BTW I'm in the middle of Colateral, it's good to see Tom Cruise in a tolerable role. The last good movie he was in before this was Legend (he's only been in 3 other good movies: Risky Business, Loosing it, and...Legend). If you watch this I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I saw Collateral in the theatre this summer and agree that it's a very good movie (from the same director as "Manhunter" which ISTR from a previous board that you also liked). Can't agree that it's TC's only good movie since "Legend" though, both because I thought Legend sucked (disclaimer: haven't seen it since it was new, I might feel differently nowadays) and because the first "Mission:Impossible" was pretty good (Brian De Palma is probably one of the 2 or 3 best directors working today, even if this wasn't one of his best -- watch "Carlito's Way" again and marvel) and "Eyes Wide Shut" is one of my all-time favorite movies (no kidding! I HATED this the first time I saw it just like everybody else, but have since seen it about a dozen more times and am now convinced that it is an unambiguous masterpiece -- Stanley Kubrick's 2nd best movie after "Barry Lyndon"). I also liked "Jerry Maguire" (which in a just world would've won the Oscar instead of the god-awful "English Patient").

Also, good point about not being so quick to dismiss the tastes of 5th graders. Just because they might not like all the things I do doesn't mean I won't like the things they do...

[foster1941]

Good point that a kids' book should be a kids' movie, not try to impress the middlebrow critics and Oscar-voters (who in my mind are uniformly reprehensible -- I'm so much of a movie-snob that I've gone around the bend into anti-snobbery!). Some of my favorite movies are kids' movies -- The Wizard of Oz, the Harryhausen stuff, early Disney movies, Star Wars, etc. -- and I agree that they're good because of, rather than in spite of, their simplicity and lack of pretention and 'seriousness.' I still have zero faith in Chris Columbus' abilities as a director (things like pacing, dynamic and interesting framing and visual composition, affinity with actors, etc.) and am dubious that relatively short books really need to be 3 hour movies, but I'm willing to be surprised. Perhaps I'll end up checking these out after all...

[AxeMental]

Just finished Collateral, yep another great M.Mann movie, didn't even realize it was his, thought it reminded me of Miami Vice and Heat.

Foster: "I still have zero faith in Chris Columbus'

Well, all I can say is everyone I know loved those 2 movies, esp. kids (though I don't know any snob movie critic types, so..). The three hours didn't come close to being long enough only covering 1/3 of what occured in the books. I have yet to meet a single person who liked the third one (though Gary Olmen made a good Black) The BIGGEST complaint my and other 8-10 year olds was that both movies weren't long enough. If they had each been 6 hours long I think those kids would have held there bladders then miss one scene.
The first two movies could have been 12 hours long and kids would have loved them that much more. Come to think of it, any good movie, like any good book should be as long as possible (hell look at good mini-series).

[WSmith]

AxeMental said:

The three hours didn't come close to being long enough only covering 1/3 of what occured in the books. I have yet to meet a single person who liked the third one (though Gary Olmen made a good Black) The BIGGEST complaint my and other 8-10 year olds was that both movies weren't long enough. If they had each been 6 hours long I think those kids would have held there bladders then miss one scene.
The first two movies could have been 12 hours long and kids would have loved them that much more. Come to think of it, any good movie, like any good book should be as long as possible (hell look at good mini-series).

This is my problem with the RotK DVD. By my estimation the extended version should have been about 6 1/2 hours long to include all the material neccessary.

You guys want a long, good, kids fairy taleish story, go find the DVD of the 10th Kingdom. That is a definte thumbs up.

[The Master]

if you want to see the definative version of LotR go here.

www.ninjaburger.com/comic/lrn1.shtml

the first three strips don't have anything to do with LotR, but are funny none the less.

[AxeMental]

Thats painful!

[bonesmccoy]

Foster, if you're gonna watch Legend again, make sure it's the 'Ultimate Edition'. 114 min vs. 90 for the original cut. Much, much better and much stronger fairy-tale feel, too.

[master]

thenoob.keenspace.com/d/20050225.html

Enjoy

[bonesmccoy]

Another purple-skinned drow. Why can't anybody draw them the proper color? They're always purple, blue, brown or gray; anything but black it seems! Nice little comic strip though.

[master]

Well that would be racist now wouldn't it.