The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Fantasy, along with sci-fi, is a genre which is a favourite of mine, but it appears to be hard to do well, seeing as I could name twice as many awful fantasy movies compared to good ones. As this is the case, director Peter Jackson’s fantastical magnum opus, 2001’s The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, is all the more impressive. From the opening to the cliffhanger ending, this masterpiece kept me wholly captivated from start to finish.
It is the story of Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin), two Hobbits (small, leather-footed creatures) who leave their cosy, comfortable home life in the Shire to dispose of a mysterious magic ring Frodo inherited from his merry uncle Bilbo (Ian Holm). The visiting wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) went to the Shire for Bilbo’s ‘eleventy-first’ birthday and was disturbed when he found the aging, leaving Hobbit addicted to the ring that granted him invisibility.
As the beautifully shot and edited prologue shows us, the ring is the fabled ‘One Ring’ of old-forged in the volcanic pits of Mount Doom in the land of Mordor long, long ago by the dark lord Sauron to rule the other Rings of Power held by elves, dwarfs and men. Sauron was defeated by Prince Isildur, who instead of destroying the One Ring in the only place it could be destroyed (within Mount Doom) became addicted to it. However, Isildur was ‘abandoned’ by the Ring, which eventually ended up in the possession of Bilbo 60 years before the movie’s present day.
Frodo, Sam and two other Hobbits, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) travel to the village of Bree to meet up with Gandalf, but they instead meet a man who claims to be called Strider (Viggo Mortensen), who helps them get to the Elven fortress of Rivendell. There, the Hobbits meet up with Gandalf, Boromir (Sean Bean), Legolas (Orlando Bland) and Gimli (John-Ryes Davies), and learn that ‘Strider’ is actually Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor. Together, the nine form ‘the Fellowship of the Ring’, with the intent of travelling to Mount Doom and destroying the One Ring.
It’s important to note that their quest is nowhere near completed by the end of the movie, and also the titular Fellowship is never formed until an hour in. It could be argued that this movie is nothing but build-up and a way to set up the characters and various subplots-there is a little truth in that, but if that argument is completely true, all I can say is that Fellowship of the Ring is the greatest build-up ever.
The acting is fortunately modest and occasionally subtle; it’s tempting to overact and become hammy when in a fantasy movie and the cast members of inferior fantasies like Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone prove that. Frodo’ child-like appearance makes it somewhat pitiful, and then when he does heroic deeds he becomes one of the finest cinematic heroes of all time. Elijah Wood is irreplaceable as Frodo, giving a restrained, low-key performance that compliments his character perfectly. Holm is a delight as his uncle, his merriness infectious and his character often charming (that is, of course, when he’s not scaring Frodo and the viewer with his sick obsession of the One Ring).
McKellen and Christopher Lee (who portrays evil wizard Saruman) are the only two really respectable actors in this production, and they give it a sense of gravitas and majesty, especially McKellen in the infamous Balrog cave scenes. The only really bad actor in the movie is Orlando Bland, who as his name suggests is horribly bland; however, his stiffness doesn’t matter in this, as the character of Legolas is just as aloof and emotionless. It’s like Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator; bad actors are good at roles which require woodenness.
The special effects are of course astounding; even after all this time, the scenes of snow-capped mountains and gigantic black towers are still breathtaking to watch, and the monstrous Balrog is perfectly rendered. But the most memorable and truly ‘special’ effect is also the most mystifying: the effect of making Frodo and the other Hobbits look like they’re only three feet tall. It may surprise you to know that none of it was CGI: in one scene, they replaced Elijah Wood with a child dressed as Frodo; in another, Jackson and his camera crew used a complex revolving table trick in the scene where Gandalf and Bilbo sit together. The viewer’s perspective is brilliantly manipulated by such mesmerising and yet cheap illusions.
The fact that a lot of the sets and backgrounds aren’t CGI is admirable; the fact that Jackson and his crew went to the trouble of going to New Zealand and building an entire Hobbit-sized house will surely amuse some (like me, for instance), but will nevertheless impress all who know about it.
The music by Howard Shore deservedly won an award at the 74th Academy Awards, and the opening theme whimsical, nostalgia-inducing and wonderfully composed; it’s compromised of basically only a little tune, but the way Shore repeats and subtly changes it every time is brilliant. The other main theme of the movie is called ‘The Ring Goes South’, which is much more famous and it is a dramatic, attention-grabbing and heart-stopping work of musical genius whose notes linger in the mind for a long time afterwards.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a magnificent masterpiece. Jackson was probably under a lot of pressure to create the best possible imitation of JRR Tolkien’s beloved book series, and not only succeeds in that, but also creates a beautiful, timeless world where a viewer can lose themselves in. This is the first and the best movie of the Lord of the Rings series, and is superior to its nonetheless excellent equals due to the sweetness and innocence of the scenes in the Shire and at Bilbo’s party. It is a movie that can be appreciated, enjoyed and loved by both the young and young at heart, and leaves you hungry for more.
What Movie Did You Just Watch? ... And Robin
-
TheSequelOfDisney
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5263
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Ohio, United States of America
Over the past week or so I've watched:
Defiance
Big Fish
Cabaret
Frank & Ollie
They were all pretty good. All different, but interesting nonetheless. Let's just say that I've had Maybe This Time and Cabaret stuck in my head.
Defiance
Big Fish
Cabaret
Frank & Ollie
They were all pretty good. All different, but interesting nonetheless. Let's just say that I've had Maybe This Time and Cabaret stuck in my head.
The Divulgations of One Desmond Leica: http://desmondleica.wordpress.com/
Jeruselama (2008)
The story of a the rise of a black gangster, from the townships of Johannesburg to the fanciest neighbourhoods of the capital. If you had any doubts about the failure of Mandela's rainbow nation, watch this movie. It's an entertaining, enjoyable crime story with a surprising twist ending.
The story of a the rise of a black gangster, from the townships of Johannesburg to the fanciest neighbourhoods of the capital. If you had any doubts about the failure of Mandela's rainbow nation, watch this movie. It's an entertaining, enjoyable crime story with a surprising twist ending.
-
dvdjunkie
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5613
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
Serenity (2005) Blu-ray
From the brilliant mind of Josh Whedon, whose television series "Firefly" is where we get the title of this film, as that was the name of the 'boat'. Treated by Fox like it was a toy, and they moved it all around the schedule so that no two weeks was the show on at the same time and they also showed the series out of order, so Whedon was not surprised at the cancellation, because he was already working on this movie.
Starring Nathan Fillian, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, Adam Baldwin, Jewel Staite, Sean Maher, Summer Glau, and Ron Glass, this movie is well done, with the last hour more like the television series and the first hour which is very slow-moving and not set up well at all. But if you can get past the first 50 minutes, then you are sucked in and with it until the end credits.
If you haven't seen the "Firefly" series, you owe it to yourself to make the investment and buy this series in Blu-ray. It has the Pilot and 10 episodes, plus three that never saw the network screens for a total of 14 episodes. Highly recommended.
From the brilliant mind of Josh Whedon, whose television series "Firefly" is where we get the title of this film, as that was the name of the 'boat'. Treated by Fox like it was a toy, and they moved it all around the schedule so that no two weeks was the show on at the same time and they also showed the series out of order, so Whedon was not surprised at the cancellation, because he was already working on this movie.
Starring Nathan Fillian, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, Adam Baldwin, Jewel Staite, Sean Maher, Summer Glau, and Ron Glass, this movie is well done, with the last hour more like the television series and the first hour which is very slow-moving and not set up well at all. But if you can get past the first 50 minutes, then you are sucked in and with it until the end credits.
If you haven't seen the "Firefly" series, you owe it to yourself to make the investment and buy this series in Blu-ray. It has the Pilot and 10 episodes, plus three that never saw the network screens for a total of 14 episodes. Highly recommended.
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
This inferior but nonetheless exciting and thrilling sequel to Fellowship of the Ring is a more mature, darker vision of Middle-Earth than seen in the first film: the stakes are just as high, but now there’s an eerie atmosphere spiriting throughout the entire movie. Tension and suspense replace the whimsy and enchantment of the first instalment in Peter Jackson’s definitive fantasy franchise lifted from the beloved tales of JRR Tolkien. I missed characters like Bilbo and the quaint location of the Shire, and whilst this will be more enjoyable for teenage boys than anyone else, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is still a swashbuckling thriller filled with incredible, CGI-generated armies, dark towers, crooked mountains, beautiful landscapes and creepy creatures, climaxing in a gigantic, fast-paced battle sequence with the Battle of Helm’s Deep.
Heroic Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) are the only two members left in the Fellowship of the Ring, following the deaths of Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and Boromir (Sean Bean).
They are travelling through Mordor with the intent of destroying evil Sauron’s ‘One Ring’, and soon run into the star of not only this movie, but also the star of the entire franchise: Gollum (Andy Serkis). Gollum was a Hobbit, but was corrupted by the Ring’s power and became obsessed with finding it after Frodo’s uncle stole it from him within the Misty Mountains. Gollum is a deranged monster, who the noble and kind-hearted Frodo wishes to help, trying to unlock the more human Sméagol from the evil and murderous shell of Gollum; however, the more wise and suspicious Sam suspects Gollum to be incurably evil, but reluctantly allows Gollum to act as their guide through the Orc-infested land of Mordor. This is only one third of the movie’s complex story.
The second, less interesting third focuses on the human Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), the Elf Legolas (Orlando Bland) and the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), who instead of walking into a bar somewhere are searching for captured Hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). They are soon reunited with an old friend and head to the kingdom of King Théoden (Bernard Hill), Rohan, only to find that Théoden is being controlled and corrupted by Gríma Wormtongue (Brad Dourif), slimy henchman to evil wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee). In other words, it’s complicated.
The best thing about The Two Towers is the sheer epic and cinematic feel of it all. There are countless visually brilliant, enthralling scenes, like the opening which is a recap of Gandalf’s battle with the demonic Balrog, or Sam’s beautifully-written and beautifully-spoken (well done, Sean Astin) speech near the end, and of course the Battle of Helm’s Deep. Peter Jackson is an incredible director who has the rare talent of exciting, scaring and emotionally touching viewers who don’t even fully comprehend what exactly is happening on-screen (this talent is shared by only David Lynch).
This talent is of course helped by the sublime cinematography of Andrew Lesnie, and of course the stylistic focus of The Two Towers: the CGI. The effects are even better this time round: in the first instalment, we were treated to the illusion of Elijah Wood being half Viggo Mortensen’s size; this time, we marvel at the fully computer-generated characters. Alongside thousands of CGI Orcs and CGI Elves, there are two great CGI characters that stick in the viewer’s memory long after the movie has finished: Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies, who also lends both body and voice to portray Gimli), leader of the ancient species of Ents-talking, walking trees-who saves Merry and Pippin from bloodthirsty Orcs and leads an attack on Saruman; and Gollum (Andy Serkis in one of the earliest motion capture performances ever).
Treebeard is a fun and likable character, but it’s Gollum who is perfect in terms of both style and substance. He is one of the finest villains of all time, and pounds the unseen Sauron and the megalomaniac Saruman into the ground. Why? Because you can sympathise with him in one scene, and then despise him in the next; you understand why Frodo wants to help him, and yet you can also see why Sam fears and hates him. On the one hand, there’s Sméagol, the lonely and helpful would-be hero who helps the Hobbits; and then there’s Gollum, a manipulative, scary and vengeful bogeyman who lurks in dark, damp caves who cares for nobody but himself.
Serkis deserved an Oscar for his performance, but unfortunately back in 2002 the fact that motion capture required the body as well as the voice was not well-known enough, and obviously back then Gollum would be cited as an animated character, when in fact he’s much more. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin act well with Serkis as Gollum; like Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, they don’t play up to the fact that they are in the presence of an inhuman, talking character, but act like the nonexistent Gollum is really there, acting just as seriously around him as they would around someone like Ian McKellen or Christopher Lee.
As well as this, Wood and Astin are brilliant at working together, with Wood’s low-key performance creating a bubbling chemistry with the lovable, slightly plump everyman that Astin portrays so well; the friendship of Frodo and Sam is believable right from the moment they first appeared together in Fellowship of the Ring.
Mortensen, meanwhile, has fun playing the brooding and destined-for-greatness action hero, and Rhys-Davies shows off his skill at playing vastly different roles with his performances as both Gimli and Treebeard. Orlando Bland is as wooden and aloof as usual, but considering those words can also describe Legolas, it’s not a problem. The elderly Christopher Lee proves he still has a fair amount of the energy he displayed in horror classics like The Wicker Man and the Hammer Horrors, but his sidekick Wormtongue is more memorable, with Dourif nailing the role, oozing creepiness as a character viewers undoubtedly love to hate.
Overall, whilst it may lack the whimsicality of the original, this is still an immensely entertaining and marvellously well-made medieval epic. In some ways, whilst it may not be as sweet and family-friendly as its superior predecessor, this has something for everyone: Merry and Pippin’s comic antics will amuse the youngsters, Aragorn and Legolas will be idolised by pre-pubescent and teenage boys, characters like Théoden’s daughter Éowyn (Miranda Otto) will empower young girls, and the special effects and the character development of Gollum, Frodo and Sam will please film critics like myself. Is it a masterpiece? No, but its damn close.
This inferior but nonetheless exciting and thrilling sequel to Fellowship of the Ring is a more mature, darker vision of Middle-Earth than seen in the first film: the stakes are just as high, but now there’s an eerie atmosphere spiriting throughout the entire movie. Tension and suspense replace the whimsy and enchantment of the first instalment in Peter Jackson’s definitive fantasy franchise lifted from the beloved tales of JRR Tolkien. I missed characters like Bilbo and the quaint location of the Shire, and whilst this will be more enjoyable for teenage boys than anyone else, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is still a swashbuckling thriller filled with incredible, CGI-generated armies, dark towers, crooked mountains, beautiful landscapes and creepy creatures, climaxing in a gigantic, fast-paced battle sequence with the Battle of Helm’s Deep.
Heroic Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) are the only two members left in the Fellowship of the Ring, following the deaths of Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and Boromir (Sean Bean).
They are travelling through Mordor with the intent of destroying evil Sauron’s ‘One Ring’, and soon run into the star of not only this movie, but also the star of the entire franchise: Gollum (Andy Serkis). Gollum was a Hobbit, but was corrupted by the Ring’s power and became obsessed with finding it after Frodo’s uncle stole it from him within the Misty Mountains. Gollum is a deranged monster, who the noble and kind-hearted Frodo wishes to help, trying to unlock the more human Sméagol from the evil and murderous shell of Gollum; however, the more wise and suspicious Sam suspects Gollum to be incurably evil, but reluctantly allows Gollum to act as their guide through the Orc-infested land of Mordor. This is only one third of the movie’s complex story.
The second, less interesting third focuses on the human Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), the Elf Legolas (Orlando Bland) and the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), who instead of walking into a bar somewhere are searching for captured Hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). They are soon reunited with an old friend and head to the kingdom of King Théoden (Bernard Hill), Rohan, only to find that Théoden is being controlled and corrupted by Gríma Wormtongue (Brad Dourif), slimy henchman to evil wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee). In other words, it’s complicated.
The best thing about The Two Towers is the sheer epic and cinematic feel of it all. There are countless visually brilliant, enthralling scenes, like the opening which is a recap of Gandalf’s battle with the demonic Balrog, or Sam’s beautifully-written and beautifully-spoken (well done, Sean Astin) speech near the end, and of course the Battle of Helm’s Deep. Peter Jackson is an incredible director who has the rare talent of exciting, scaring and emotionally touching viewers who don’t even fully comprehend what exactly is happening on-screen (this talent is shared by only David Lynch).
This talent is of course helped by the sublime cinematography of Andrew Lesnie, and of course the stylistic focus of The Two Towers: the CGI. The effects are even better this time round: in the first instalment, we were treated to the illusion of Elijah Wood being half Viggo Mortensen’s size; this time, we marvel at the fully computer-generated characters. Alongside thousands of CGI Orcs and CGI Elves, there are two great CGI characters that stick in the viewer’s memory long after the movie has finished: Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies, who also lends both body and voice to portray Gimli), leader of the ancient species of Ents-talking, walking trees-who saves Merry and Pippin from bloodthirsty Orcs and leads an attack on Saruman; and Gollum (Andy Serkis in one of the earliest motion capture performances ever).
Treebeard is a fun and likable character, but it’s Gollum who is perfect in terms of both style and substance. He is one of the finest villains of all time, and pounds the unseen Sauron and the megalomaniac Saruman into the ground. Why? Because you can sympathise with him in one scene, and then despise him in the next; you understand why Frodo wants to help him, and yet you can also see why Sam fears and hates him. On the one hand, there’s Sméagol, the lonely and helpful would-be hero who helps the Hobbits; and then there’s Gollum, a manipulative, scary and vengeful bogeyman who lurks in dark, damp caves who cares for nobody but himself.
Serkis deserved an Oscar for his performance, but unfortunately back in 2002 the fact that motion capture required the body as well as the voice was not well-known enough, and obviously back then Gollum would be cited as an animated character, when in fact he’s much more. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin act well with Serkis as Gollum; like Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, they don’t play up to the fact that they are in the presence of an inhuman, talking character, but act like the nonexistent Gollum is really there, acting just as seriously around him as they would around someone like Ian McKellen or Christopher Lee.
As well as this, Wood and Astin are brilliant at working together, with Wood’s low-key performance creating a bubbling chemistry with the lovable, slightly plump everyman that Astin portrays so well; the friendship of Frodo and Sam is believable right from the moment they first appeared together in Fellowship of the Ring.
Mortensen, meanwhile, has fun playing the brooding and destined-for-greatness action hero, and Rhys-Davies shows off his skill at playing vastly different roles with his performances as both Gimli and Treebeard. Orlando Bland is as wooden and aloof as usual, but considering those words can also describe Legolas, it’s not a problem. The elderly Christopher Lee proves he still has a fair amount of the energy he displayed in horror classics like The Wicker Man and the Hammer Horrors, but his sidekick Wormtongue is more memorable, with Dourif nailing the role, oozing creepiness as a character viewers undoubtedly love to hate.
Overall, whilst it may lack the whimsicality of the original, this is still an immensely entertaining and marvellously well-made medieval epic. In some ways, whilst it may not be as sweet and family-friendly as its superior predecessor, this has something for everyone: Merry and Pippin’s comic antics will amuse the youngsters, Aragorn and Legolas will be idolised by pre-pubescent and teenage boys, characters like Théoden’s daughter Éowyn (Miranda Otto) will empower young girls, and the special effects and the character development of Gollum, Frodo and Sam will please film critics like myself. Is it a masterpiece? No, but its damn close.
-
SmartAleck25
- Special Edition
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: The U.S.
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
Thank you, SmartAleck25; I'm flattered.SmartAleck25 wrote:Dr. Frankenollie, I'm enjoying your critiques of the Lord of the Rings series.
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
The final instalment in Peter Jackson’s marvellous fantasy series takes the two different atmospheres from its predecessors (Fellowship of the Ring’s whimsical enchantment and Two Towers’ spooky eeriness) and puts them together-in other words, joining the old with the new-creating a striking and memorable near-masterpiece that succeeds in more-or-less every way. It is the perfect close to an often perfect cinematic trilogy, grabbing the viewer’s attention by the throat and only occasionally releasing the viewer’s attention’s throat but then throttling it during the thrilling and intensely satisfying climax.
After the events of The Two Towers, Treebeard (John Rhys-Davies) and his fellow Ents have taken control of the defeated Saruman’s (Christopher Lee) fortress in Mordor, and all of Rohan is celebrating after their victory at Helm’s Deep one movie ago. However, the darkness that plagues Middle-Earth is far from defeated, and wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) learns from foolishly curious Hobbit Pippin (Billy Boyd)-who looked into Saruman’s palantír-that the land of Gondor will soon be attacked by evil Sauron’s forces. Thus, Gandalf and Pippin ride to Gondor, which is now controlled by Senator Denethor (John Noble), deranged and depressed father to the deceased Boromir and the less loved son Faramir (David Wenham). Denethor refuses to listen to Gandalf’s warnings, but accepts a guilt-ridden Pippin’s (who Boromir sacrificed his life for) swearing of loyalty to him.
Meanwhile, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and Samwise ‘Sam’ Gamgee (Sean Astin) continue their perilous journey through Mordor, still intent on destroying Sauron’s ‘One Ring’ in Mount Doom, with the manipulative, gurgling creature Gollum (Andy Serkis) acting as their guide. After being betrayed by Frodo in the previous instalment, Gollum’s nicer persona, Sméagol, is now non-existent, and the ring-addicted former Hobbit is adamant to have his ‘precious’ back in his oily grasp. The meaningfully-named Samwise is wiser than Frodo, still rightfully suspicious of Gollum; it’s not long before Gollum tricks Frodo into believing that Sam wants the One Ring for himself, and lures the gullible Frodo into the caves of the giant spider Shelob, adorned and draped with sticky webs.
Whilst Denethor is distracted by Faramir’s ‘death’, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) finally lives up to his royal ancestry as he reclaims the throne of Gondor (the titular ‘return of the King’) whilst elf Arwen (Liv Tyler), struggles to choose between an immortal life and a mortal one to spend with Aragorn. Soon all of Middle-Earth is plunged into a gigantic battle with men, elves, dwarfs, Orcs, oliphants, eagles and ghosts all taking part.
The acting and special effects are all brilliant, just like in the previous two instalments; Sean Astin’s portrayal of Sam Gamgee, arguably the true hero of JRR Tolkien’s beloved fantasy mythos, is particularly noteworthy. In the first movie, Astin played his character as a slightly plump, slightly dopey young man with a Cornish accent, but with a very noble personality and a loyal heart. His intellect (in terms of common sense that is) was displayed in The Two Towers, which also made Sam a slightly suspicious and untrusting character, adding a layer of depth. In Return of the King, Sam becomes a fully-fledged, brave and almost impossibly loyal hero, willing to do anything and everything for his best friend Frodo. Astin’s best moment in the previous instalment was his speech; there are too many great moments to choose from in Return of the King.
Wood and Serkis are as brilliant and their characters as pitiful as ever, whilst McKellen once again adds a level of gravitas and majesty to the beautifully-rendered world of Middle-Earth. Billy Boyd surprisingly shines in this; previously he was just an occasionally helpful bit of comic relief, but here his character is the catalyst that starts the gigantic battle between the heroes and the villains, and gives a more subtle and serious performance than before. In Fellowship of the Ring, Pippin was a carefree prankster, and now he’s developed into a young adult who is very fragile and very weak, but he’s also a hero. Boyd is also a good singer, as shown in a touching scene where he sings for Denethor as the armies of Rohan and Gondor prepare to fight with the grotesque beings inhabiting Mordor.
Speaking of which, Denethor is portrayed excellently by the John Noble; Noble could’ve simply made Denethor an over-the-top and flat cliché of a villain with an evil laugh, but makes Denethor an antagonist more pitiful than hateful; you feel sorry for this pathetic, deranged and desperate man as he delves into the pits of insanity when he believes both of his sons have been killed. Denethor’s story is nearly as tragic as Gollum’s.
Gollum is supplied with an in-depth, breathtakingly cinematographed prologue, which I’m hugely grateful for seeing as Gollum is the best character in the series. The prologue saves the movie, because if it wasn’t included the character of Gollum wouldn’t be as effective; you know he was once human (or at least once Hobbit), and this makes Gollum an interesting and captivating character. If no backstory was given to him, Gollum would just be little more than a smaller, less threatening and more bizarre Orc. The inclusion of the prologue adds a layer of suspense, because you know Frodo could end up just like Gollum. And besides, more screentime featuring the talented Andy Serkis is always good.
As usual, Jackson’s battle scenes are incredible; such scenes help you forget the overused action cliché of slow-motion with their epic scope and scale, their perfectly rendered and shot visuals and the heart-pounding music of Howard Shore. Without a doubt, the battle scenes in Return of the King are the best of the best when it comes to cinematic battles concerning more than two people.
Jackson’s flawless direction of sequences focusing on nothing but action is simply incredible. Jackson never stops showing off how many types of scene he can direct: alongside the incredible action scenes are great romantic scenes (the scenes focusing on Aragorn and Arwen’s relationship), there are great emotional and character-developing scenes (scenes with Frodo and Sam, for example), suspenseful scenes (like when Frodo becomes trapped in Shelob’s enormous, prey-catching web) and good ol’ touching and innocent scenes (a lot of the scenes at the end).
There is one flaw with Return of the King, however: there is a slight Deux Es Machina provided for the major battle that takes place during the bulk of the movie’s second third. I don’t want to insult Tolkien-obsessed purists, but it’s badly-written and whilst well-edited and well-directed slightly spoils the battle’s ending.
Nevertheless, this is a brilliant and mesmerising fantasy adventure of epic proportions with a beautiful ending that almost made me cry, and I can almost forgive Jackson for the main battle’s Deux Es Machina as the rest of it is so damn fantastic.
Last edited by Dr Frankenollie on Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
SillySymphony
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:28 pm
- Location: Alaska
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
Hotel Rwanda (2004) 8/10 - I’ve never seen this before but my library got the Blu-Ray so I took the dive. It’s a great movie but hard to watch. Maybe not as tough as Schindler’s List but still, how can you not be affected by depictions of actual genocide? Before this movie, I honestly knew nothing about this conflict and I imagine there is hundreds of others like it that I’m not aware of (kind of like Blood Diamond, didn’t know about that shit either). Besides the very last freezed frame, which I found kind of corny, I was very entertained.
-
SmartAleck25
- Special Edition
- Posts: 671
- Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:02 pm
- Location: The U.S.
Hairspray (2007)- 9/10
This movie is a great deal of fun, and I must admit it is one of the best musical films I have ever seen. It's not a movie that you have to analyze, and point out flaws, it's just a very fun, enchanting experience that does what movies do best: entertain. I was a little surprised about a plot change from the musical; why didn't Tracy go to jail? That reprise of Good Morning Baltimore is one of my favorites, and it really shows Tracy's character. That small annoyance doesn't hinder my experience though, and I'll be sure to watch Hairspray again sometime.
Megamind (2010)- 6.5/10
I liked it for its cleverness and humor, but I think the whole thing was rushed. The quickness of it all didn't let me care for any characters, and I can never take any danger seriously because it's all so overblown. The beginning, however, is superb, it effectively sets up Megamind and Metro Man's emotions. Overall the movie was a nice twist on the superhero movie, but it's not something I'd watch again.
This movie is a great deal of fun, and I must admit it is one of the best musical films I have ever seen. It's not a movie that you have to analyze, and point out flaws, it's just a very fun, enchanting experience that does what movies do best: entertain. I was a little surprised about a plot change from the musical; why didn't Tracy go to jail? That reprise of Good Morning Baltimore is one of my favorites, and it really shows Tracy's character. That small annoyance doesn't hinder my experience though, and I'll be sure to watch Hairspray again sometime.
Megamind (2010)- 6.5/10
I liked it for its cleverness and humor, but I think the whole thing was rushed. The quickness of it all didn't let me care for any characters, and I can never take any danger seriously because it's all so overblown. The beginning, however, is superb, it effectively sets up Megamind and Metro Man's emotions. Overall the movie was a nice twist on the superhero movie, but it's not something I'd watch again.
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
Titanic (1997)-AKA the Most Overrated Movie of All Time
The fact that this and director James Cameron’s equally detestable Avatar are the highest-grossing films of all time is not just startling; it’s disturbing. Let me make this perfectly clear: Titanic is not a masterpiece. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact, thank you very much. And if you dare to believe that Titanic is the greatest film of all time, then you have zero taste in cinema and if you cried when watching it then you’re more of a wuss than me.
Titanic is a rotten piece of romantic sludge that drags along at a snail’s pace. Now, I don’t mind slow-paced films if they’re entertaining or have a reason for being slow-paced. But Titanic is not entertaining. It’s not funny, it’s not thrilling, it’s not touching, and it’s a disgrace.
Who gives a damn if the effects are brilliant and the semi-CGI ship is a perfect replica of the original HMS Titanic? Computer graphics aren’t entertaining. Characters, story and dialogue are what movies are all about; visuals and effects are just nice supplements.
Titanic doesn’t revolve around the ship as much as its two protagonists, upper class Rose (Kate Winslet) and penniless artist Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). It’s bookended by the story of a treasure hunter who finds a nude sketch of Rose in the underwater ruins of Titanic, who meets the 101-year-old Rose (Gloria Stuart), who tells her tedious, romance-filled story in flashback.
Rose is engaged by her distant and heartless (in other words, flat) mother to Cal (Billy Zane), an upper class twit who is such as cartoony cliché of a villain that I wouldn’t have surprised to have seen him don a fake moustache to twirl later on in the film. He is basically a wealthy Dick Dastardly, and he (surprise, surprise) hates Jack and tries to frame him for stealing a MacGuffin necklace owned by Rose.
In terms of acting, the film is as much as a disaster as the 1912 disaster it’s supposed to focus on-Winslet and DiCaprio were obviously chosen for their looks, not for their talent.
The acting of Winslet is mediocre, but DiCaprio is actually awful-what’s particularly insulting about DiCaprio’s acting is that in his previous film, Baz Luhrmann’s modernisation of Romeo and Juliet, was awful in a different way-in all but one scene, he stared or smiled slightly. He didn’t act. He was just there; you could have replaced him with a cardboard cut-out of an actor and nobody would tell the difference. Except, of course, in the scene where he believes that his character’s lover Juliet was dead.
He screamed and cried, and his melodramatic, hammy breakdown was cringe-worthy. In Titanic, however, his acting is just laughable. He chews the scenery throughout the entire thing, overacting, overacting, overacting. Shouting is not acting, DiCaprio; neither is smiling nor laughing, unless you do something with it. The best moment in his atrocious performance was when his character was dead, as his closed eyes, pale complexion and obvious lack of pulse had the subtlety that his earlier acting lacked.
However, I don’t have the heart to criticise Winslet; she wasn’t awful, but was by no means good, but that’s the script’s fault not hers. For some baffling reason, James Cameron believed he could both write and direct. He can’t do either in this movie, but his script is particularly bad. His two lead characters have a fondness of shouting each other’s names again, again, again and yet again, for seemingly no reason. He also seems to have a love for really obvious exposition.
For those of you who don’t know, exposition is an incredibly contrived way to dump backstory, crucial plot information and character personalities; it’s used in scenes through dialogue, scenes that are messily put together and are often otherwise pointless. Case in point: in one brief scene, Cal criticises Rose’s collection of Picasso’s artwork, saying that he’ll never amount to anything. In contrast, Rose (correctly) predicts that Picasso will later be famous and beloved. This shows that Cal is an imbecile, whilst Rose is intelligent. It’s lazy writing at its worst.
But even if you lay these problems aside, there’s still a huge problem that needs to be looked at. Why is this film told in flashback? We know that means that Rose is going to survive, but that also means we know Jack is going to die-it’s meant to be a tragedy, and the death of Jack will just add to the ‘sadness’. It’s completely predictable. Even though everyone knows how Titanic will end-the ship hits an iceberg-James Cameron could’ve have still created suspense. How?
By not telling it in flashback, and having no narration from Rose; that obviously means there would be more exposition, but then the audience would have the question ‘Who will live and who will die?’ floating round in their minds. Is Rose going to die, or Jack, or even both? That would’ve worked brilliantly.
Worse still is the fact that Rose and Jack are more-or-less the only likable characters in the film. Even if he kept the flashback, James Cameron could have filled the film with countless likable characters, instead of the countless snobs or the poor people who appear for roughly seven seconds each. Obviously, this could have a flaw-if there are too many characters, there isn’t any time to develop or add depth to any of them. But it would’ve been better than the film having only two likable characters that are badly portrayed (and the fact that you know which one of them is going to die).
To the film’s credit, the scene where the violinists continue playing even as the ship sinks is quite touching, and the scene where the ship sinks does provide a bit of adrenaline rush, but those scenes fail to make the rest of this overlong and horrendous drivel forgivable in the slightest.
The fact that this and director James Cameron’s equally detestable Avatar are the highest-grossing films of all time is not just startling; it’s disturbing. Let me make this perfectly clear: Titanic is not a masterpiece. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact, thank you very much. And if you dare to believe that Titanic is the greatest film of all time, then you have zero taste in cinema and if you cried when watching it then you’re more of a wuss than me.
Titanic is a rotten piece of romantic sludge that drags along at a snail’s pace. Now, I don’t mind slow-paced films if they’re entertaining or have a reason for being slow-paced. But Titanic is not entertaining. It’s not funny, it’s not thrilling, it’s not touching, and it’s a disgrace.
Who gives a damn if the effects are brilliant and the semi-CGI ship is a perfect replica of the original HMS Titanic? Computer graphics aren’t entertaining. Characters, story and dialogue are what movies are all about; visuals and effects are just nice supplements.
Titanic doesn’t revolve around the ship as much as its two protagonists, upper class Rose (Kate Winslet) and penniless artist Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). It’s bookended by the story of a treasure hunter who finds a nude sketch of Rose in the underwater ruins of Titanic, who meets the 101-year-old Rose (Gloria Stuart), who tells her tedious, romance-filled story in flashback.
Rose is engaged by her distant and heartless (in other words, flat) mother to Cal (Billy Zane), an upper class twit who is such as cartoony cliché of a villain that I wouldn’t have surprised to have seen him don a fake moustache to twirl later on in the film. He is basically a wealthy Dick Dastardly, and he (surprise, surprise) hates Jack and tries to frame him for stealing a MacGuffin necklace owned by Rose.
In terms of acting, the film is as much as a disaster as the 1912 disaster it’s supposed to focus on-Winslet and DiCaprio were obviously chosen for their looks, not for their talent.
The acting of Winslet is mediocre, but DiCaprio is actually awful-what’s particularly insulting about DiCaprio’s acting is that in his previous film, Baz Luhrmann’s modernisation of Romeo and Juliet, was awful in a different way-in all but one scene, he stared or smiled slightly. He didn’t act. He was just there; you could have replaced him with a cardboard cut-out of an actor and nobody would tell the difference. Except, of course, in the scene where he believes that his character’s lover Juliet was dead.
He screamed and cried, and his melodramatic, hammy breakdown was cringe-worthy. In Titanic, however, his acting is just laughable. He chews the scenery throughout the entire thing, overacting, overacting, overacting. Shouting is not acting, DiCaprio; neither is smiling nor laughing, unless you do something with it. The best moment in his atrocious performance was when his character was dead, as his closed eyes, pale complexion and obvious lack of pulse had the subtlety that his earlier acting lacked.
However, I don’t have the heart to criticise Winslet; she wasn’t awful, but was by no means good, but that’s the script’s fault not hers. For some baffling reason, James Cameron believed he could both write and direct. He can’t do either in this movie, but his script is particularly bad. His two lead characters have a fondness of shouting each other’s names again, again, again and yet again, for seemingly no reason. He also seems to have a love for really obvious exposition.
For those of you who don’t know, exposition is an incredibly contrived way to dump backstory, crucial plot information and character personalities; it’s used in scenes through dialogue, scenes that are messily put together and are often otherwise pointless. Case in point: in one brief scene, Cal criticises Rose’s collection of Picasso’s artwork, saying that he’ll never amount to anything. In contrast, Rose (correctly) predicts that Picasso will later be famous and beloved. This shows that Cal is an imbecile, whilst Rose is intelligent. It’s lazy writing at its worst.
But even if you lay these problems aside, there’s still a huge problem that needs to be looked at. Why is this film told in flashback? We know that means that Rose is going to survive, but that also means we know Jack is going to die-it’s meant to be a tragedy, and the death of Jack will just add to the ‘sadness’. It’s completely predictable. Even though everyone knows how Titanic will end-the ship hits an iceberg-James Cameron could’ve have still created suspense. How?
By not telling it in flashback, and having no narration from Rose; that obviously means there would be more exposition, but then the audience would have the question ‘Who will live and who will die?’ floating round in their minds. Is Rose going to die, or Jack, or even both? That would’ve worked brilliantly.
Worse still is the fact that Rose and Jack are more-or-less the only likable characters in the film. Even if he kept the flashback, James Cameron could have filled the film with countless likable characters, instead of the countless snobs or the poor people who appear for roughly seven seconds each. Obviously, this could have a flaw-if there are too many characters, there isn’t any time to develop or add depth to any of them. But it would’ve been better than the film having only two likable characters that are badly portrayed (and the fact that you know which one of them is going to die).
To the film’s credit, the scene where the violinists continue playing even as the ship sinks is quite touching, and the scene where the ship sinks does provide a bit of adrenaline rush, but those scenes fail to make the rest of this overlong and horrendous drivel forgivable in the slightest.
No.Dr Frankenollie wrote:Titanic (1997)-AKA the Most Overrated Movie of All Time
The fact that this and director James Cameron’s equally detestable Avatar are the highest-grossing films of all time is not just startling; it’s disturbing. Let me make this perfectly clear: Titanic is not a masterpiece. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact, thank you very much. And if you dare to believe that Titanic is the greatest film of all time, then you have zero taste in cinema and if you cried when watching it then you’re more of a wuss than me.
There's a HUGE difference between a fact and an opinion, and regardless of what you think, everything you said is an opinion. You have the right to state that opinion, but you can't claim it as fact. You are only speaking for yourself and a few others, but not for everybody.
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
Fixed it for you.ajmrowland wrote:^This, and Titanic at least had <strike>characters</strike> cheap, lazy, stereotypes.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
I think that everyone should have the right to an informed opinion, but I admittedly was being a bit melodramatic.pap64 wrote:No.
There's a HUGE difference between a fact and an opinion, and regardless of what you think, everything you said is an opinion. You have the right to state that opinion, but you can't claim it as fact. You are only speaking for yourself and a few others, but not for everybody.
However, I stick by my opinion and nothing will ever change that.
-
TheSequelOfDisney
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5263
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Ohio, United States of America
I think it was mostly for time reasons. I was kind of annoyed by it at first, but I got used to it. I mean, she was essentially in "jail."SmartAleck25 wrote:I was a little surprised about a plot change from the musical; why didn't Tracy go to jail?
The Divulgations of One Desmond Leica: http://desmondleica.wordpress.com/
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
First viewing. I didn't believe the hype. I did not care for all the Oscars; the Oscars have become a joke long ago, as Frankenollie pointed out. Now, I'm glad I finally saw it. What a great movie! Maybe a bit too 'emotionally manipulative' for my taste: he brother just 'happens to' give his cell phone to the long-last love of the main character; the main character just 'happens to' call her for the last question; the last question just 'happens to' be about a book they read in school and to which they referred all the time --by the way, such an easy question would never have been the final one; and let;s not even mention the fact that the whole country is now suddenly rooting for this kid, while they spit on all kids like him who are from the slums, abuse them, exploit them or simply ignore them on a daily basis... But that's the <strike>cynic</strike> realist in me, but he only came out a few hours after the movie, which I enjoyed very much.
Aaah, and Freida Pinto! <3
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
–noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity."
3.
See also: 'Goliath' and 'Lazario'
First viewing. I didn't believe the hype. I did not care for all the Oscars; the Oscars have become a joke long ago, as Frankenollie pointed out. Now, I'm glad I finally saw it. What a great movie! Maybe a bit too 'emotionally manipulative' for my taste: he brother just 'happens to' give his cell phone to the long-last love of the main character; the main character just 'happens to' call her for the last question; the last question just 'happens to' be about a book they read in school and to which they referred all the time --by the way, such an easy question would never have been the final one; and let;s not even mention the fact that the whole country is now suddenly rooting for this kid, while they spit on all kids like him who are from the slums, abuse them, exploit them or simply ignore them on a daily basis... But that's the <strike>cynic</strike> realist in me, but he only came out a few hours after the movie, which I enjoyed very much.
Aaah, and Freida Pinto! <3
hy·per·bo·lepap64 wrote:No.
There's a HUGE difference between a fact and an opinion, and regardless of what you think, everything you said is an opinion. You have the right to state that opinion, but you can't claim it as fact. You are only speaking for yourself and a few others, but not for everybody.
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
–noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity."
3.
See also: 'Goliath' and 'Lazario'
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
I've been whoring out Netflix a lot lately. Over the past couple of days, I've watched 4 movies on instant queue, each for the first time:
Persona- The 1966 Ingmar Bergman classic. This involves a stage actress who has inexplicably become mute and cold checking into a treatment center, when a nurse finds interest in helping her and the two head off to a retreat so the nurse can solve her problems more personally. They bond, but maybe too much so while at a beach house.
It's an emotionally strong film, quite tough to sit through sometimes. The camerawork is spectacular and becomes a character of its own, while the two women are very interesting in their processes. Overall, I was very pleased with the film.
Charade- Classic espionage film featuring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Two of the greatest leading actors in American cinema together in a sharp Hitchcockian thriller. They have good chemistry together, but then again, I can't think of anyone Grant didn't work off on well. Recommended if any of this sounds appealing to you.
Phantasm- Cult 1970's horror film, this is about two parent-less brothers living in a town full of mysteriously deceased residents. They and a neighbor eventually consider their local mortician to be responsible for the deaths in town and it all comes in full circle for them.
The most recognizable aspect of the movie is the deathly silver sphere, which cuts various characters off gruesomely. The film initially was going to be rated X because of the sphere, but got lowered down to R before being released. Good call, so enough people could have seen this. It's a little hokey and poorly acted, but has an effective atmosphere. There are 3 sequels, but I didn't check them out, and I'm not sure if I will.
To Be or Not to Be- 1942 satire featuring Jack Benny, this attacks the Nazi party during the height of World War II. It's considered to be a classic, but did little for me. A few lines worked and I appreciated the ties to Hamlet(cue the title), but that's about it.
I'll go through some more movies on here later.
Persona- The 1966 Ingmar Bergman classic. This involves a stage actress who has inexplicably become mute and cold checking into a treatment center, when a nurse finds interest in helping her and the two head off to a retreat so the nurse can solve her problems more personally. They bond, but maybe too much so while at a beach house.
It's an emotionally strong film, quite tough to sit through sometimes. The camerawork is spectacular and becomes a character of its own, while the two women are very interesting in their processes. Overall, I was very pleased with the film.
Charade- Classic espionage film featuring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Two of the greatest leading actors in American cinema together in a sharp Hitchcockian thriller. They have good chemistry together, but then again, I can't think of anyone Grant didn't work off on well. Recommended if any of this sounds appealing to you.
Phantasm- Cult 1970's horror film, this is about two parent-less brothers living in a town full of mysteriously deceased residents. They and a neighbor eventually consider their local mortician to be responsible for the deaths in town and it all comes in full circle for them.
The most recognizable aspect of the movie is the deathly silver sphere, which cuts various characters off gruesomely. The film initially was going to be rated X because of the sphere, but got lowered down to R before being released. Good call, so enough people could have seen this. It's a little hokey and poorly acted, but has an effective atmosphere. There are 3 sequels, but I didn't check them out, and I'm not sure if I will.
To Be or Not to Be- 1942 satire featuring Jack Benny, this attacks the Nazi party during the height of World War II. It's considered to be a classic, but did little for me. A few lines worked and I appreciated the ties to Hamlet(cue the title), but that's about it.
I'll go through some more movies on here later.