|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 18, 2003 12:19:18 GMT -5
I got to go to the Trilogy Tuesday the other day. All three movies in the trilogy, back-to-back-to-back in one sitting. It was amazing.
As for the Return of the King, I have nothing bad to say about it. And I'm a pretty analytical movie snob.
My opinion is that the trilogy is the best cinema released in my lifetime, and that Return is the best of the three.
You mileage may vary.
Have you seen it? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Gorphax on Dec 18, 2003 12:55:29 GMT -5
I've seen it twice in a 24-hour period. All I can say is that Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey has been bumped to no. 2 on my list of all-time favorite movies. I am also speechless in regard to using any adjectives to describe this movie. It is simply the best movie I have seen in my life. Wow.
|
|
TomServo69
Moderator Emeritus
Gone but not Forgotten
Nothing ever changes........
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by TomServo69 on Dec 18, 2003 22:09:33 GMT -5
Now, now. I don't know what the hell it did to impress you enough to knock 2001 off but, it wasn't that damn good. 2001 is my fav of all-time too and it's gonna take a lot more than Elijah Wood and Peter Jackson to knock off Kubrick and Clarke I'll say that much. Hell, I don't even think it would make my top ten.
Once more, that's just me,
Servo
|
|
|
Post by Gorphax on Dec 18, 2003 23:11:21 GMT -5
I don't know man, I'm usally not one to make lambastic or melodramatic claims upon film releases, but I don't ever remember feeling this sort of exhilaration with a movie in years I believe. Let alone the ability to keep someone interested for 3 and a 1/2 hours. As you said, to each his own, I just thought I'd give a bit more insight into why I'd say something like that.
|
|
TomServo69
Moderator Emeritus
Gone but not Forgotten
Nothing ever changes........
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by TomServo69 on Dec 18, 2003 23:52:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess, I just felt that it kinda dragged along in areas and there were certain times where they were trying to make it painstakingly obvious that, yes, they had used CGI rather than developing characters and plotlines. It was great, I'll say that, just not as good as classics. It could turn out to be a classic, but, we'll see. I don't really even think it was good as the first one.
But, that's opinion,
Servo
|
|
Trumpy
Tibby
Look at that crappy special effect-how'd they get away with that?
Posts: 62
|
Post by Trumpy on Dec 19, 2003 8:06:38 GMT -5
I am at a total loss of words for ROTK. I have never felt so many emotions during a movie in my life. Absolutely incredible. It even had me a little misty eyed (that's an understatement), and I have never cried over a movie before (I have a heart of ice). So, to sum it all up, go see this movie if you haven't already...it is what a movie is meant to be.
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Man on Dec 19, 2003 10:23:56 GMT -5
My gf & I are gonna see it Sunday! I'm glad to see it's getting some good reviews.
|
|
|
Post by Tranq on Dec 19, 2003 13:43:52 GMT -5
I'll pass. I have no intention of seeing this over produced, CGI infested flick ever! Give me REAL movies anyday! Arwen was barely in the books. Once in Fellowship and then at the end of King. What's with the overuse of Liv Tyler? I mean, yes, she is honestly the most beautiful woman in the world, but,..... Oh well. If you like the movie, I'm glad you can enjoy it. I, however, cannot. It seems that this movie is like religion or politics. You can't discuss it without debate.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Dec 19, 2003 14:49:59 GMT -5
I'm with you Tranq... I saw the first one The Fellowship and it was like getting hit on the head with a hammer for 4hours. I went out for popcorn once and I took my time... I'm sick of these artificial computer generated movies. I don't know if the technology is going to get better or not but you can't tell me it looks any better than Ray Harryhausen. Okay, the computer monsters move smoother than O'Brien's or Ray's stuff but so what? where's the artistry? When you see a Harryhausen film there's at least a little feeling for those lovely armatures since they were made and moved by a real warm human being. Also since when is being "realistic" important anyway...I'm ranting here. I guess I'm just old fashioned and prefer superior slow, handmade craftmanship to stuff made in the factory-like recesses of a computer... some of you obviously feel differently
|
|
|
Post by hookemhorns on Dec 19, 2003 15:10:54 GMT -5
Going to see it on Sunday ... can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by Tranq on Dec 19, 2003 15:58:18 GMT -5
I'm with you Tranq... .......... but you can't tell me it looks any better than Ray Harryhausen. Okay, the computer monsters move smoother than O'Brien's or Ray's stuff but so what? where's the artistry? The old frame by frame animation was true art. anyone can get on a computer with the right equiptment and make a movie. Not many people has the patience for the old way of animation. When film making was an art and not not showing off a fat wallet.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Dec 20, 2003 1:00:53 GMT -5
Not to mention they had style...you can always tell a Harryhausen creature from a Willis O'Brian from a Jim Danforth (the latter proves how good the former were-forgive me if I'm wrong but I think Danforth did Laserblast)...can anyone name a single individual who creates monsters in the movies today? NO, their computer does.
|
|
TomServo69
Moderator Emeritus
Gone but not Forgotten
Nothing ever changes........
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by TomServo69 on Dec 20, 2003 3:19:57 GMT -5
You know, one more thing I noticed about this movie after seeing it the second time this evening? It has more rock climbing in it than Lost Continent. And that's not a good thing. And the last 30 minutes of it are just unnecessary. It is great though. Not 2001 great, but, great nonetheless.
Servo
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Dec 20, 2003 17:28:26 GMT -5
The old frame by frame animation was true art. anyone can get on a computer with the right equiptment and make a movie. Not many people has the patience for the old way of animation. When film making was an art and not not showing off a fat wallet. How true. There's going to be another remake of King Kong. I'm sure it will be CGI whiz bang but it won't have the heart of the 1933 original.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingTwinkie3 on Dec 20, 2003 21:18:47 GMT -5
I just saw RotK today. It was good, but I can no longer sit through a movie without riffing it. My bro and I came up with some funny ones, and the random kids behind us were riffing the hell out of it, too. I liked it, though.
|
|