The LoTR films are classics. Really spectacular successes in latter-day epic filmmaking. "Forth, and fear no darkness!" still gets me excited.
The Hobbit films are grossly bloated and overstretched. Of course, financially they've beeh huge and that's all the studio cares about. Still dull, though. I don't think I'll ever get over that scene with Stephen Fry talking about how he doesn't want to hold elections in his town.
Freed Roger wrote:
Vidor wrote:Well, Reese Witherspoon took her clothes off in "Wild", so she probably clinched the Oscar.
Pretty good movie. Made me want to hike the Pacific Coast Trail. Too bad I'm a middle-aged fatty.
I enjoyed the naked Reese Witherspoon and the movie as well. For some reason the constant flashbacks to Laura Dern, as her hippie-happy Mom got on my nerves though.
The trail part of the movie I give a B-. As far as capturing the fear, essence, solitude of such a journey -the book does much better. I'd like to have seen a slightly higher ratio of trail drama to the flashbacks. and more appealing nudity.
Granted I've only backpacked a few days - but I think they nailed that initial part - the mistakes, insecurities, and difficulty finding a rhythm.
I found the Laura Dern flashbacks rather uninteresting as well. Liked the hiking parts a lot better.
Famous Mortimer wrote:I know Tarantino loves grindhouse and all that even more than I do, but he's such an incredibly talented guy, I want him to stretch himself a bit. "Django Unchained" was fine, "Inglourious Basterds" was fine, but he's capable of more.
That's just it. I've seen Pulp Fiction and a true romance and Rez dogs. He can do a lot of fascinating things as a writer and director - his ability to mix humor and tension is amazing (ie, the keitel-walken scene in true romance). So the revenge fantasy broken record is a letdown because I know he can bust up genres and formats. This is too safe.
Famous Mortimer wrote:I know Tarantino loves grindhouse and all that even more than I do, but he's such an incredibly talented guy, I want him to stretch himself a bit. "Django Unchained" was fine, "Inglourious Basterds" was fine, but he's capable of more.
That's just it. I've seen Pulp Fiction and a true romance and Rez dogs. He can do a lot of fascinating things as a writer and director - his ability to mix humor and tension is amazing (ie, the keitel-walken scene in true romance). So the revenge fantasy broken record is a letdown because I know he can bust up genres and formats. This is too safe.
heyzeus wrote:(ie, the keitel-walken scene in true romance).
Dennis Hopper?
Went back to see Birdman a 2nd time with a friend who hadn't seen it. For anyone who hasn't seen it, and this is not a spoiler, it's edited so that except for a short bit at the beginning and end the whole film looks like one continuous unedited shot. It's technically probably the best film (requires both the most technical artistry and craft of anythign I've seen) of the last decade, far more interesting than a load of CGI monsters and other dumb spectacle nonsense. I wanted to go a second time to start from the beginning looking for the obvious-but-hidden cut points (camera spins around a corner leaving the screen blank, ducks behind a wall filling the frame with black for a half-second, time lapses of buildings at night, etc.) and going to look for those and being conscious of it from the start it really jumps out at you that the movie contains stacks and stacks of loooooooong takes. Which makes it really a remarkable film from an acting/directing standpoint as well as a technical one. The film all in all is great, the way it was made is downright remarkable. A really fun, really interesting high-wire act of a film.
Vidor wrote:The LoTR films are classics. Really spectacular successes in latter-day epic filmmaking.
Yes. But. You must be into epic filmmaking to fully appreciate those films, and latter-day epic filmmaking is throw-away entertainment: self-indulgent, more invested in the FX room than the set, cribbed from cartoonish/fantasy source material that's geared more toward teens than adults, and produced not as a work of art but as a piece of entertainment that generates billions in revenue. LOTR is one in a sea of too-long fantasies. No one talks about Titanic now (and TItanic was pretty unanimously the Most Best Ever when it came out, an Epic Movie that swept the Oscars) and that's been less than 20 years. In 50 years no one will be talking about LOTR the way we talk now about The Godfather, which is genuinely amazing epic moviemaking that's on a level Peter Jackson can't sniff. Lawrence of Arabia. Dr. Zhivago. If I was going to list off Great Epic Movies probably the closest I'd get to the 2000s is Kurosawa's "Ran" or perhaps "Last of the Mohicans."
Vidor wrote:The LoTR films are classics. Really spectacular successes in latter-day epic filmmaking.
Yes. But. You must be into epic filmmaking to fully appreciate those films, and latter-day epic filmmaking is throw-away entertainment: self-indulgent, more invested in the FX room than the set, cribbed from cartoonish/fantasy source material that's geared more toward teens than adults, and produced not as a work of art but as a piece of entertainment that generates billions in revenue. LOTR is one in a sea of too-long fantasies. No one talks about Titanic now (and TItanic was pretty unanimously the Most Best Ever when it came out, an Epic Movie that swept the Oscars) and that's been less than 20 years. In 50 years no one will be talking about LOTR the way we talk now about The Godfather, which is genuinely amazing epic moviemaking that's on a level Peter Jackson can't sniff. Lawrence of Arabia. Dr. Zhivago. If I was going to list off Great Epic Movies probably the closest I'd get to the 2000s is Kurosawa's "Ran" or perhaps "Last of the Mohicans."
I think they're flawed but this is all wrong IMO. Did you end up watching any more than the first hour? Weird place to stop too, as the first movie is probably the best in terms of story. Anyway can't answer in full right now, but LOTR is Star Wars for some people.
I saw Foxcatcher and liked it very much. Steve Carrell, Mark Rufalo and Channing Tatum put in professional performances. The training and competition scenes were authentic. The story in a nutshell is, an impoverished wrestler accepts financial support but pays a heavy price.
ghostrunner wrote:I think they're flawed but this is all wrong IMO. Did you end up watching any more than the first hour? Weird place to stop too, as the first movie is probably the best in terms of story. Anyway can't answer in full right now, but LOTR is Star Wars for some people.
The longest of the original Star Wars was 134 minutes. The first trilogy was 121 - 124 - 131 minutes. 376 minutes. LOTR is 200 minutes longer. Lucas did more in 200 fewer minutes, and his story was not cribbed from someone else's source material. LOTR is not Star Wars.
I'm sure those dreadful LOTR movies are probably all in the top 10 of the IMDB's Top 250 List along with other all-time classics like Forrest Gump and Schindler's List .... [expletive] it, let's go look.... yeah. Wow. What an abortion of a list that is. Kane is 64th. Inception is top 20. Right. So if people like LOTR, and people can't tell the difference between Kane and Inception, then what's the value of the knowledge of crowds other than a $billion here and a $billion there for studio heads?
ghostrunner wrote:I think they're flawed but this is all wrong IMO. Did you end up watching any more than the first hour? Weird place to stop too, as the first movie is probably the best in terms of story. Anyway can't answer in full right now, but LOTR is Star Wars for some people.
The longest of the original Star Wars was 134 minutes. The first trilogy was 121 - 124 - 131 minutes. 376 minutes. LOTR is 200 minutes longer. Lucas did more in 200 fewer minutes, and his story was not cribbed from someone else's source material. LOTR is not Star Wars.
I'm sure those dreadful LOTR movies are probably all in the top 10 of the IMDB's Top 250 List along with other all-time classics like Forrest Gump and Schindler's List .... [expletive] it, let's go look.... yeah. Wow. What an abortion of a list that is. Kane is 64th. Inception is top 20. Right. So if people like LOTR, and people can't tell the difference between Kane and Inception, then what's the value of the knowledge of crowds other than a $billion here and a $billion there for studio heads?
Cribbed? That's a weird way to put it. It's a direct adaptation. And Lucas borrowed from Hidden Fortress and a couple other sources for Star Wars. Farm boy becomes hero isn't exactly groundbreaking.
Also, the imdb thing is kind of a straw man argument.
The Titanic rerelease made $58 million two years ago. It's hardly been lost to the sands of time. For what it's worth, on the TSPDT list, it comes in at 661. Some films in the same vicinity: Boogie Nights, Terminator 2, The Right Stuff, Die Hard, Miller's Crossing, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Time of the Gypsies, Orson Welles' Othello, Cool Hand Luke, The Killer; all classics.
