My Studios

helfy: Glad you dropped by today! You're always welcome, partner. We can always use a helfy perspective 'round here. [Ducking. Again. Man, I gotta stop doing that.]

"I am just happy that Hollywood realizes that with a little bit of effort they can still make great Action/Suspense movies with a brain... [F]ilms like these that make us healthier as a nation. ...[Y]ou get your message to much bigger audience when you make a genre film with some intelectual elements rather than the other way around... Here's hoping that this film transcends its genre and gets everyone talking about the geo-political issues..." Wow, that's a mouthful, all right, and I couldn't agree with you more. Nicely done. (Now, look, however, I personally feel The Kingdom is much more The Bourne Ultimatum than Syriana... But that ain't exactly bad, you know.)

"I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore." Well, Hell, I'll lift my glass (er, mug) to anyone who can spontaneously recite Network. But, then again, I'm only a poor lackey of the imperialist ruling circles. [Grin]

"I got you going huh." Always; not only that, but you create feelings in others that they themselves blah, blah blah blah, blah blah, blah, blah.

"As always I remain... jk Nico I won't take your line..." Aw, go 'head. I get a nickel every time you do. [Grin] Besides, imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism, or something.

"Peace." Love. Crabs. Out.

Nico.

What can I say I love action movies. Well almost any kind of movies now that I think about it. Besides war movies of course.
In light of this I would now like to add that Shoot em Up was like the coolest frickin movie I've ever seen. So what if the storyline was conceived in a bathroom stall in the back of wal mart while somebody is takin care of biz. Meanwhile this movie had some of the best action scenes I have ever seen. I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever seen a movie where the main dude shoots a room full of swat "while" having el inter-o course-o. I know most hated crank. I liked it. I tend to like adreniline fueled action movies and shoot em up makes crank look like the frickin spongebob movie. Which I never saw because its the most ridiculous show besides yu gi oh I have never watched. Anyways. I'm sure I'm alone here other than hardcore owen fans. But this movie in my opinion was effing amazing. I recomend anybody who doesn't mind a lame storyline to go see this movie right now. Immediately. Go. Why are you still reading. Go watch it.

I am not one for shooting people down but what the hell was that Crazy? We were talking about The Kingdom and then you insert you diatribe about action films like Shootem up and Crank. That was kind of ADD dont you think?

Good point, helfy, but, let's face it: It was the "el inter-o course-o" that made that art.

I remain, as always...

Nico.

Sorry. Kingdom doesn't really interest me. And shoot em up was like the coolest movie I've seen this year.

cRazy, I'm with you. Not only does The Kingdom NOT interest me, it almost makes me want to 100% give up on movies in general. It looks terrible. I understand he's your producer, Peter Berg, but Michael Mann's style barely works for him. Come up with an original style of your own. Friday Night Lights was a beauitiful film, why would you completely change your style? Unfortunately, i'm pretty much alone in thinking this will be a terrible movie and it looks like it's going to not only kill at the box office but probably come awards season too, and that just makes me angry. I can deal with the fact that there are a bunch of movies coming out about Iraq, but the only one worth seeing is In The Valley of Elah. Rendition will suck.
And, The Kingdom will suck. sorry.
This season also has a lot of westerns coming out, at least they all look like amazing masterpieces of filmmaking.

I watched the first 4 minutes (or more accurately, the opening credits) online today, and it was different than expected, but actually in a way that made me want to see it more.

Australia's version of Ebert and Roeper reviewed The Kingdom this week. Seems they weren't too impressed by it although the message in it is quite powerful.

http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s2024566.htm

Here are some choice quotes:

"The Kingdom ends up being neither fish nor fowl. It’s not such a tense action thriller and even though it makes an attempt to illuminate the complex politics of the country it really shies away from anything truly challenging."

"Yeah, I think there's something rotten in this kingdom. I think there's an attitude which really got up my nose a bit."

"And, you know, ultimately it does have a really powerful message in its ending."

To sum it up: "Look, the beginning and the ending are the best things in the film but what's in between is horrible."

StnMan5: Hmmm, your (and cRAzY's) comments make me wonder: Is it possible Peter Berg decided to take too much of a middle-of-the-road approach with The Kingdom? It stands almost exactly at the crossroads between police procedural and war film, action movie and quasi-sociopolitical documentary (okay, fine, it leans more toward "action" than modern history, but it's still taking from both genres). It's told from an almost exclusively American point-of-view, yes, but The Kingdom still manages to relate (very, very effectively I think -- unnervingly so, actually) to the other side of this conflict... Would it have served the film (and/or its audience) better to more unambiguously come down on one "side" or another? I'm not so sure... but I think this is a terribly important, very very interesting conversation -- not to mention, relevant, particularly with the next Presidential election what seems like merely weeks away -- and I'd love to continue it, most especially with naysayers or skeptics, once the film opens and they get a chance to see the film for themselves... I hope I get that chance. Something tells me that how American audiences respond to this film will be a window into, perhaps a paradigm of, how they feel about The Long War, generally... Plus, I just get off on stimulating and passionate intellectual discourse, or, failing that, pure and unadulterated argument.

And, StnMan5, I do hope you're exaggerating when you employ rhetoric like:

The Kingdom... almost makes me want to 100% give up on movies in general.

...I mean, dude, really? Seriously? I can't imagine what would make you so despise a film, sight unseen... I mean, unless it was Dude, Where's My Car?, Caddyshack II or Fair Game, or American Psycho II: All American Girl or something... But I respect your opinion (even if I can't quite manage to comprehend it)...

It looks terrible... Michael Mann's style barely works for [Peter Berg]. Come up with an original style of your own.

Hmm, there's some truth to that, no question; I was reminded quite a bit of Heat, and also (bizarrely enough) The Matrix Reloaded. It's a fair point... But, then, how many cinematographers have attempted to duplicate frequent Spielberg collaborator Janusz Kaminski's style (and lens choices, and exposure decisions), from Saving Private Ryan? Or, the trademark "long hallway" zooms first perfected by lenser Matthew F. Leonetti in Poltergeist (another Spielberg production), and then aped by everyone from Oliver Stone, to Joel Schumacher, to Danny Boyle? ...Yet, we rarely hear dissatisfaction expressed with these homages, even though -- whether they're well-executed, or badly done -- they frankly smack more of plagiarism than tribute... My point is, Berg's a talented filmmaker, yes, but he's still very much a novice, learning his craft. It's natural -- almost inevitable -- that, until (and unless) he develops his own signature "style," he'll keep honing his skills by putting what he's already seen into practice. After all, we can't all be Fellini, Chaplin, Welles, Truffaut, DeMille, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Coppola, Lucas, Syder, Malick, Altman, Sayles, Spielberg, or the Coen or Wachowski Bros. -- some of us have to settle for being Richard Attenborough, Robert Wise, Ron Howard, John McTiernan, Martin Scorcese, Alan J. Pakula, Tim Robbins, Cameron Crowe, Brian De Palma, Barry Levinson, Jonathan Demme, Robert Zemeckis, John Landis, Joe Dante, Renny Harlin, Frank Oz, Richard Donner, Tony Scott, Peter Jackson (man, am I gonna catch Hell for that), Tim Burton (and that), Kevin Smith (and, OMG, THAT) or Clint Eastwood: talented, but rarely original, auteurs who, like a diligent but uninspired architect, have mastered the mechanics of filmmaking but have nothing truly new or revolutionary to contribute to the medium. In other words, there are far, far more Peter Keatings than Howard Roarks, in this as in any other endeavour, which should come, really, as no surprise to anyone who's been on the planet more than fifteen years or so. (Then again, there are far, far too many Ellsworth Tooheys, too (heh)... and if, by some unhappy chance, you slept through your lower-level college literature or junior-year high school English class, or are culturally retarded, and therefore don't know what the heck I'm talking about, a pox upon you, and goest thence and pick up a dogeared copy of The Fountainhead from your local Half Price Books. Now.

...However, I digress.

Friday Night Lights was a beauitiful film, why would you completely change your style?

...I'm going to chalk it up to that learning curve I referenced in the last paragraph, until proven otherwise; up-and-coming Little League pitchers are constantly learning new ways to wrap their digits around the ball, after all. Ninety-nine point nine percent of the time, they wind up spending a career just emulating what they've seen to one degree or another... but once in a generation or so, you get a Bruce Sutter (inventor of the split-fingered fastball).

...Are you a fan of FNL, the television series, btw?

Unfortunately, i'm pretty much alone in thinking this will be a terrible movie and it looks like it's going to not only kill at the box office but probably come awards season too, and that just makes me angry. I can deal with the fact that there are a bunch of movies coming out about Iraq, but the only one worth seeing is In The Valley of Elah. Rendition will suck.

I wouldn't be so sure about that (that you're "alone" in thinking that way). There's a lot more push-back to The Kingdom than I had expected... If this film doesn't hit exactly the right note with Middle America, it could well flame out under $50M, and end up widely reviled besides, killing or at least reducing its chances to succeed on DVD. Regular Forum participants will note that I've been fond of comparing The Kingdom to Ed Zwick's ominously prescient The Siege -- a valid comparison, I think -- but we have to remember, that film was recieved well by neither critics nor the public (for, I think, some of the same reasons), and barely earned back half its budget (it ended up around $40M domestically). It's taken Zwick, previously considered one of Hollywood's brightest comers, nearly a decade to get back into good graces with the studios. I can't really imagine a circumstance where The Kingdom ends up significantly above $100M ($110M is about as high as I'd believe possible), and, as you say, In the Valley of Elah (as well as Lions for Lambs and Grace Is Gone, among a host of other timely films examining modern war) is far likelier to earn awards-season honors (Tommy Lee Jones's performance, especially).

(Btw -- if it seems like I'm picking on you, I'm not. You just made me think, is all, and that, to paraphrase Martha Stewart, is a very, very good thing.)

The Kingdom will suck. sorry.

Beg to differ, at least until you've actually seen it, but it's not a big deal. No apology needed, we're all friends here, or at least very dysfunctional relations.

This season also has a lot of westerns coming out, at least they all look like amazing masterpieces of filmmaking.

Hey, no argument there. Word.

dranscht: Good. I do believe that was the point. I'm glad they're available online, perhaps they'll whet the public's appetite.

tuan:

Seems they weren't too impressed by it although the message in it is quite powerful.

I'll settle for that. There are plenty of films I didn't especially like, that made me think. (Natural Born Killers being, perhaps, first among them.)

"The Kingdom ends up being neither fish nor fowl. It’s not such a tense action thriller and even though it makes an attempt to illuminate the complex politics of the country it really shies away from anything truly challenging."

[Nodding] All in all, I think that's fair.

"Look, the beginning and the ending are the best things in the film but what's in between is horrible."

Can't agree there... Remember, 2001: A Space Odyssey changed genres midway through, too. The "middle" of The Kingdom is part detective story, part action / war movie. Both are very, very well done in my opinion. But they might not be exactly what audiences are expecting... or, perhaps, what they're wanting. There's the rub, again in my opinion. We should begin to know how it's playing in twenty-four hours or thereabouts.

Can't wait for Mase's first "Weekend Update"!

I remain, as always...

Nico.

It's rare that I get to see three movies in the theater in the space of one calendar week. It's even rarer still that I get to see three quality films in that same week.

(I promise I won't stray to far off topic, and I'll try even harder not to spoil it for anyone who hasn't see them.)

Last Sunday, I saw Eastern Promises. My God, what a great movie. I think it's the best drama I've seen this year, and maybe the best organized crime movie I've seen EVER (and yes, that includes The Godfather, which was a classic in every way, but always disturbed me far more than it enthralled me). I think, and hope, it gets a full rack o' Oscar noms, not the least of which should be for Best Picture, Best Director (David Cronenberg) and Best Actor (Viggo Mortensen, in his best performance ever, and that's saying something). The only problem I had at all was that the very last two minutes seem to fast-forward to a point where something significant seemed to have been missed. But then, I've heard that this may very well end up being Part One of a trilogy a la The Godfather, and if that ends up being the case, I'll be very pleased.

On Tuesday, I went with my friend Tom to see3:10 to Yuma. Again, very very well done. I didn't enjoy it as much as Promises, but I have found a whole new respect for Christian Bale as an actor. The sense of pride (which was easily mistakable for stubbornness) and honor with which he comported himself made him a truly sympathetic hero. The only thing I didn't like about this film was that I did not get Russell Crowe's character at all. He spends half the film trying to convince (who? Himself? His men? The viewing audience?) that he's this cold, badass killer, who wants to be free to roam and rob and pillage and whatnot, and the other half acting like he doesn't give a crap one way or the other. Like Nico has told me in private, Russell Crowe is a cypher; there is a strange duality about the man, and the characters he portrays invariably posses this same duality, and his Ben Wade was no exception. I suppose in the long run, it's not really necessary that I understand him, he's a complicated cat, an enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a leather vest. I just would have liked a little more insight into what made him tick, that's all.

And now, this Saturday, I'm going to see The Kingdom. My appetite has been sufficiently whetted by Nico's very incisive review, and despite a lot of the negativity that has come forth in the interim, I'm still very looking forward to it. I'll reserve my final judgment for then. I normally share opinions with Nico, but I can assure you, I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade, and if The Kingdom turns out to be crap, then I'll say so.

I do feel emboldened by Nico's claim that the film "does not come down on one side or the other". Being notoriously apolitical, it's good to know that I won't have that to worry about. Aberrant soapboxing bores me to tears.

I'll be back on this thread in two days. Save me a chair.

Don't want to steal any of your thunder, my man, I just had to comment on...

an enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a leather vest

[Applause]

And the crowds go wild! (Gee, it's like watching Thomas Hardy write, the definite pronoun, "The," all over again!)

I remain, as always...

Nico.

ETA:

Aberrant soapboxing bores me to tears.

And... yet, you read... ME. [Grin]

Nicodemus wrote:

After all, we can't all be Fellini, Chaplin, Welles, Truffaut, DeMille, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Coppola, Lucas, Syder, Malick, Altman, Sayles, Spielberg, or the Coen or Wachowski Bros. -- some of us have to settle for being Richard Attenborough, Robert Wise, Ron Howard, John McTiernan, Martin Scorcese, Alan J. Pakula, Tim Robbins, Cameron Crowe, Brian De Palma, Barry Levinson, Jonathan Demme, Robert Zemeckis, John Landis, Joe Dante, Renny Harlin, Frank Oz, Richard Donner, Tony Scott, Peter Jackson (man, am I gonna catch Hell for that)

Yeah you will indeed. If that Lucas you refer to above is the Georgie Porgie Lucas that I think you're referring to, then I wish you a very painful ball-busting torture.

Lucas has a style? If it's a multitude of fantastical and oh-so-wonderful transitions that you're referring to as his great style then so be it. Other than that, I don't see Boy George having any style at all.

As for his originality, alright, I'll settle for that.

Maybe I'm being a little harsh on Georgie Worgie but I think my brain hurts when I see Lucas' name associated with the greats over a modern-day great like Heaven's architect Sir Peter Jackson.

P.S. Since you're a huge LOTR fan Nico, and so am I. Was wondering which was your favourite of the three? Mine is clearly Fellowship as I think overall, it's clearly the best film of the lot in terms of emotionality (if that's a word), well really, it's just one single adventure, it's a real adventure film if you really get what I'm saying, for a lack of a better word.

Return of the King had the bigger and better beasts, effects, and 'wow' moments, but the film has this quality to it that I can't quite find a word for, it's this quality that feels like the sum of it's parts doesn't quite gel together, or that it's not as great as the sum of it's parts.

As for Two Towers, it's a bit too much action and not enough emotionality and character for me. Although Pippin, or was it Merry's speech in that, that was really great and the addition of Gollum and the Helm's Deep battle. And trees wreaking havoc, f**k yeah! But the film just isn't as great as Fellowship in my opinion. There really is something about Fellowship, it's so magical, it's the film that took me to Middle Earth.

I mean Fellowship was inducted into the AFI Top 100 list at no. 50 for a reason, so I guess I'm not the only one who has this opinion.

Ok, enough rambling, what what's your favourite Nico?

I was exaggerating when I said I would give up on movies altogether...It just frustrates me sometimes to see movies come out and not only come out but oft times succeed that seem to not have the right intent or meaning or passion behind them. I know we have differing opinions on this particular movie, but as a fellow movie fanatic(to put it lightly) you must understand what I mean...It just doesn't seem genuine. It seems too forced to me, that's all.

tuan:

If that Lucas you refer to above is the Georgie Porgie Lucas that I think you're referring to...

Indeed...

...then I wish you a very painful ball-busting torture.

Thanks, man, but I'm already married, and I'm a lifelong Red Sox fan, besides. I've reached my quota, dude; time to throw me back. [Grin]

Lucas has a style?

Erm, the man has a point, there.

If it's a multitude of fantastical and oh-so-wonderful transitions that you're referring to as his great style then so be it. Other than that, I don't see Boy George having any style at all.

Again... the man has a point.

As for his originality, alright, I'll settle for that.

Yeah, we'll go with that. [Grin] I consider Lucas "revolutionary" in the same way I consider Cameron, and to some extent even the Wachowskis, and Spielberg, in some respects (though he has far, far more going for him, obviously, than merely this), "revolutionary" -- they either [A] brought new tools to the filmmaker's hand, or [2] improved them, in some cases greatly.

Maybe I'm being a little harsh on Georgie Worgie but I think my brain hurts when I see Lucas' name associated with the greats over a modern-day great like Heaven's architect Sir Peter Jackson.

...See, I consider Jackson to be a MORE talented director (not to mention, writer), but not quite so impactful an inventor, if you catch my drift. (WETA is awesome, but, let's face it, tuan, it ain't ILM. At least, not yet...) Put it another way: If Peter could direct, and George would produce and do technical consulting, they'd make a wonderfully talented filmmaker.

P.S. Since you're a huge LOTR fan Nico, and so am I. Was wondering which was your favourite of the three? Mine is clearly Fellowship as I think overall, it's clearly the best film of the lot in terms of emotionality (if that's a word), well really, it's just one single adventure, it's a real adventure film if you really get what I'm saying, for a lack of a better word.

Return of the King had the bigger and better beasts, effects, and 'wow' moments, but the film has this quality to it that I can't quite find a word for, it's this quality that feels like the sum of it's parts doesn't quite gel together, or that it's not as great as the sum of it's parts.

As for Two Towers, it's a bit too much action and not enough emotionality and character for me. Although Pippin, or was it Merry's speech in that, that was really great and the addition of Gollum and the Helm's Deep battle. And trees wreaking havoc, f**k yeah! But the film just isn't as great as Fellowship in my opinion. There really is something about Fellowship, it's so magical, it's the film that took me to Middle Earth.

I mean Fellowship was inducted into the AFI Top 100 list at no. 50 for a reason, so I guess I'm not the only one who has this opinion.

Ok, enough rambling, what what's your favourite Nico?

Er, wow. You really put me on the spot, there. There's literally nothing I can say that will entirely satisfy everybody, except, perhaps, "I jus' luv me some LOTR! They're ALL my favorites!!!" And, well, that just won't do.

In a word, here's how I rank them, in my own mind... (though, it's a little like asking me what my favorite chapters are of my favorite book, y'know?)

[1] The Two Towers;
[2] The Fellowship of the Ring;
[3] The Return of the King.

Allow me to explain...

I totally get what you're saying about Fellowship, and believe me, there's a far closer relationship between TTT and TFotR, than there is between TFotR and TRotK, in my mind... Meaning, TTT only JUST "beats out" TFotR in my book. And of course, it goes without saying that they're ALL outstanding. (So, naturally, being the walking cliche that he is, he goes and says it anyway. Kneebiter.)

I'm going to start with the technical aspects, 'cause I think they're the easiest to categorize. Fellowship is BEAUTIFUL. The sets, costumes, art direction, etc., are AMAZING. The Shire, the Fords of Bruinen, Rivendell, Mordor, Lothlórien, the River Anduin, the Argonath, Parth Galen. They are, in a word, perfect. Even Isengard and the too-brief appearance of Weathertop are astonishing. Now, LESS perfect, in my opinion, were Bree and Caradhras -- they simply felt too confined, too claustrophobic -- but, really, that's quibbling. Nearly every single scene elicited gasps of astonishment from me.

The sound design (who will ever forget the sounds of the Battle at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm, or the first piercing shrieks of the Eye of Sauron, or the horrible snuffling of the Nazgûl and their foul, unearthly steeds?) is simply INCREDIBLE. The special effects are AWESOME. (The Entrance to the Mines of Moria, the battle atop Orthanc, the Balrog... oh, my.) The acting is SPECTACULAR. My God, but Sean Bean deserved an Oscar nomination... So did Sean Astin, and of course Elijah Wood.

But it's the writing that makes Fellowship, in my opinion. How Peter jackson condensed the entire history of Middle-earth into just a few minutes of film, I'll never know. The pacing, the dialogue... it's all fantastic. This is very nearly my favorite film of the series, and you can tell that Peter took his time with it -- it's the only one that doesn't feel, well, rushed. (More on that in a minute.)

But, on to The Two Towers. There are three reasons why it's my very favorite of the series: [1] The acting. My Heavens, but EVERYONE (with the possible exception of Ian McKellen and Sean Astin, who simply nail it in Return of the King) delivers career-best performances here: Viggo, Orlando, my word, Bernard Hill. Miranda Otto. Hugo Weaving, Brad Dourif, Karl Urban. Even (especially?) Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan, but, oh, my, Elijah and Sean Astin, too. And one more... but I'll get to that in a moment. [2] The big scenes. Edoras. Osgiliath. The Black Gate. And, oh my, Helm's Deep. The Battle of Helm's Deep is, quite simply, the most breathtaking spectacle EVER committed to film. It's astonishing... The Battle's climax is a greater stand-up-and-cheer moment than that at the close of the Battle of Yavin in A New Hope.

However... it's the third reason that sets The Two Towers head and shoulders above the other two chapters, and that's Gollum. Andy Serkis and the motion-capture team at WETA needed a special Academy Award for this. Gollum is perhaps the most heartbreaking character in all of fiction, a fully realized being... What they do with him is, quite simply, magic. It's insane. You want to hold Gollum's head below water. You want to hug him and make him all better and not crazy anymore at all. I was actually a fan of Jar Jar Binks, you know -- I thought he was more convincing by far than any human actor in the entire prequel trilogy -- but I thought Watto was the most interesting personality of Lucas' new Saga... and Gollum just flat handed him his fat, winged ass.

Now, there are things I DON'T like about The Two Towers: John Rhys-Davies is fine, but his voice as Treebeard was distracting -- was Anthony Hopkins not available for three days' of studio recording, or something? Plus, the Battle of Isengard was, frankly, cheesy. "It's only a model" kept floating, unbidden, into my head. There was something undefinably... NOT "WOW!" about the appearance of Gandalf the White. But, on the whole, I have to say, The Two Towers is just about perfect. And, by the way, all the technical aspects -- except for the Battle of Isengard -- I loved about Fellowship, are done with very nearly as flawless precision in The Two Towers... it's just not as spectacular, because, well, we're frankly used to exceptionalism, as an audience, by now.

Now, we come to The Return of the King. And, look, here it is: It feels rushed. Not the story, so much -- I mean, it's got, what, six separate endings? -- but the process. Some of the special effects (the Battle of Pelennor Fields, particularly) are simply INCREDIBLE, and some (Osgiliath, Harrowdale and the Paths of the Dead, the Battle of the Black Gate and, especially, the film's climax, Barad-dûr), well, not-so-incredible. (And, sorry, but the Army of the Dead fighting at Minas Tirith looks flat-out cheesy; I mean, bad cheesy. They pop like popcorn all along the levels of the White City... it's snicker-worthy.) This is a film that could have stood another year of postproduction; the editing is choppy, the pacing terrible, especially in the film's protracted third act. Yeah, I know, it's J.R.R. Tolkein, but still. It seemed like Sir Jackson was stumbling to the finish, and I don't think I'm the only one who felt that way.

There's a lot that didn't make the final cut, and still hasn't: Éomer reacting to Théoden's (and, he initially thinks, Éowyn's) death; Merry comforting Pippin in the stables of Edoras; the Scourge. I mean, Tom Bombadil, sure, but how can you leave out the Scourge of the Shire, especially after you alluded to it in Fellowship? Meanwhile, the Shelob bit feels awkward and doesn't really flow with the rest of the story (maybe because it properly belonged in The Two Towers). Yeah, I'm a purist.

It's a spectacular film, sure; Sean Astin, Ian McKellen, Billy Boyd and Elijah Wood give bravura performances; but, other than in terms of scale, in my opinion The Return of the King doesn't really IMPROVE on the first two chapters, and that's why I rank it the lowest of the trilogy. (But, hey, not by much.) There's a lot of emotionalism at the end that I feel obscures how weak the film is, comparatively, to the previous two (and, in particular, The Two Towers)... Peter Jackson set the bar very, very high with The Fellowship of the Ring and TTT, and, to me at least, The Return of the King doesn't take the next step. It stumbles and succumbs to the bright glare of its own brilliance, just a little bit; just like Frodo did, just at the end.

Anyway, I could go on, but I'm going to at least make a vain attempt at sleep tonight. We can talk about this some more... I'm really not trying to convince you of anything. The Lord of the Rings, all of it, is my favorite film of all time, beating out Empire of the Sun and Star Wars... and that, my friend, ain't too bad at all, no, sir, Mister Frodo. Hey, hi, a merry-doll...

I remain, as always...

Nico.

Nicodemus wrote:

I was actually a fan of Jar Jar Binks, you know -- I thought he was more convincing by far than any human actor in the entire prequel trilogy -- but I thought Watto was the most interesting personality of Lucas' new Saga... and Gollum just flat handed him his fat, winged ass.

hehe I completely agree. As annoying as he was, he out-acted all of them.

Nicodemus wrote:

(And, sorry, but the Army of the Dead fighting at Minas Tirith looks flat-out cheesy; I mean, bad cheesy. They pop like popcorn all along the levels of the White City... it's snicker-worthy.)

Completely agree with you. And I don't know, that Pelennor Field did look pretty large and in a wide shot, the green guys ran across it in like 5 seconds or so.

And the criticism I always hear from friends regarding LOTR's 'laziness' in terms of it's plot is always directed at the Army of the Dead and their invincibility. Maybe you could help me out here Nico and shed some light here as I think I fell asleep whilst reading ROTK because I can't seem to recall anything about them in terms of their 'invincibility'. I always hear from people "They f#@*ing CHEATED!!!!! You can't just pull them out!"

Nicodemus wrote:

There's a lot that didn't make the final cut, and still hasn't: Éomer reacting to Théoden's (and, he initially thinks, Éowyn's) death; Merry comforting Pippin in the stables of Edoras; the Scourge. I mean, Tom Bombadil, sure, but how can you leave out the Scourge of the Shire, especially after you alluded to it in Fellowship? Meanwhile, the Shelob bit feels awkward and doesn't really flow with the rest of the story (maybe because it properly belonged in The Two Towers). Yeah, I'm a purist.

I'm sure you've seen the Extended Editions Nico. I haven't watched the extended versions for quite a while but I'm sure I remember seeing the aforementioned Eomer and Theoden's death and Pippin scenes. Maybe I'm a little confused then. Also was just reminded of the apples scene at the end of Two Towers which was very amusing and added some light humour to what was a very dark film. That's what I forgot to mention that maybe turned me slightly off about TTT. There was simply too much death.

Reading your thoughts on TTT, you've really convinced me to watch it again and reconsider my thoughts on it. I was actually quite surprised by how highly you regarded TTT. Yeah, I probably did take Gollum for granted, because I thought about it for a minute and realized "wow, Gollum really is an amazing character'.

Thanks for the response Nico.

P.S. Is it just me? But did anyone else burst out with tears rolling down their face when Aragorn says the line: "You bow to no one" to the Hobbits in ROTK. I've never had instant crying like that.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: