MasterKiller, this ROTK review is for you.

[Judge Pen]

From: http://lightsout.movieweb.com/movies/reviews/reviews.php?film=3&review=242

The lengthiest walkathon in Hollywood history has finally reached its much sought after finish line. I wouldn’t have missed this for the world. After three grueling years, we’ve at long last arrived at our conclusion. I sat in my seat like an obedient puppy dog waiting for the immanent closer to come…

How does it end? Sam gets laid, then Frodo and Gandalf climb aboard a gay cruise ship. You can literally see Cuba Gooding Jr. and Horatio Sanz waving from the sidelines. I sh*t you not. After 12 hours and thirty-six bucks, this is the lasting image I’m left with…? You god**** mother f*ckers. Even Samwise is getting laid now? I might as well put a gun in my mouth. So much for geek hope and having someone to identify with.

With twenty-thousand opinions, all in favor of one film in particular, hitting the Internet at the speed of light, what’s the quickest way to get a foaming-at-the-mouth fangeek to read your review? Easy. Give it zero stars. Doesn’t work, you say? Ha! You couldn’t click that button fast enough, your finger poised over a drafted chain letter of hate for the hater (eloquently written, I suppose). You’re ready and able to take every punch doled out in the face of your “precious”, coming up as the Pit Bull you always wished you could be in High School. “How dare you speak obscenities in opposition of our most cherished union?”

Clam down. I’m not saying this sucks. Hardly. It has its moments. Tons of them. At the same time, I believe that its one of these “monsters of entertainment”; a beast that is just so completely unreviewable. Why? Because it’s “beloved.” No matter what anyone else says, you’re going to see it. And you’re going to form your own hardcore opinions on the subject matter at hand. You or me, sitting there in our underwear, typing up any given string of words to express our concern is like jacking-off on silk bed sheets. Its too feel our own orgasmic release of excitement. Its bottled-up energy; spoom! We’ve got to let it out before we explode against the wall and break our collective tailbone.

After we’ve thumb-tacked our grateful appreciation against the walls of cyberspace, all we can do is peruse the other pools of ejaculate, nodding our heads with glee, “He came…He came…He came…She came…He came…(then you happen upon the Orange’s dissertation; that would be me) He ca…Wait, what’s this? He must be incontinent! **** thee who don’t spasm at the sight of the RINGS!”

If you’ve seen my last two reviews, you’ll instinctively know that I’m in the minority when it comes to this certain trilogy of geek spunk. And I don’t use that term lightly. A warning to the folks at home: Don’t forget to bring your raincoat. Just past the mid-way point, there’ll be so much custard spritzing into the air like a geyser from the center of the cinema; you’ll think you were at the *****cat Theater on Western for an afternoon showing of Homey in a Haystack. And the film deserves that sort of rousing applause in wet shellac.

I’m a huge Peter Jackson fan. Always have been since that day in college, when www.littlelostrobot.com brought Dead Alive (otherwise known as Brain Dead for you boorish pig-f*ckers that have to snob snot on mild passings of joy) into the rec room (LLR was a head of his time in calling the man out as a genius). I sat there with my mouth agape, reveling in the end. The lawnmower blood orgy is one of my all time favorite scenes from any movie. Then, when I saw Meet the Feebles, I knew this chubby frenetic mess was a Cinematic God. He’s got one of the most distinct, branded looks I’ve ever seen. He throws this creepy, creaky distortion of angles that’s completely his own; an original vision. I decided to devote myself to his work. What was he going to do next? Heavenly Creatures. Awesome. Frighteners, I dug it. Then I heard he was doing Lord of the Rings…Screech…Halt…Yeah, it made sense. But I didn’t care. Hate me all you want, but I hate that type of sh*t.

It’s just me, so don’t cry foul too loudly. Renaissance fairs, knights and goblins at Halloween Parties, the Medieval Times restaurant in Fullerton, every Sword and Sorcerer picture ever made, fat guys in chain-mail beating the sh*t out of each other in parking garages. That’s just not my scene. The Lord of the Rings didn’t interest me at all…Except for the fact that Mr. Jackson was helming this trisected mélange of elvin worship.

If it had of been anyone else, I wouldn’t have even given this time-consuming monstrosity one bit of my waning attention. Hell, I can’t think of anyone else that could have made these movies. No one comes to mind. No other living being could have pulled it off. Pete and the Rings are married in the cosmos like two lost soul mates with a taste for ankle meat. And though I disapprove of the source material, I too must declare this one of the peak thematic accomplishments of all time.

There’s no denying it. And I’d be lying if I stated otherwise. These are the greatest war images ever committed to celluloid. And this third installment brings out the best in Peter Jackson. Return of the King is the best in the series, and my own personal favorite. My palms were sweating; my tongue was in the back of my throat. I thought I didn’t care. I thought I could turn a heated cheek and wisp this **** away. Nope. I, too, a staunch defoliator of the last two Ring flicks, was blown through the back of my chair. Holy God, I’d been converted.

No. Not really. The story still doesn’t interest me much. A bunch of pale ***gots jonesin’ for a rather nondescript loop of gold that looks like your average wedding band? Please. I don’t have time for J.R.R.Tolkien’s hippie musings. My Microsoft spellchecker doesn’t even recognize his name. I’m in love with Pete Jackson’s visionary palate. And I could stare at this thing all day long. And that’s why, from the very beginning, I’ve been torn between two separate worlds.

LOTR fans think their party is an all-inclusive one. I’ve never seen such well mannered, soft spoken, intelligent people in all my life. I don’t have anything bad to say about them, except, “Wake up! Not everybody digs this story. When you write your little reviews, and say that “no one can deny its power!” You’re wrong. I’ve come across plenty of people who say, and I can tell they’re not saying this out of spite because the say it in such a nonchalant, not-too-concerned manner, “Eh, I don’t really care for it. It’s kind of long and boring.” And that’s what it is to a lot of us. Kind of long and boring. Deal with it.

We’re not whispering that because we want to be cool, or because we’re pretending to be indifferent. We’re saying it because it’s the truth. That’s how we honestly feel. How come you oat-haulers can’t live with that fact? I don’t call you an inbred redneck hooker when you claim that From Dusk till Dawn is a bad film (it’s one of my favorites). Someone doesn’t like the Rings? So what. If you care that much, you need deep-seated therapy. Take me for instance; I just said I loved the movie, but maybe not for the same reasons you did. Now I get the hatemails, “You’re too stupid to understand the impact of the story. Without Tolkien and the universe he created, we wouldn’t have Star Wars or Elves, or any mythical type of fairyland. You big jerk! You didn’t even talk about what happened in the movie, you just went on about this and that. You’re a dum-dum head.”

Though I enjoyed this film greatly, I felt the beginging was a little dry and monotonous. My biggest gripe comes with the thirty minute epilogue. Jesus, I didn’t think it would ever end. The Maitreyaplex broke into three choruses of premature applause.

It goes something like this: After a little liquid encouragement (the hobbit sipping from his musty mug of Ale right before approaching the girl garnered more vocal praise than any of the action scenes put together) Sam dates the love of his life, Sam gets married, and Sam has kids. All the ****sexual mythos we’ve seen pointed directly at our poor Samwise are washed away. But that Frodo. He’s still suspect. Watch the way he sadly lingers in pangs of depression near the end, sitting, watching his buddy score. His face seems to say, “I thought we had something special. I thought we were lover buddies in the communal sense.” Yeah, every one thought Sam was Queer as Folk, but it actually turns out to be Frodo.

I say I had a problem with the length of this closer. That was before I went back and watched the Special Extended Edition. Then, it made sense. This collection of Shire-hood moments perfectly matches, and is a bookend, to the opening moments found in Fellowship of the Ring. There are certain set-ups in the Extended Cut that are paid off in this third installment’s theatrical version. Things happen in Return of the King that don’t make much sense unless you’ve gone back and watched the longer edit of Fellowship. It just kind of assumes you’ve seen it. And if you haven’t, too bad.

My favorite aspect of three is that, and I don’t know if it comes across this way in the books because I’ve never read them ), Jackson takes a secondary character and turns him into what I feel is the main hub of the story. Samwise, played by Sean Astin, is the real star of this picture. He’s the real hero, and Peter shows him in that light. We all know Chewbacca is cooler than Han Solo, but he’s never out in front, reaping the glory. I love that Jackson pushes Sam to the forefront of Return of the Kings. Even though the little guy may seem reluctant and modest, Peter makes **** sure the kid gets all the credit he’s due. Bravo, Samwise. You, son, kick ass.

I don’t need to tell you to go see Lord of the Rings. If you’re reading this, you’ve already seen it. Here, take my money…Go see it again…

[MasterKiller]

He was probably kinder than I would be to it. I thought Part 1 was OK, but boring. I thought Part 2 was just flat-out a waste of time. I have no intention of seeing Part 3.

[Shaolinlueb]

i liked the part where he said sam gets laid, no there is no one us geeks can relate too. :LMAO: so true.

[Chang Style Novice]

You should see it, if only for the Battle of Minas Tirith. That's a fantasy action sequence that will probably never be equalled.

[MasterKiller]

I'll just wait until the Super-Extended Platinum Special Edition Director's Cut 10 disc DVD is released. That way, I can just watch that scene and not sit through 3 hours and 10 minutes of bad dialogue and cheesy effects to get there.

[Chang Style Novice]

It really deserves big-screen attention - what you should do is watch some other movie at your 'plex, and when you're leaving sneak into a showing of RotK that's about 1.5 hours underway.

I'll be showing on four screens at 1 hour intervals anyway, so you should have no prob.

[dwid]

I'll just wait until the Super-Extended Platinum Special Edition Director's Cut 10 disc DVD is released. That way, I can just watch that scene and not sit through 3 hours and 10 minutes of bad dialogue and cheesy effects to get there.

I find it a little strange that someone who likes the Matrix movies as much as you seem to would criticize the dialogue in the Lord of the Rings. I mean, there's nothing in ROTK that's nearly as bad as Trinity's never-ending death speech.

:)

[@PLUGO]

or the entirety of STAR WARS episodes I & II

[David Jamieson]

yes matrix 1 was really a cool film with a neat idea propping the storyline up.

2 was a waste of celluloid and I ain't seeing three til it comes out on dvd and then maybe i'll take a gander at it while bored someday.

I agree on your brief but pointed observation in regards to George Lucas' latest efforts. Yeesh! I thought I was watching sesame street with space jets in episode 1 and I wanted jarjar to die almost as quickly as he appeared.

episode two should've been called "star wars 2, Darths Blue balls"

however, I think Peter Jackson has done alright by Tolkien. I mean come on guys, these films are pretty decent. come on! come ooooooooonnnnnn. coooooommmmmmmeee ooooooonnn! :D

cheers

[SanSoo Student]

I read this review b4 going to see the movie today, and I was waiting for Sam to get laid through the last 1/3 of the movie.

The ending is rediculously long, I mean you don't have to tie EVERY detail up.

[KC Elbows]

The ending of the book is far longer. I suspect the extended DVD will cover some of that.

The only thing that bothered me about the ending was the annoying amount of shots of people from earlier in the story. It's like, at the roof of minas tirith, everybody salutes the king, there's horseguy number one, and horseguy number two with the little scar, and there's the poison tester from denethor's castle who was in a one second shot before the fire, and there's the orc from the first movie eating a bit of elf bread, and there's the balrog, etc. Not to mention the mouthing of "aragorn". That made me cringe.

However, the battle for minas tirith and other similar scenes still made it okay for me, though I'm hoping the extended dvd solves the problems, which I suspect it will. Clearly, Jackson intended to make the extended movies, and the theatrical releass are his compromise to the studios in order to get them done. Elsewise, the dvd's would simplyt have added scenes you could watch or not, whereas the extended dvd's do not have that option.

But again, the end of the books is much longer. I've always felt Tolkein had an amazing ability to come up with imagery and story, and a passable ability to put them into words, with enough occasional flashes of style to sell it to enough people. To me, the movies are great, because they take his huge amount of detail work, and make it so I don't have to read it.

[KC Elbows]

Oh wait, the other thing that annoyed me about the ending was that it was sweet enough to kill a diabetic right there and then. The book's end was much darker.

[Chang Style Novice]

KC -

I've heard the hanging thread of Saruman is dealt with in the EE, but there will be NO scouring of the Shire, which I think is a serious mistake.

A *geek buddy of mine wanted there to be more epilogue going as far as a second ship from the grey havens taking Legolas, Gimli, Merry, Pippen, and Sam out. It's not in LotR proper, but apparently shows up in one of the 10,000 supplemental books. Curiously, he claimed he disliked TTT and RotK because they don't stick close enough to the books (?!?)

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by dwid
I find it a little strange that someone who likes the Matrix movies as much as you seem to would criticize the dialogue in the Lord of the Rings. I mean, there's nothing in ROTK that's nearly as bad as Trinity's never-ending death speech.

:) By the fires of Morthgar! The hammer of ham and sceptar of sapp shalt not let thou rag thee movies of hobbit man-love!

Besides the dialogue, I just don't care about the story. I mean, what's the freakin' point? OOOOhhh, Frodo wants to wear the ring, but he has to destroy it. Really, after the first hour of the first movie, I got the idea.


Originally posted by design sifu
or the entirety of STAR WARS episodes I & III find your lack of faith disturbing.

The Matrix is trying to say something about man's relationship with God, the first Star Wars installments were trying to say something about how the sins of fathers are paid for by their sons. What are the LOTR movies trying to say? As far as I can tell, the most repeated theme in these movies is "Hobbits love man meat."

[Chang Style Novice]

LotR is on one level about power - how it can be gained and used honestly and for good, or dishonestly and for ill. It's about how a bad start guarantees bad results, and how a good start doesn't guarantee good results. It's about the insidiousness of desire for power, desire for respect, desire for anything, in fact. Really, it's almost Taoist or Zen in the way that those who are ambitious are ruined by ambition, and those who are humble show greatness by their humility.

And of course, hairy-warrior-man-on-man luuuurrve.

[cho]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
As far as I can tell, the most repeated theme in these movies is "Hobbits love man meat."
Well, there's the whole thing about power, and greed of mortals. Friendship, which most hicks perceived as ****sexuality. And hope, in hopelessness.

don't get me started on Matrix.....


Originally posted by Judge Pen We all know Chewbacca is cooler than Han Solo
I guess we should've expected that from a Shaolin-Do guy :D ;)

[Judge Pen]

I didn't say Chewbacca was cooler. The author of the review said Chewbacca was cooler.

As for me, I loved the ROTK. I've seen it twice now. The multiple endings didn't bother me and, since I'm not a fan of the books necessarily, the deletion of the scouring of the shire won't bother me either. There was a lot of scenes that were abviously edited out fo the Battle for Minas Tirith that should be added for the EE.

Oh, MK, a friend of mine has a similar complaint with these movies and there use of the phrase "The _____ of _________." {Insert geek terminology here} "The horn of gondor" etc. But it makes sense in a world that was created basically from scratch. Imagine if you had no concept of civics or American culture. The Statue of Liberty sounds equally geeky.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by cho

Friendship, which most hicks perceived as ****sexuality.
I guess I'm just a hick with a literature degree who has written 2 novels. I suppose your pedigree and training allows you to understand the subtleties in these boring, and ultimately empty, films which I cannot possibly fathom. :rolleyes:

Well, there's the whole thing about power, and greed of mortals.Yeah, ok. I got that after the 40 minute intro to the first movie. I don't need 10 more hours of movie to tell me people are easily corrupted by power.

[Judge Pen]

:) BTW, MK, what are the underlying themes of Star Wars? Why does it take 6 films to convey those themes completely? Can you glean those themes within 1 or 2 of the films? If so, are the rest superfluous?

The Star Wars story entertains you (probably for nostalgic reasons and not objective reasons). It is no less geeky then LOTR. It is not made better than LOTR (for this point, I'm holding them as equally well done; I’m sure we could disagree). For reasons understood by you, they are more entertaining. Fine, but I submit that Lucas drew much influence from Tolkien. There are parallels to be made in the themes and characterizations.

[dwid]

I guess I'm just a hick with a literature degree who has written 2 novels. I suppose your pedigree and training allows you to understand the subtleties in these boring, and ultimately empty, films which I cannot possibly fathom.

Why not just admit that you don't like the genre? It's okay not to like something for no other reason than that it doesn't appeal to you. Why does you not liking the films have to be justified by flaws in the films themselves? From your criticisms, it is clear that these movies could not have been made in a way that would have allowed you to enjoy them. Clearly, they are not to your tastes, so why not just admit that instead of denigrating (by implication) anyone who happened to enjoy them?

[MasterKiller]

Why not just admit that you don't like the genre? It's okay not to like something for no other reason than that it doesn't appeal to you. Why does you not liking the films have to be justified by flaws in the films themselves? From your criticisms, it is clear that these movies could not have been made in a way that would have allowed you to enjoy them. Clearly, they are not to your tastes, so why not just admit that instead of denigrating (by implication) anyone who happened to enjoy them? Where did I denigrate anyone for liking them? Did I call someone gay? Did I call someone a hick? Please, point out where I made a personal attack in regards to someone liking the movies?

I never said I don't like the genre. There are several fantasy films I do like. Perhaps, if the movies were less bloated, I would like them, and perhaps the bloat is in part due to the text from which it originates; which I have tried to read, but alas, found the material bloated and sappy and couldn't get into it. I find good story-telling to be more than just how many Orcs one can fit on the screen. Sure, the movies look good (except for the cheesy Ent effects), but when you leave the theatre, what are you thinking? What is the message? What conversations can you have about it EXCEPT that it looked good and made your @ss hurt while watching it?

[Chang Style Novice]

I said power is ONE ONE LEVEL what the films are about. They're also about the disappearance of wonder and faith. Elves and Wizards and Magic Rings and Walking Trees and all that wacky romantic nonsense holds Middle Earth in a state of arrested development - they literally can't progress past a medieval/feudal state. Saruman starts playing with industrial revolution stuff, but he's nuts and enthralled by magical powers (Sauron) and so can't do it gently and wisely, so he ****es the forces of Nature off, as well as ****ing of his neighbors, since he's threatening them with his new powers. (This stuff is better elaborated in the books, but it is still in the movies)

By the end of the books, all the elves and wizards and **** are gone, and all that's left are men, dwarves (who have no magic) and hobbits (ditto.) And they've got to deal with everyday sh!t. In the person of Saruman, who, stripped of his magical power is using his technological power to make a play for a coup d'etat in the Shire. (This is why the Scouring of the Shire is so important.) But the non-magical hobbits go and kick his ass for him using the skills they've learned fighting Sauron. They've gone from being happy little rustic butterballs to hardass rennaissance men.

There's more subtext than that, too, MK. Look, I respect your intellect and your education and your accomplishments, but you've obviously got a blind spot for these kinds of genre pictures and a soft spot for other kinds of genre pictures. So do we all - I think the Matrix stuff is a shallow, solipsistic, druggy excuse for navel gaving. You disagree.

And don't wag your lit degree at us anymore - I don't have one, but at least I managed to finish Moby-Dick and I'm not giving up on Ulysses. Again, not meaning to be insulting, it's just that there are different strokes for different folks.

edit - crossposted with MK, so I didn't see his last post before I wrote this. Anyway, see above for more discussion you can have about the flicks.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
:) BTW, MK, what are the underlying themes of Star Wars? Why does it take 6 films to convey those themes completely? Can you glean those themes within 1 or 2 of the films? If so, are the rest superfluous? I have several issues with the prequels, so I will try to limit this discussion to the original Holy triliogy. Star Wars, in of itself, is about how Luke must suffer for his father's sins, and ultimatley, must redeem his father because Anakin is unable to do so.

Taken in context, the dark father (Darth Vader is Swedish, I believe, for Dark Father), figure in European oral tradition is a very old concept, seen even in the likes of stories about King Arthur, Beowulf, etc...

The concept is, of course, that a male child can only become a Man by ridding himself of his father's sins. The father passes his sins off to his son, and is unable to train the child into manhood because he sees his own failures inherent in the child. The male child can only be initiated by an older, non-realative (Obi-Wan Kenobi, in Arthur's case, Merlin), after the child is removed from the birth home and taken into the wilderness. This is a social function prevelent in MOST cultures, and is not foriegn to our ow. In modern times, the soccer coach or even Martial Arts instructor serves this purpose to an extent.

After the training, which usually involves a quest, the male son returns to the father and expunges his sins by returning the birth wounds to him. I.E. Luke must pay Vader back for the injuries he suffered at the hands of his father---visually, this is accomplished when Luke cuts off Vader's hand, ultimately leading to Vader's death. When Luke returns the wound, but then refuses to obey the Emperor, he becomes a man, and in doing so, redeems Vader by not following the same path of fear. Luke rebukes Vader's decisions and sheds himself of the sins Anakin was unable to aviod himself.

So, in essence, those original 3 films are about male initiation and rites of manhood.



The Star Wars story entertains you (probably for nostalgic reasons and not objective reasons). It is no less geeky then LOTR. It is not made better than LOTR (for this point, I'm holding them as equally well done; I’m sure we could disagree). For reasons understood by you, they are more entertaining. Fine, but I submit that Lucas drew much influence from Tolkien. There are parallels to be made in the themes and characterizations.Objectively, I see more intrinsic value in the need for male initiation and rites of passage, especially in a modern world where boys do not have someone showing them how to become men. This is especially apparent in the new trilogy, where Obi-Wan pretty much fails to teach Anakin properly, and we see the ****ing consequences.

I do believe Lucas' big mistake was convincing himself that he is making kid's movies, when his message was originally far from childish.

The fallacy Tolkien fans make is that Lucas drew from him; when the truth is, in fact, they were both drawing from the same source materials, hence the parallels.

[@PLUGO]

I think DWID was refering to this comment ...you to understand the subtleties in these boring, and ultimately empty, films which I cannot possibly fathom. ... which seems to imply that anyone who likes this film must not have noticed that it was "boring & ultimately empty"

To which, of course, I'll completely disagree.

In terms of the Prequels:
I find myself wondering how Yoda (a glorified GREEN HOBBIT) hopping around like a frog with a glowing sword (sting perhaps?) against count Dookie (who made a much better Saruman) granted episode II any substance?

In terms of the original 3
I loved them as a kid. Made quite an impression. Upon viewing them now I still enjoy the nostalgic rush but here read this...
Star Wars:
A Penetrating Analysis
Phallic light sabers. X-Wing penetration. A dominatrix father. Ugh. Sounds like a tale of impotence. (http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=51_0_2_0)


but y'know whatever... it's only a movies right?

btw MK:
When will one of your 2 novels be hitting the big screen? :p

[Chang Style Novice]

Some novels should remain novels - literature and film have a lot in common, but not everything. I shudder to think at what would be lost in a movie version of Ulysses, for example.

[Chang Style Novice]

Oh, and I dislike the Star Wars movies from Return of the Jedi on because they're really badly made, not because they're thematically empty.

[MasterKiller]

And don't wag your lit degree at us anymore - I don't have one, but at least I managed to finish Moby-**** and I'm not giving up on Ulysses. Again, not meaning to be insulting, it's just that there are different strokes for different folks. For the record, I finished Moby Dlck but didn't like it. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. In fact, I would argue the inverse is true in most cases. If everyone agrees on something, it generally means it appealed to the lowest common denomenator in that population sample.

I was responding to the "hick" remark when I mentioned my degree. So I'll quit wagging my training when you quit wagging your art training, tough guy. I don't see a shortage of your posts on threads concerning anything art related or even comics related. On a thread concerned with thematic content of a story, I believe I have the credentials to add my $.02 as well.

When will one of your 2 novels be hitting the big screen? I suppose when people actually start reading what I write.
;)

[@PLUGO]

I suppose when people actually start reading what I write.

I was gonna comment on your post about Star was but I only skimmed it . . .

but do let me know when the comic adaptation comes out!!! :D

[Chang Style Novice]

Hey, I'm perfectly happy to listen to other people's ideas about art. It looked to me like you were using your lit degree as an excuse to dismiss other people's ideas about lit. That's the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. All I'm saying is that making your argument serves you better than letting your credentials be your argument.

But, since you brought up art -

Any of you cats have a chance to see that "Rivers and Tides" movie I posted on a few months ago? Andy Goldsworthy totally owns!

[Chang Style Novice]

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16641

HOBBIT-MAN: THE KING RETURNS
Whenever cool movie series get to the third movie they suck dicks like they’re trying to become Emperor of Dicksuck-ylvania. George Lucas had Star Wars, and then Empire Kicks Ass, and then all of a sudden it’s Planet of Furry ***goty ****heads. Then he had to make two more to feed the Suck Demon that was holding his children hostage, and those movies went beyond gay to where they’re paying old people to take a dump on them.

Even this summer, with MATRIX: SUDDENLY GAY and TERMINATOR: I LOVE COCK, the Rule of the Suck-y Third Movie got re-proven. If the third X-Men movie had come out this summer it probably would have been some crippled crock of crap where Wheelchair Charlie traps **** Yeah Wolverine in an illusion mind-trap where Wolverine thinks he’s a time traveler from a hundred years ago romancing Meg Ryan in right-now New York. Of course, the X-Men movie would try to redeem itself in the third act by having Wolverine realize it’s a mind-illusion and cut Meg’s head off and play dodgeball with it, but it would be too late and here comes my extra large Sprite at the screen.

But guess what? One movie series turned that rule on its head. One 3-movie series said, “Wait a minute, we’re going to make the 3rd movie SO tits it will make the FIRST two movies look gay.”

I just saw HOBBIT-MAN: THE KING RETURNS and that’s the movie I was talking about in the last paragraph. This movie will make you forget that if you stick a knife in your belly you’ll bleed to death so do not bring a knife to this movie.

It’s also, thank ****ing God, LOUD. Even if you bring an iPod so you can listen to VH during the Elf parts you’ll take it off because I swear to ****ing Roth you do NOT know where the next big bang is going to come from, or when something big is going to crunch someone’s skull while you picture that person getting their skull crushed is really your neighbor upstairs that plays Dido all day or that dude at the Starbucks who’s always reading and looking all smart.

Oh yeah, the movie is also 3 hours and 20 minutes, and I think it’s almost four hours if you sit through all the credits (it was all pencil sketches of the characters, which I think means they ran out of money). So if you bring some chick who’s all like, “I have a spinning class tomorrow” or “I’m thirsty” tell her to go home and watch Gay Dudes and the Straight Guy because this movie takes ****ing commitment. I saw the one dude in front of me who was with this girl, and the President of Warner Brothers came out and said, “This movie is three hours and twenty minutes,” and before I could say, “So what, gaylord” the chick says to the dude she’s with that she has to GO. And he LET her go because this movie kicks so much ass you can SENSE it even before it starts. And this chick was a stone fox, and he probably could have made out with her, but he was like, “I’m going make out with this movie,” that’s how good it is. See ya, hottie.

This movie starts with the origin of Golem – that creepy guy who looks like Iggy Pop and wears Tarzan pants and wants the invisible-ring. He’s still on a quest with the two hobbits - Rudy from the film RUDY and Fredo - to throw the ring into a volcano (this is like a serious version of JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO). The ring is also evil but you keep thinking, while you watch it, that someone should put it on and check out some boobs. I have a feeling those scenes will be in the DVDs.

At the same time, the two other midget-men and the giant hippies have seriously ****ed up that one evil guy’s tower (he was Count Duke in Star Wars: Every Cock in the Universe Up My Ass Part II), and they hook back up with Magneto, and also that chick with the bow and arrows and finally the Giant Midget with the Axe. Oh, and also that I Don’t Want to be the King/I Am Destined to Be the King Dude is with them, and he has this whole other story where he pretty much decides to be the King because, I mean, ***** for miles. This is where I started getting really confused, though, because they start talking about kingdoms and alliances and there’s a lot of lines like, “Rohan shall ride!” and “Gondor still stands!” and “Flabadan Son of Rectum must wear the mantle of Bloggith!” and also there’s some **** with the elves that’s like being in a ****ing candle store for twenty minutes.

But the movie is only doing this to set up the BATTLE OF ****-YOUR-PANTS, which isn’t the actual name of the battle but SHOULD be because you will **** stuff you did not eat when you see it.

It all has to do with the fact that one of the midget-men takes this orb from the bad guy and he looks into it and sees the glowing eye’s plan (or part of it – something about a tree dying and Enya music playing). So he and Magneto go to this huge white city where the king is being a dick and just eating dinner while every puke-ugly bad-ass on the planet starts surrounding it, ready to open a Wal-Mart that only sells ball-stomp. There’s this one medium-sized battle in a city that is like the last line of defense for the Big-Ass White City and it’s pretty cool, with a lot of head-crunching and these huge flying bat demon things that I swear to God grab horses and the dudes riding them and **** them up from the floor up. They’re really loud, too, and a lot of chicks and older people were covering their ears.

cont.

[Chang Style Novice]

Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo into a cave where there’s a giant spider and **** that was really scary because even in real life giant spiders are bad news.

Someone told me that all of the spider stuff actually happens in the second book in the series, and that they had to tweak some of the stuff that happens in the books to make the movies work. You know what? Good. Books suck. They used to be good back when people didn’t have movies and TV and dressed like Davey Crockett. People also used to ride horses and drink tea, but now we have cars and Sprite. Move the **** on. Peter Jackson did an amazing job adapting these books, and now the movies are so kick-ass that some people are going to go back and READ the books, which wouldn’t have happened if he’d just filmed the books exactly as they are. Happy now, smarty?

Let me give you an example of how NOT to make books into movies:

This summer a huge bucket of ****s came out called LEAGUE OF ADVENTURE GENTLEMEN. It was about how a bunch of characters from old-timey books got together and ****ed up bad guys. And NO ONE SAW IT. Why?

First, they picked a bunch of characters like Invisible Man and Mr. Hyde and Dracula-Woman and Huck Finn. These are all characters from books that were written five hundred years ago. Huck Finn was actually written before writing. These are the kind of books they make you read in summer school but you’re all like, “**** you, I’m going to play Sonic on my Sega” and you totally complete all the levels by August. So who the **** is going to go see a movie about characters and people they’ve never heard of (the movie acts like you’re supposed to know who these people are)? Like I said before, MOVIES are the new books, so how about this for a movie (I even thought of a good title):

__________________________________________________ _

TEAM 1970’S FOOT-TO-ASSERS

The movie opens: A cult killer tries to assassinate Chauncey Gardiner, the President of the United States. Before the brainwashed assassin dies he gasps the word, “Cyrus” and takes a poison pill.

Senator John “Bluto” Blutarsky forms a super-team to infiltrate New York and take down the “Cyrus” cult. This team is made up of “Bruce” (from ENTER THE DRAGON), “Dirty” Harry Callahan, a now-teenaged Regan MacNeill (who is a stone boner machine and also has devil powers), “Quint” from JAWS, who’s upper torso washed ashore after the shark attacked him, and who has now been made bionic by Oscar Goldman and OSI, and finally Beau “The Bandit” Durville, who’s driving his Trans Am.

They enter New York with the Bandit driving like a ****ing maniac, and Dirty Harry shooting people out the window and Regan making people’s heads explode and ****. Wow!

They get to the center of the Cyrus Cult headquarters in the middle of Central Park and confront Cyrus. He’s controlling his subjects with a glowing Chevy Malibu. Bruce goes totally Jackie Chan on everyone while Harry and the Bandit battle their way to the car. Quint dies bringing down all the cult killers, and they drive off with the Malibu. They also find out that Cyrus was trained by the Parallax Corporation.

Back at the White House, they get their next assignment. They must take down the Parallax Corporation, which is being run by Gregory Marmalarde. They are creating an Army of brainwashed super-killers at their facility at Crystal Lake. These new killers are indestructible and a step above the cult killers of Cyrus. For this phase of the mission they are joined by CIA agent Vincent J. Ricardo (from THE IN-LAWS) and off they go.

They blast their way into Parallax Headquarters, only to find their way blocked by the new generation of super-killers – hockey-mask wearing mother****ers who have all undergone the “Vorhees treatment”. Bruce and Regan take on the killers, while Harry and Vincent go for Marmalarde. That’s when he reveals his newest, greatest killer – New York taxi driver Travis Bickle, who’s undergone the “Vorhees treatment” and is a virtual arsenal of different guns, knives – all of which appear from his wrists, chest, even eyes. Bickle killed Marmalarde’s frat brother Douglas Neidermeyer in Vietnam. Harry dies fighting Bickle, but not before killing Marmalarde. Ricardo searches the Parallax files, only to find that Parallax is only a tiny part of a much bigger, much more evil power – the Thorne Corporation, run by Damien Thorne. He has a huge facility in the Nevada desert, near Area 51.

Their final mission is to deliver the Chevy Malibu to Area 51. The Chevy contains a weapon which can defeat Thorne’s final plan.

Thorne’s compound is patrolled and protected by driverless trucks from DUEL and a bunch of those devil limousines from THE CAR. Two teams are sent in – The Bandit, driving his Trans Am with Regan and Bruce, and another driver named “Kowalski”, who will drive the Malibu along with Ricardo.

They battle their way through the devil trucks and demon limos until they penetrate Thorne’s headquarters. He’s got every character from every boring-ass indie film in the last twenty years strapped to posts in this huge chamber full of leather-y ALIEN eggs. The eggs are hatching and putting face huggers on the douche bags from WALKING AND TALKING and SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPES and CHASING AMY and everyone from every Henry Jaglom film ever made and killing them.

There’s nothing anyone can do – they have to stand and watch while all of these characters are slowly and horrible killed before our eyes, and they hatch into Aliens. That’s when “Kowalski” opens the trunk of the Malibu to reveal: ROY NEARY, JR. This is the half-human/half-alien offspring of Roy Neary from CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and he starts going outer space whup-ass on the aliens along with Bruce Lee. The Bandit looks at the camera, winks, and smiles. (There can be a lot of shots during the closing credits of The Bandit cracking up).

Ricardo and Regan work their way to Thorne’s headquarters where there’s this huge demon battle between Regan MacNeill and Damien Thorne that will make the audience go, “We need new words for ‘HOLY ****ING ****’”.

__________________________________________________ _

See? Use characters from movies thirty years ago, instead of from books five hundred years ago. And by the way, that’s only using characters from 70’s films. I also have plans for an 80’s team of ass-kickers and a 90’s team. Everyone who was into movies from before 1969 is dead, and we’d actually better hurry with the 70’s thing, now that I think of it. Also, I totally copy-wrote this with the Writer’s Society, and I also know a 400 pound man who will man-rape anyone who makes this movie without me.

Okay, back to HOBBIT-MAN, although at this point it’s just wall-to-wall awesome. The Battle for the White Mountain City has trolls and elephants and catapults and a battering ram that looks like a dragon head on fire. Also, earlier Gandalf scares off the flying bats-things with his glowing staff. In the battle for the White Mountain City Gandalf just runs around giving orders. How about turning the bad guys into babies or something with his staff? But that would actually cut down on the ass-kicking so, actually, fine.

The I Don’t Want to Be The King Guy gets a bunch of ghost warriors to fight, and that’s just awesome when it happens, and also the elf chick with the bow takes down an elephant all by herself, and the Giant Midget keeps killing people with his axe.

Then when THAT battle’s over and you’re thinking, “Just air comes out when I spooge now” they stage a whole OTHER battle at Evil Town to distract the orks so Golem and Rudy and Fredo can get to the volcano. And I won’t reveal what happens in the volcano except to say it involves Fredo and Rudy getting right to the very edge, but at the last second Fredo turns evil and decides not to throw the ring in, and puts it on instead so he turns invisible, buy Iggy shows up and bites off Fredo’s finger and Iggy falls with the ring into the lava and Evil Town is completely destroyed. You will have to find out the rest for yourselves. I hate spoilers.

You can totally leave at this point but there’s an extra half hour of everyone relaxing and going home and being happy and I guess they put that in so you can realize your pants are choked with poop from all the battle scenes, so thanks.

There’s also an Annie Lennox song over the closing credits. ????? How about Led Zeppelin’s “Ramble On”, which is where they got the name Golem, or “Ain’t Talking ‘Bout Love” by Van Halen?

Peter Jackson has proved with these films that he is the man to bring A-TEAM to the screen. Five stars. Best movie of the next four years.

[dwid]

Sure, the movies look good (except for the cheesy Ent effects), but when you leave the theatre, what are you thinking? What is the message? What conversations can you have about it EXCEPT that it looked good and made your @ss hurt while watching it?

Film is a visual medium. If you don't like what you're looking at, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll pay attention long enough to appreciate the thematic content so you can have conversations about it later. The underlying themes in film are, to me, easiest to appreciate when they maintain subtlety. It's why the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films were increasingly irritating, they beat you over the head with the themes until it reached the point somewhere around midway through the 3rd film that the story no longer had any appreciable life apart from the subtext. Further, the subtext had become so muddled that even on that level, the story would have been better served by stopping after the first film.

Anyway, movies can be good for different reasons. I like the LOTR movies because they are visually beautiful and because they are accurate depictions of stories I already liked. I'm not looking for subtext. If I want a launchpad for interesting avenues of thought, I'll pick up a book.

[Ben Gash]

I thought that the return of the king was seriously disappointing. I thought that the battle for Minas Tirith was seriously lightweight and didn't hold a candle to the battle of Helm's deep. Some of the CGI was seriously ropy, whole storylines were dealt with in 10 minutes, and much of the editing was sloppy. Ironically I thought the Two Towers was the worst book and the best film (and that's with one of the major fights shifted to the end of Fellowship for a more dramatic ending).

[KC Elbows]

Denethor/faramir is a dark father element: Denethor, who dislikes faramir despite the younger son being closest to him in foresight and virtue, sends his son to certain doom at osgiliath, where the son is poisoned by an arrow of Sauron's servants. But the wound was truly inflicted by denethor's choice, and the wound is a fever, a burning fever.

Yet Faramir refuses to die, showing his character to be superior to his father's, who has given up before even coming face to face with the enemy, and this refusal forces denethor, in his madness, to try to burn alive himself and his son, ultimately only burning himself alive, because of his son's choice to survive and the hobbit's awareness of it.

I don't think a comparison of the story elements of star wars and LOTR can yield much, because ultimately, Lucas does not have the understanding of the elements MK has described, as can be seen by his lack of awareness of their total absence in every other work of his that the original trilogy, whereas Tolkein was well versed on them, consistent, and merely way too detail oriented and verbose, which is fortunate, because those details have made the movies simpler to make. Both writers had their place, but where Tolkein's carreer is made up of books that support the central thesis of LOTR if nothing else, Lucas' only notable work is the original trilogy, and the followups largely unravel that work if accepted as canon.

As for the story, much of it also has to do with free will, and here we fall into tolkein's back story, the silmarillian. Eru(god) begets angels who take part in the song of creation, but a group of angels rebels. The world is made for man, but faithful angels make the elves and dwarves and seek to have them born before man, against Eru's wishes. The fallen angels descend upon the world and turn middle earth to turmoil, and the war between the angels ultimately lays waste to the world of mortals, and Eru reshapes the world and casts down the lord of the fallen. His second in command, Sauron, takes up where his master left off, ruining the world by seeking power over it.

To counter this, Eru sends a small number of minor angels to middle earth in the guise of old men who are sworn to avoid using their power in combatting Sauron. These are the wizards, and they are the same order of angels that Sauron is, though in truth, Sauron is diminished by the loss of his corporeal form, so one could assume that five like him could easily dispatch him, given permission. But then, the balrog would still have lay hidden in moria to be found later, and dragons, and such.

All of those wizards fail in their task save one, gandalf. Yet, he does virtually nothing himself, save inspire mortals to rise to the occasion. Saruman, who acts most directly, becomes enamored of his ability to act, and falls to corruption.

The point being, the world was sundered by the fall, and normalcy could only be attained by the valour of normal men, no matter how short. Every problem in middle earth could find its root in the meddling of great powers, whereas the solution, the salvation of valinor's sins, came from the willing sacrifice of a little man who had never slept with woman, as MK points out.


As for the end and the ommission of the scourge of the shire, I can survive this. However, they were weak on showing that Frodo had been ruined by the quest. Galadriel, earlier in the second movie, states to Elrond "The quest will destroy him, you have seen this". The book makes it clear at the end, the movie has him hold his shoulder once and that's about it.

[Judge Pen]

Thanks KC.

I'm not a Tolkienite and the back story was never clear to me. Your brief background explains some problems that I had in the story (like why Gandolf never does much). The movie implied that Sauron was more powerful than any of the Wizards, though. Plus, don't the 5 Wizards drive Sauron out of his stronghold in Mirkwood and back into Mordo around the time of the events in the Hobbit? someone told me that as well.

[MasterKiller]

whereas the solution, the salvation of valinor's sins, came from the willing sacrifice of a little man who had never slept with woman, as MK points out I haven't seen ROTK, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that Frodo eventually succumbs to the ring, and it is only destroyed because Golem bites his finger off and falls into the lava with it.

Now, from a purely archetypical viewpoint, Frodo is not a hero, or even an anti-hero, because he does not conquer the ring (or himself). He does nothing really, except resist it long enough to get it to Mt. Doom. I suppose you could argue that, in light of KC's recent post, he sacrifices his soul or something, but sacrifice in of itself is more suited for saviours than heros. Frodo isn't aware of the sacrifice (at least I don't see him being aware. Maybe in the books this is more clearly explained). He doesn't know that the quest will destroy him until it already has, which means his sacrifice is an empty gesture, something he stumbled upon.

Who would you say then, is the hero of ROTK? The guy who doesn't want to be king? He doesn't follow the archetype, either. From a Campbellian stand-point, what was his quest?

[@PLUGO]

Who would you say then, is the hero of ROTK?

well... I would say it's Samwise who prettymuch follows the ah... Campellian arch.

He's a sort of fool who is called onto a journey far greater than he ever imagined. leaving his innocence and home behind.

He derives strength from a devotion to something beyond himself... both his loyalty to frodo as well as the ideal that the little good that there is still in the world is worth fighting for...

Even after Frodo sucumbs to the manipulations of Golem and sends Samwise away he eventually rededicates himself to the the greater quest.

Finnally after the ring is distroyed he personally sees to Frodo's salvation and eventually returns home, wiser, stronger & braver.

So while Frodo is a failed hero and a sort of savior. I'd say the hero's journey belongs to Samwise.
This same thing can be said to different degree of the other hobbits as well.

I think there is a major theme being played out in the films. No one individual functions as the Savior of Middle Earth. It is through the collective efforts of the most unlikely of beings (golem included) that bring about a sort of mid-wifing of Middle Earth's 4th age rather than "doom" at the end of its 3rd age.

The original Star Wars trilogy plays to a similar tune with the diverse efforts of charactors and ewoks. :rolleyes: But does not do so as elegantly (IMO).

[KC Elbows]

JP,

The wizards have diminished powers due to their oath. In the contexts of the story, they are weaker, but in terms of their actual nature, they may not be. Considering that diminished in power, gandalf destroyed a balrog, which is another form of "angel" of the same echelon as sauron and gandalf, if lower in that echelon, suggests that gandalf and saruman were likely very powerful beings.

Also, I believe Elrond was also in on the seige in mirkwood, which infers elf forces were there as well.

MK,

I agree, that one element makes the story elusive. Looking at it from that perspective, I would say that Frodo is the hero because he knows the cost of the ring, and thus, aside from Sam's brief time with the ring, he is the only ring bearer who knowingly accepts his doom. Nonetheless, the end is a strange one, but I do not believe that any one definition of hero defines what a story can be, but merely gives a guideline one may work from, or escape if one can justify it to the reader.

DS,

That view does apply to Sam, but I can't think of him as the chief hero. It is The Lord of the Rings, and Frodo is its lord more than Sauron in the stories, while Sam is not even tested by it in comparison.

I think of Frodo as the chief hero because he is the one who takes compassion on Gollum even though he knows gollum may kill him, and he gets the ring there, and when he is found too weak at the end, the fruit of his compassion is what destroys the ring. He sees clearest the ring's power, and he says Sam would be destroyed by it, so we must take his view as fact in that case. Even when he cannot destroy the ring, he recognizes his failure. He cannot be truly like smeagol/gollum and rejoice in ignorance. And so, his spirit, lessened though it is by the experience, can stand uncorrupted, which Boromir could not achieve, nor smeagol, nor aragorn's forefather Isulder, nor faramir, nor Gandalf or Galadriel or Elrond. Only Frodo in the entire story achieves this, and it is the battle for his spirit that he is the hero of, which was Eru's(God's) original intention to be the whole point of middle earth.

My take.

[Chang Style Novice]

Yeah, whatever.

But the Battle of **** Your Pants will make you **** stuff you didn't eat when you see it.

Seriously, KC - nice posts.

[KC Elbows]

Thanks CSN.

As far as the movie popcorn eating aspect goes, I liked the battle of minas tirith, especially the fall of the Witch King, and thought Mordor was nicely done. I also liked the beginning of the movie, though I suspect that's what your purist friend didn't like about the second one: although the story and details are remarkably similar for a book transition into movie, the second book itself is made up of the events that lead to the battle for helm's deep in the first half of the book, and the second half is devoted to the journey of Sam, Frodo, Gllum and Smeagal, whereas the movie interspersed the two halves between each other roughly evenly. Same story, different organization, that's all.

I'm pretty much of a similar mind to MK on certain things with this movie, but I still feel it is a good story, and at times even better as a movie, imho.

Actually, the main thing I disagree with in ROTK is the palantir being in contact with Sauron himself. In the book, it was the witch king, and this I felt was more consistent with the story's approach to Sauron: an unspeakable evil beyond definition. If that were fixed, and the end conveying Frodo's doom better, I'd immediatey require fresh underpants.

[Chang Style Novice]

Nah, Eric understands the need for the movies lengths to be pretty close and the neccesity to not end TTT on too much of a bummer (Frodo getting apparently spider-chowed.)

One of his serious complaints was that a lot of Gandalf's action (speech at the black gate, some other stuff) was transferred to Aragorn. He kind of sees Gandalf as the big epic hero and thought he didn't have much to do except stand around twirling his staff. Well, HE thinks it's a serious complaint - I think it's pretty minor, and think so even more after reading your summation of the extra-LOTR Middle Earth stuff above. It adds resonance to my idea that the main theme here is about honest humble work being morally superior to power gifted from on high.

Anyway, I'd really like to see the scouring of the Shire, and I think the destruction of Frodo's ego and all that was excellently conveyed by Woods' performance, so I disagree with you there. I agree that the manifestation of Sauron as a lighthouse crossed with a contact lens was maybe NOT the best choice, though.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Nah, Eric understands the need for the movies lengths to be pretty close and the neccesity to not end TTT on too much of a bummer (Frodo getting apparently spider-chowed.)

One of his serious complaints was that a lot of Gandalf's action (speech at the black gate, some other stuff) was transferred to Aragorn. He kind of sees Gandalf as the big epic hero and thought he didn't have much to do except stand around twirling his staff. Well, HE thinks it's a serious complaint - I think it's pretty minor, and think so even more after reading your summation of the extra-LOTR Middle Earth stuff above. It adds resonance to my idea that the main theme here is about honest humble work being morally superior to power gifted from on high.

Anyway, I'd really like to see the scouring of the Shire, and I think the destruction of Frodo's ego and all that was excellently conveyed by Woods' performance, so I disagree with you there. I agree that the manifestation of Sauron as a lighthouse crossed with a contact lens was maybe NOT the best choice, though.

Actually, I liked the contact lens, but just felt it the wrong choice to create an inferred dialogue with Sauron and that midget

I agree with your assessment of the theme, btw. Gandalf is not the epic hero, nor can he be. He is a hero, but a much more subdued one, and every use of his power is a moment of weakness, and every time he brings out the best in others, it is his strength.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
The original Star Wars trilogy plays to a similar tune with the diverse efforts of charactors and ewoks. :rolleyes: But does not do so as elegantly (IMO). The ewoks are important because they are technologically ignorant. Of course, everyone knows the final battle was going to be with wookies, but Chewbacca was developed "too smart" in the first 2 movies, and the story arc called for a race of less developed (technologically) beings to defeat the evil, mechanized empire. Unfortunately, they went for Teddy Bears instead of something more grown up.

One of the central themes of the story is, well, Nature vs Technology, which is why the Force is ultimately more powerful than AT-ATs and TIE fighters. Vader says in ANH "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." Ironically, Vader is only kept alive by technology after Obi-Wan kicks him in the lava pit. His very existance is an abomination of nature because he cannot live without the machines. If you pay attention, all of the Emperials are white human males, while the rebels are a smorgasbord of animalistic aliens and a lot of human females, which further contrasts the nature vs (western) society motiff.

However, Luke is clearly the main focus of the original trilogy, and while the other characters are important to the story, they are only important in relation to Luke's quest and his feelings for them. It is through his "faith in his friends" as The Emperor says, that he is able to remain on the Light path. His love for Leia is the only reason he will not strike down Vader or Palpatine because he knows Leia will be their next target for a Sith apprentice, and he feels he must protect her in the end even though it is his need to protect her that almost sends him over the edge during the final duel with Vader.

The value of Star Wars is ultimately that it introduced an entire generation of young people to Buddhist and Taoist concepts which they had never been exposed to. The story was a vehicle for a greater message, like the Matrix. My problem with the LOTR movies is that the story just seems to be the story, with nothing more significant at stake, which is why it appears (to me) to ramble on without focus. Like Bob Dylan told John Lennon, "The Beatles are great, but what are you saying?"

BTW, Lucas didn't write ESB or ROTJ, or even direct the movies, which is why the originals are superior to the new installments. Like Tolkien, he is more of a concept guy than he is a writer.

[KC Elbows]

Amen about Lucas and Tolkein being concept guys first and foremost before being writers. I think both came up with a set of amazing concepts. I don't agree on one having some presence of story over the other, but then, I can see your point; LOTR's story is a subtler one than Star Wars, and while subtle is not better or worse, it places the two in entirely different categories as stories to me. Both utilized a barely spoken back story to give a feeling of reality to their stories, but Tolkein's back story is more in keeping with the themes of his story, as more of it was written beforehand, while Lucas' back story is more the logical conclusions he drew from what he'd already made, imo.

[@PLUGO]

The interesting thing about Star Wars (for me) is that is was created FOR the movie experience while the LoTR series is an adaptation from a written piece.

With LoTR alot of effort seems to have been directed toward what to include verse what to exclude. Star War's doesn't seem to have this delima and instead allowed for plenty of additions (RPGs, BOOKS, etc...) to the mythos, after and around the film itself.

This idea seems to be the cornerstone of the new episodes. The movies themselves seem to be little more than frameworks upon which a new series of games, books, and audience participation is made avalable.

Nice sumation of the original SW trilogy MK.... and Yeah I actually saw an original sketch of Ewoks that looked almost bird like which I think would've worked better. There was also suppose to be a rival race that would unite with the ewoks in the final battle...

Still. . . I can't help but recall seeing stormtroopers struck by wooden clubs and saying "ouch" as they fell over. What's the point of waring that armor if a teddybear with a stick is going to hurt you? ;)

[MasterKiller]

The armor is really a glorified life support suit, not heavy body armor. It only protects against indirect laser blasts, not concussion weapons or direct laser hits. Later, cortosis armor is developed which can shield against lightsaber cuts, but it's still subject to concussion attacks.

As far as Nature vs Technology goes, you will find out in EP III that the Jedi have lost their way by relying on too much technology, trying to count midi-chlorians, etc. They have committed a horrible act of hubris in trying to quantify the Force, which is why they have lost their connection to it. Midi-Chlorians have nothing to do with the Force and the connection people have to it. There is no physical link. It is a purely spiritual experience.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
you will find out in EP III that the Jedi have lost their way by relying on too much technology, trying to count midi-chlorians, etc. They have committed a horrible act of hubris in trying to quantify the Force, which is why they have lost their connection to it. Midi-Chlorians have nothing to do with the Force and the connection people have to it. There is no physical link. It is a purely spiritual experience.

Are you speculating or has Lucas hired you as a ghostwriter? :p

[Chang Style Novice]

The Searchers +The Hidden Fortress + set and costume design ala Flash Gordon serials = Star Wars (original flavor only.) Obi-Wan Kenobi is about 50% Ethan Edwards and about 50% Rokurota Makabe.

I don't buy for a minute that George Lucas has a trilogy of trilogies in mind from the beginning - that whole "Part IV" wasn't there in the original I saw back in 2nd grade, I'm sure of it. That said, he got great talent to help him on The Empire Strikes Back which is why it's a great sequel, superior to the first one. He got hacks to help him on the 3rd, which is why it sucks. He pretty much did the prequel trilogy himself, and he's a hack, which is why they suck.

IMO, obviously.

PS - I CAN'T be the only one here who figures the badass giant elephant charge in The Battle of **** Your Pants is a tribute to the badass AT-AT charge in The Empire Strikes Back.

[MasterKiller]

I don't buy for a minute that George Lucas has a trilogy of trilogies in mind from the beginning - that whole "Part IV" wasn't there in the original I saw back in 2nd grade, I'm sure of it. The Episode IV tag was added to the re-release of the movie in November, after it had a huge summer draw. I guess that's when they green-lighted the sequels. However, in his original contract, Lucas asked for all sequel and marketing rights BEFORE they green-lighted ANH, so he had something in mind, but probably nothing in the scope of what he claims. That's how he made enough money to start ILM from scratch.

But if you've ever seen the original treatment for ANH, it reads pretty much excactly like Hidden Fortress. In fact, they almost had to buy the rights to it before the studio would allow Lucas to proceed. The first script for Star Wars in closer to Phantom Menace than it is to A New Hope.

Afterall, there is a scene cut from ANH where Biggs Darklighter tells Luke, right before they leave to fight the Deathstar, that he saw his father before he was killed. So, the Vader/Father concept hadn't been fully developed until at least after that scene was shot. This scene was restored in the Special Editions, but they do a walk-in-front wipe to cover the removed dialouge above.

As far as Obi-Wan goes, not only is his name based off of General Makabe from hidden fortress (Ma-ka-be --- Ke-no-bi), but Toshiro Mifune was the original choice for the actor to play the role. His lack of English skillz is pretty much what made them go with Alec Guiness.

[Chang Style Novice]

I don't know at what point the elements from "The Searchers" came into it (you are clearly better versed in the minutiae of Lucasiana than I am) but I think in the final product it's pretty obvious - we've gone over this before elsewhere, but I got sh!t else to do today.

A lot of the first part of the movie is taken right out of "The Searchers." The landscape of Tatooine looks just like John Ford's beloved Monument Valley panoramas (minus certain distinctive rock formations like "The Mittens," the Sandpeople raiders are analogous to the Comanche raiders, Luke loses a father figure (who's not really his father) in an early raid while he's away from his home, like Martin Pawley - and discovers the burned homestead in a nearly identical shot. He spends the rest of the movie searching for a kidnapped female relative (nice bit of slight variation here - in The Searchers, the girl isn't his sister, although he feels like she is - in Star Wars, the girl is his sister, although he doesn't know it.) And niftily, Martin Pawley is 1/8 Comanche while Luke is 1/2 Darth Vader. I think it's even arguable that the Comanche ambush of the posse is a bit like the raid on the Death Star, especially when they pilots fly into the canyon on their way to the target compared to when the posses get surrounded and make a break for the river.

Anyway, if you can't tell, I recently rewatched "The Searchers" and it still whoops ass.

[MasterKiller]

I don't know at what point the elements from "The Searchers" came into it (you are clearly better versed in the minutiae of Lucasiana than I am) but I think in the final product it's pretty obvious - we've gone over this before elsewhere, but I got sh!t else to do today. The Searchers was a big influence, especially the Tusken Raiders (the settlers call them the derogatory "Sand People" to show their disdain), but it's subtle in ANH. In Attack of the Clones, Tattooine takes on an obviously more Death Valley look, and Anakin's approach on the Tusken camp is shot-for-shot from The Searchers.

The first draft of Empire Strikes Back was written by Leigh Bracket, the screen writer who wrote The Searches; however, Lucas eventually rejected her take on the Han/Leia relationship, and hired Lawrence Kasdan to re-write it.


He spends the rest of the movie searching for a kidnapped female relative (nice bit of slight variation here - in The Searchers, the girl isn't his sister, although he feels like she is - in Star Wars, the girl is his sister, although he doesn't know it.) In an early version of the script, Luke is looking for his father on the Death Star. Leia doesn't come into the picture until almost the final draft.


And niftily, Martin Pawley is 1/8 Comanche while Luke is 1/2 Darth Vader.The original inspiration for Vader is the wounded samurai in Hidden Fortress who lets Makabe and the Princess escape. He was wounded and disgraced by Makabe, and holds a serious grudge because of it, just like Obi-Wan is the reason Vader has to wear that suit, and he holds a grudge for it. Vader is always spouting off about Obi-Wan. "Your powers are weak, old man."; "Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me. His failure is now complete." etc...

However, originally, Vader was a regular guy. They developed the suit as a way for him to travel between ships, and when that idea was scrapped, the suit was so cool they decided to have him wear it all the time.


think it's even arguable that the Comanche ambush of the posse is a bit like the raid on the Death Star, especially when they pilots fly into the canyon on their way to the target compared to when the posses get surrounded and make a break for the river. I wouldn't say that. If you ever seen the Myth and Magic tour, they show you the original WW2 footage Lucas spliced together as a mock-up of the Death Star battle. It was more of homage to WW2 dogfights than anything else.

[Chang Style Novice]

The first draft of Empire Strikes Back was written by Leigh Bracket, the screen writer who wrote The Searches; however, Lucas eventually rejected her take on the Han/Leia relationship, and hired Lawrence Kasdan to re-write it. Really? That's pretty interesting, and the first I ever heard of it. I have to admit, the Leia/Han relationship is one of the best things in "Empire" although I read an account once where (IMO) the best dialog on it was actually Harrison Ford's contribution. In the scene right before he's carbonated, she tells him "I love you" and his written line was "I love you too" but the final "I know" was (Harrison) Ford's idea. And a much better one, I think.

Cool tidbit about the WWII footage, as well. That's new to me, and makes a lot of sense as inspiration. But still - when they get into that narrow groove and are moving forward to their goal and caught in a crossfire from both sides. Well, you see what I mean.


The original inspiration for Vader is the wounded samurai in Hidden Fortress who lets Makabe and the Princess escape. He was wounded and disgraced by Makabe, and holds a serious grudge because of it, just like Obi-Wan is the reason Vader has to wear that suit, and he holds a grudge for it. Vader is always spouting off about Obi-Wan. "Your powers are weak, old man."; "Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me. His failure is now complete." etc... Yeah, no question. It's interesting, though, that both the wounded general in "The Hidden Fortress" and the Comanche war chief in "The Searchers" have hideous facial scars - the war chief is actually called Scar - and could both possibly be seen as forerunners of Vader.

Another similarity between the two is in the Ethan Edwards/Kenobi character. Both are great warriors from the losing side of a major war in the recent - but not that recent - past, and both are notably renegades: Ethan is implied to have an outlaw past by the Texas Ranger character, and Kenobi is considered a crazy old hermit. They also are both intimately familiar with the ways of the respective 'savages' they coexist with. The difference (and this is what makes Ethan a more interesting character, in my view) is that Kenobi is just sort of a wise old guy who wants the best for everyone - he's nobility and wisdom personified and has no character flaws to speak of. Ethan, on the other hand, is an impulsive, obsessive, violent, sadistic, egotistical racist. He's the only guy who can do the job, which nominally makes him the 'hero,' but you just can't admire the guy because he's such an absolute pr!ck. He only does the right thing once in the movie, right at the very end, and then he does it for the wrong reason. Basically, it's this kind of emotional complexity that Star Wars lacks for me, putting it basically at the level of superior popcorn entertainment, where The Searchers is truly great art as well as an exciting action/suspense western.

[MasterKiller]

he's nobility and wisdom personified and has no character flaws to speak of. Well, Kenobi is flawed, on several levels. First and foremost, he has assumed Qui-Gon Jinn's arrogance. Secondly, he fails to train Anakin properly, which could be attributed to Qui-Gon passing the arrogance bug onto him. He is also petty at times. He calls Tuskens "Sand People," chastizes his teachers for not letting him get his way, and lies to Luke about his role and importance in the Galactic Civil War. He even has a prejudice against sentient droids. "If they could think, there wouldn't be a need for any of us." Kenobi is only on Tatooine to look after Luke. He is making amends for his failure with Anakin. Yoda eventually teaches him (as will be seen in EP III) how to survive death by merging with the Force, and he spends his time on Tatooine meditating and preparing himself for this task in case he dies before Luke is able to realize his potential.

That being said, The Searchers is American cinema at it's finest. Star Wars is important to me for the spirit of the films, not necessarily for the execution of the material. Afterall, Star Wars could be seen as an homage to greater, original films. And while it has it's moments, it never quite captures the spirit of any of those originals.


In the scene right before he's carbonated, she tells him "I love you" and his written line was "I love you too" but the final "I know" was (Harrison) Ford's idea. And a much better one, I think. That line was all Harrison. Interstingly, one of the best lines in Indiana Jones was an ad lib on his part too. On the German sub, the girl comments on him being too old to be fighting, etc... and Ford ad libbed the line: "It's not the years, it's the miles."

[Chang Style Novice]

I shoulda been more clear, the character of Kenobi in the 1st Star Wars movie had no flaws. Sure the Ewan MacGregor version ain't perfect, but I was really comparing the roles played by John Wayne and Alec Guiness in just one movie each.


I obviously agree that "The Searchers" is one of the greatest flicks in US cinematic history - it's a godd@mn shame that "Around the World in 80 Days" won the Best Picture oscar in '56, and "The Searchers" didn't even get nominated, and Wayne wasn't even nominated for Best Actor, nor John Ford for best director, nor Frank Nugent for best adapted screenplay. Just goes to show the Academy Awards have been a stupid sham for as long as anyone can remember.

Ever catch "The Ox-Bow Incident"? There's another top-notch western for ya. That one at least got a Best Picture nom from the Academy, showing their head wasn't completely rectalized. And it lost to Casablanca, which is pretty respectable.

[MasterKiller]

I shoulda been more clear, the character of Kenobi in the 1st Star Wars movie had no flaws. Well, in ANH, he lies to Luke about his past to tempt him into training, but you don't know he lied until ESB. I see the first trilogy as one movie in 3 acts, not 3 separate films.


Just goes to show the Academy Awards have been a stupid sham for as long as anyone can remember.Kinda like Titanic beating The Usual Suspects for best picture. A travesty if I ever saw one.

I haven't seen the Ox-Bow Incident, but I bought the Magnificent Seven DVD, and it's a beautiful transfer. Plus, you get a bunch of documenaries about how all the egos on the set changed the characterizations in the movie because everyone was trying to one-up each other in front of the camera.

[Chang Style Novice]

Cool trivia about "Ride the High Country" - originally Sam Peckinpah had Randolph Scott slated to play Steve Judd and Joel McCrae cast as Gil Westrum. But McCrae liked the Steve Judd role and Scott wanted to be Westrum, so each man independently went to Peckinpah asking they switch roles. They did, and the result is one heckuva movie. Not as great as "The Wild Bunch" but almost nothing is.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller


Kinda like Titanic beating The Usual Suspects for best picture. A travesty if I ever saw one.



Or Shakespear in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan. The best movies usually don't win the Oscar for best picture.

BTW, here's an interesting link: http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/image.cgi?Image=holonet/newspics/arizonarepublic-sw_vs_lotr.jpg

[MasterKiller]

Shakespeare in Love was a superior movie to Saving Private Ryan, which was clumsy, heavy-handed, and pedantic.

[Judge Pen]

Everything is arguable, but I think the concensus now is that Saving Private Ryan was the better movie. But my point is that the better movie doesn't always win. What about Dances with Wolves beating out Goodfellas? Ordinary People beating out Apocalypse Now? Kramer v. Kramer beating out Raging Bull? How Green was my Valley beating out Citizen Kane? Forest Gump beating out Pulp Fiction? A Beautiful Mind beating out FOTR?

Bah, if only I could vote in the Academy!

[MasterKiller]

Well, FOTR, like ESB is a segwey movie, and not complete. Therefore, I don't think it has a right to a "best picture" award simply for the lack of a coherent, complete structure. Which is also why Reloaded or Kill Bill should not win best picture. They are incomplete.

Anyway, the critical consensus has always been that SPR was heavily flawed, and definitely not Speilberg's best work. Sure, the battle scene was good, and sure, the message is important....but there are just too many signs of the director's hand in there for me to accept it as a great work of American cinema. It was good, but not great.

Shakespeare in love, while not great either, was at least original, and was well acted, even by Bennifer Affleck. But the direction was pretty flawless, and the dialogue was wittier than the usual Hollywood flick.

The academy awards, like most awards, are just a way for the industry to create a lot of hoopla over themselves. If they had fan voting, or even critics voting, it might mean something. But since the academy members are all ex-actors, directors, etc...who were part of the crappy Hollywood machine themselves, they rarely vote against the grain of the pop frenzy surrounding mainstream cinema.

They think giving out a Best Foriegn Film award adds some artistic integrity to the process; ironically, the movie that wins Best Foriegn Film is usually BETTER than the movie that wins Best Picture.

[Chang Style Novice]

The best movie I saw this year was "Rivers and Tides" a documentary about a Scottish sculptor, but I think it actually had it's initial release a couple years ago so wouldn't qualify for this years awards. Anyway, documentaries are ghettoized by the Academy the same way foreign films are - they get a category of their own, but basically no one cares about it.

The best movie I saw this year that could potentially be in contention for the big prize is probably American Splendor, but it was a tiny limited release film that's just plain too weird for the Academy to ever consider, even if it was a wide-release money-maker. The best movie I saw that has a real chance is RotK, and I'd say it has a really good chance, considering the academy has been nominating it's prequels for a couple years now and ignoring them. It's pretty likely they've been saving up for a big bonanza at the end.

Then there's the comedy problem - great comedies are usually ignored, too. I loved "Bad Santa" about as much as anything this year, but #1 - it's a comedy and #2 - it's a really sick, black comedy. It has no chance of any nomination. Maybe a supporting actor thing for the dwarf.

The Oscars suck ass and have since time immemorial. You want to find good movies? Look at LA Critics Circle awards and stuff like that.

[Judge Pen]

I think if anything will beat out ROTK it would be Mystic River. I think it would be a shame not to reward Peter Jackson with best director. If anyone ever watched the making of documentaries that come with the extended versions of the films know that he has acheived a monumental directing accomplishment (even if you don't like the movies or the source material :D ).

[MasterKiller]

For some reason, I see Quentin Tarrantino winning either/both Best Picture and Best Director. Even though I think Kill Bill was flawed, the Academy sometimes tries to recognize people they missed in previous years for more legitimate roles. Russell Crowe won best actor for Gladiator because he should have won it the year before and eveyone knew it.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
For some reason, I see Quentin Tarrantino winning either/both Best Picture and Best Director. Even though I think Kill Bill was flawed, the Academy sometimes tries to recognize people they missed in previous years for more legitimate roles. Russell Crowe won best actor for Gladiator because he should have won it the year before and eveyone knew it.

If the Academy wishes to make up for shafting Tarintino, I think they will do it next year with Volume Two (assuming it's as good as Volume I). They owe Peter Jackson and they know it. Miramax probalby knows it too and that could have been part of the motivation to split the movies in two. BTW, when is the release date for KBV2?

[Chang Style Novice]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
the Academy sometimes tries to recognize people they missed in previous years for more legitimate roles. This is exactly why I figure it's the year for Peter Jackson/LotR cast generally. They're going to get oscars for their last three movies, not just this one.

My favorite example of a "retroactive oscar" is Al Pacino winning for that butt-scraping "Scent of a Woman" instead of "Godfather II" or "Dog Day Afternoon."

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice

My favorite example of a "retroactive oscar" is Al Pacino winning for that butt-scraping "Scent of a Woman" instead of "Godfather II" or "Dog Day Afternoon."

Hooo-Waaaa! I over-acted my way to an oscar!

[MasterKiller]

If over-acting were the only requisite, Mel Gibson would have a closet full of them.:p

[Chang Style Novice]

He's got two - not for acting, though.

"Braveheart" is another mediocre at best movie that the academy loved.

[MasterKiller]

yup. I hate that last scene, where he yells "freeeeedoooooom" while they pull his guts out. How heavy-handed can you get?

[Vash]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
yup. I hate that last scene, where he yells "freeeeedoooooom" while they pull his guts out. How heavy-handed can you get?

The Patriot.

[Chang Style Novice]

At least most everyone who saw "The Patriot" thought it was cr@p. Okay, that's one good thing about it. Which is weird, because it's pretty much the EXACT SAME movie as "Braveheart" which most everyone loved.

I'm really looking forward to the scene in his new life of Jesus movie when Christ wrenches his hands from the cross with the nails still in 'em and uses the fistnails to pummel both Pilate and Herod to within an inch of their lives.:rolleyes: :p

[Judge Pen]

The last scene in Braveheart was a bit heavy-handed, but at least they killed him off. Other than that, I liked Braveheart ok. The Patriot got on my nerves when the woman stood up in church to shame the men to join the militia and when the British officer then burned them all alive in the same church. Plus the end where Mel kills him was waay to over the top.

[MasterKiller]

I avoid Mel Gibson movies anytime I can after his "Paycheck" episode. He wrote that sledgehammer scene, that takes a total of 30 seconds, but when the writer/director refused to put it in the movie AFTER they had already started filming, Mel had the producers fire him and bring in someone else who would let him shoot the scene. His excuse was, he has to do what's best for the picture. :rolleyes: I hate actors.

[Judge Pen]

I didn't see Paycheck. I don't think I'm missing much.

BTW, MK, how are you feeling today? Probably about as good as I was Saturday after my team lost.

[MasterKiller]

I think Jason White was hurt the whole game and wasn't man enough to pull himself out. That game was easily winnable, but the offense couldn't put anything together. The defense almost came out with it, though, and I still think that incomplete pass in the 4th was a fumble recovered by OU. I think if they would have put Thompson in at halftime, who can scramble like Michael Vick, that game would have been completely different.

That being said, LSU had one heck of a defense. I haven't seen them play all year, but I was impressed.

Anyway, at least I don't have to spend the rest of my life arguing with Texas fans about OU vs USC.

[Chang Style Novice]

So, we're in the Dead Zone of movies for a few months, unless the Oscar-Bait pictures that got their official releases at years end haven't made it out to your stick of the sticks yet. I mean look at the "Upcoming releases" section of IMDB.com today.

The Butterfly Effect (Asheton Kutcher Matrix ripoff)
Mindhunters (Val Kilmer and LL Cool J serial killer thingy)
Along Came Polly (Ben Stiller and Jennifer Aniston in a ... just kill me now)
Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! (Teen comedy with some folks I've never heard of)
Torque (Fast and Furious ripoff with folks I've never heard of)
The Perfect Score (teens steal key to SAT)
The Big Bounce (con man scam comedy with 2nd Banana from "Shanghai Noon/Knights)
Saved (religious afterschool special for the big screen)
You Got Served (stars Raz B and Lil Fizz. That's right, THE Raz B and Lil Fizz!)
Latter Days (a gay man falls in love with a Mormon Missionary)

Looks pretty sad, huh?

Anyway, I did finally see "Lost in Translation" and "Master and Commander" this weekend, and they were both pretty good for what they were, but nothing revelatory.

Anjou?

[KC Elbows]

The add for "The Butterfly Effect" struck me as being much closer to being a Lathe of Heaven ripoff than anything else. It looked more a stylized drama than a stylized action flick to me, but I was probably drunk when I saw it, as it was before ROTK, and I saw that in a theatre that serves wine, and wine is my precious, don't touch, stinking filthy false hobbitses.

Last I heard, Kill Bill part two comes out Feb 9th.

That list sounds pretty dreary, though I have to give cudos to whoever made a movie pairing mormonism and ****sexuality into one theme.

Watching Leon right now.

[Chang Style Novice]

Meh - I saw a barely coherent hunk dancing back and forth between science fictiony realities trying to figure out what real (...I think) and thought "Matrix." If I'm wrong, it'll never matter 'cuz I'm not watching it anyway.

Thanks for reminding me of Kill Bill 2 - and I think The Ladykillers may be up before the summer rush, too.

[Vash]

What I got from the previews of butterfly thingie was he could change reality by dreaming it or something, but everytime he changed it, he fugged someone up real good like.

[MasterKiller]

I watched Whale Rider last night. It should be a strong candidate for Best Foriegn Film. Not as emotionally charged as Once Were Warriors, but still very good.

In 2004, we'll have

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Spider-Man 2
Hellboy
Elizabethtown
The Brothers Grimm
The Aviator
The Incredibles
Alexander
Troy

and for the art-house inclined:

Almost Peaceful
The Butterfly
De-Lovely
Face
Goodbye Lenin!
Hiding and Seeking
Kitchen Stories
Klezmer on Fish Street
La Mentale: The Code
Latter Days
Monsieur Ibrahim
The Tracker
Tokyo Godfathers
West Bank Brooklyn

[Judge Pen]

Anyone heard about "The Village" ? The trailer for it looked promising.

[MasterKiller]

M. Night Shyamalan is getting pretty predictable. There will be a monster/ghost/alien, there will be someone emotionally/spiritually lost, and that person will find new emotional/spiritual comfort when they kill/release/help the monster/ghost/alien.

King Arthur could be promising, or it could be another BraveHeart. I can't really tell by the trailer.

[Judge Pen]

Well we know that there's something in the woods. Even if predictable, at least he has a good style about him and he knows how to tell a story. And he doesn't seem to dumb down to the audience.

"King Arthur could be promising, or it could be another BraveHeart. I can't really tell by the trailer."

Most people would consider it a compliment to compare their film to an Oscar winner. I'm not expecting much from this movie, but I could be surprised.

[MasterKiller]

Most people would consider it a compliment to compare their film to an Oscar winner. I expect to like ROTK as much as I liked Titanic. I'll find out in a year when it comes on Starz, I guess.

just yankin your chain ;)

Braveheart isn't bad....it's not great, either.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I expect to like ROTK as much as I liked Titanic. I'll find out in a year when it comes on Starz, I guess.

just yankin your chain ;)

Braveheart isn't bad....it's not great, either.

I liked Braveheart, although it's a flawed movie. There were actually moments in Titanic that were brilliant, but the whole of the movie was too melodramatic. A couple of transitions in that movie, though, make you realize how talented Cameron really is.

[MasterKiller]

The only scene that really impressed me, and granted, I haven't seen the whole movie in one sitting, was when he pans out about 100 yards from the boat while it's sinking, and it's quiet, almost serene. That was a good shot. I don't think his directing is bad. In fact, he's pretty competent when sticks to what he does well. I think the writing was awful, though.

[Chang Style Novice]

Just checked - The Ladykillers is out in march. YES!

Normally I'm not real keen on remakes of classic pictures, especially those that were just about perfect the first time - like The Ladykillers. However, this is a Coen brothers remake, and one that seems perfectly suited to their talents, and is Tom Hanks' return to comedy (I'd rather watch "Bosom Buddies" reruns that "Philadelphia" anytime) and the rest of the cast looks great as well, and so, well...

I'm hyped.

re: King Arthur

This is the first I've heard of it, but between Monty Python's Holy Grail and John Boorman's Excalibur, I kind of doubt I have any room in my heart for more movies on this topic. i guess I'll find out, though.

[Judge Pen]

King Arthur: Anything with Jerry Bruckheimer screams style over substance. That and Guinevere looks like Sheena warrior princess.

Titanic: The shot that impressed me when I first saw the movie was the bow shot where he is singing to her and they are having their cheesy lovers' moment, the camera pulls back and the boat with the nice sunset dissolves into the corroded wreck of a ship at the bottom of the ocean. The camera telling the audience that all things beautiful will fade and wither away with time. Later, Cameron does the same thing with Rose's eye. The writing was bad, but Cameron and his camera made the film watchable.

[MasterKiller]

Part of the reason "good" movies are so hard to make (especially in the Hollywood machine) is that they are such a collaborative effort.

You can have a good script and great actors, but if the directing sucks, or if the costumes look fake or out of place, then the project fails. I mean, who is the artist most responsible for the final product? The director? The writer? The producers? The editor? The sound engineer? The actors?

I hate actors mostly because they see themselves as the center of a larger creative effort, when really, it takes a lot of extra people to make something valuable out of their effort. How many actors can write, produce, direct, star in a good movie? Not many, and the one's who do, like Woody Allen, are pretty hit and miss when it comes to quality. That's why when I see someone like Mel Gibson pull a primaddona stunt, it chaps my hide. If you are hired to act, then act. Just because you think you do one thing well doesn't mean you can do everything well.

It's the same problem I have with pop musicians. They don't write their lyrics, compose their music, or produce their albums, but they are more than happy to take all the credit for the success of an album.

[Judge Pen]

I know what you are saying. I guess in some ways, that's why I have such respect for the Lord of the Rings Movies. The first time I saw FOTR, I thought it was good, but I wasn't blown away. I really had to process it first. Yes, even as well done as it was, some of the effects could have been done a little better. Some of the acting was off, and Jackson lingered too much on Frod's anguished "b!tch look" to convey the effect the ring was starting to have on him. But then I watched the special features on the Extended version and saw how much work went into this movie from hundreds of nobodys. Armor Smiths, model makers, make-up and latex artists, stuntmen and horse riders. Many of them were not Hollywood professionals, but people that either loved the books or loved the style that the movie was protraying (think of every SCA geek you have ever met).

Now I'm the type of guy that will watch the credits at the end of the movie. I watch all the special features on a DVD even the crappy Jim Carrey movies. Nothing compared in scope to the making of these films. I gained a new respect for this and for Jackson for being able to orchastrate all the madness. If there are flaws in these movies (and they are few and minor) they are easily forgivable.

And the actors were mostly no-names (with the exceptions of Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchet, and, arguably, Hugo Weaving) No primadonnas there.

[MasterKiller]

and they are few and minor We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I think if Jackson wasn't so much of a fan, he would have been more impartial when it came to leaving out material in the movies to make the stories tighter. Adapting book-length material to a movie is a craft unto itself.


No primadonnas there.But if I have to read another article in Premeire about how those d@mn hobbits were such good friends and got matching tattoos and it really was a fellowship blah blah blah I'm gonna shlt a brick.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I think if Jackson wasn't so much of a fan, he would have been more impartial when it came to leaving out material in the movies to make the stories tighter. Adapting book-length material to a movie is a craft unto itself.

But if I have to read another article in Premeire about how those d@mn hobbits were such good friends and got matching tattoos and it really was a fellowship blah blah blah I'm gonna shlt a brick.

You know, the longer versions actually flow better. Plus it's easier on DVD since you can watch it like you read a book: chapter by chapter.

I don't think another director could have made these movies better with the money contraints placed on Jackson.

[KC Elbows]

In relation to my comment about Butterfly Effect, it basically looks like he tries to change the past to save his girlfiend, making a more horrible present than the one he sought to avert, and continues to make matters worse by continuing to try to change the details this way, which is exactly what happens in the book lathe of heaven, except that in lathe of heaven, the person capable of doing so does not want this to hppen at all, he just wants to live his life, and seeks to avoid his dreams, which keep changing the present due to the desire of his analyst to improve the world.

However, and I didn't mention this in my last post, bu I want to see that movie. It appeared to me as a nicely stylized drama, and I have zero familiarity with the leading actor, so I can see him as whatever.

And Judge's pen and I agree on the extended version. Judge's Pen has taken the correct and [place sexual fantasy here].

[Vash]

No reason, just not my bag. Couldn't get into caring for the characters.

[Chang Style Novice]

Get 'im boys! I gotta rope!

We already have a big long thread on this. Anybody else dig Master and Commander? I know I did.

[SanSoo Student]

I thought master and commander was suppose to be really boring.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by KC Elbows


And Judge's pen and I agree on the extended version. Judge's Pen has taken the correct and [place sexual fantasy here].

It involves a trio of Japanese sorority girls!

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice


We already have a big long thread on this. Anybody else dig Master and Commander? I know I did.

We had a nice long thread on this one too. I thought it was a beautiful and well-made movie, but for whatever reason I thought the sum of its parts were greater than the whole. I enjoyed watching it, but its not something I would go watch again.

[Chang Style Novice]

we did? Where?

[Judge Pen]

Hell, I don't know. The thread must have been deleted. That or I've starting toking more than meat shake!

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, I didn't figure M&C was any kind of masterpiece, or a milestone in filmmaking or anything, but I liked the really authentic feel of it, even though I don't know enough to say if it was really authentic. One thing I'm talking about here is the way that everything was done on real sets and real effects (if there was CGI, I didn't notice it) and that gave it the kind of kinetic, physical feel that you don't get in most action movies these days - more than anything else, it reminded me of old-school Jackie Chan in that way. For another, it didn't gloss over how DIFFERENT the past was from the present - the extremely young crew, the complete and utter lack of women, the rigidly enforced class differences, all that kind of thing. I find it incredibly obnoxious when modern sensibilities are injected into period pieces, the worst example being Morgan Freeman in "Kevin Costner, Prince of Theives" as a magically wise negro (another stupid and offensive feature of lots of contemporary movies.) M&C was refreshingly free of any of that - I really believed it would be like that in Nelson's Navy.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen


It involves a trio of Japanese sorority girls! That's my fantasy, too, except you forgot to mention they are bisexual triplets with a penchant for incest.

[Judge Pen]

I had to leave something to the imagination.

[Chang Style Novice]

I never thought I'd say this, but I want to hear more from Gareth.

[Chang Style Novice]

Turns out there was a "Master and Commander" thread but it got jacked by "Lost in Translation" pretty quickly.

Anyway, I kind of like the way the main "RotK" thread has become the all-purpose movie nuts thread.

[MasterKiller]

For those worried about The Butterfly Effect, here is the early screening review from Yahoo!:


Okay, so I had a chance to see this movie last week, in advance of its world premiere this week at Sundance, and I was extremely surprised at how well this movie was written, and how completely I found myself buying into its bedeviling and original web of character development. Ah, how different things might have been... if this movie had been released two weeks ago instead of two weeks from now, it would have been one of my top 10 of 2003. A lot of people are wondering about whether Ashton Kutcher can pull off a dramatic lead role, but this movie gives him a challenging, often shocking series of sequences to react to, and I thought he was completely up to the challenge. This is a shocking, gripping film that throws some very difficult scenarios at us, as the possibilities of four young lives twist back and forth. The central conceit could've fallen apart easily, but this script is excellent, and the performances are strong enough to make it work.

[Judge Pen]

Maybe it is going to be a good movie, or maybe we will all be punk'd!

[Chang Style Novice]

My bud Leonard:
I went to a critic's screening of "Butterfly Effect" (precis: it sucks), and the description I use in my review is something along the lines of 'not since we first met a young moron named Keanu Reeves has the film audience encountered a pretty man so utterly incapable of conveying gravitas.'

[MasterKiller]

oh well...I'm not gonna pay to see it anyway.

[Chang Style Novice]

A good rule of thumb is "Never pay to see a movie that comes out in January."

[Judge Pen]

Amen. January is for catching up on all the art house films that get released in late December to be eligible for the Oscars.

[Chang Style Novice]

Actually, "Never see a movie that comes out in January" is almost as reliable, come to think of it.

[MasterKiller]

What's wrong with arthouse films? I'd rather watch something with spirit like "The Good Girl," in which BTW Jennifer Anniston was great, than another godd@mn Lethal Weapon movie. Hell, even "Scotland, PA" though flawed, was more entertaining than some of the more recent movies people are going ga ga over.

[Judge Pen]

the first 2 Lethal weapons were good, but after that they went down hll. And don't give me that Jet Li crap wither, because that was not a good vessel for him.

I'm going to see "Somethings Got to Give" tomorrow. Has anyone seen The Station Agent yet?

[MasterKiller]

And "Donnie Darko" beats any Tim Burton movie (with the exception of the wonderful Edward Scissorhands) when it comes to dark, brooding, yet intellectual comedy.

[Chang Style Novice]

There's nothing wrong with arthouse films - after all, a lot of them are put in limited released in December to qualify for Oscar contention. This makes January the movie release equivalent of used T.P.

I like the first Lethal Weapon movie, but that's it.

I agree that Donnie Darko was better than most Tim Burton movies (and you found the only one I like, too! Well, okay, I like Peewee's Big Adventure some) but that really isn't saying much. I suppose someday I should try looking at "Ed Wood" since a lot of reasonable folks seem to like it a lot.

[MasterKiller]

Johnny Depp made Ed Wood, and I suppose you could argue he was reason Edward Scissorhands is so good. That being said,
Johnny Depp is my Oscar Sleeper pick for Best Actor. Say what you want about Pirates of the Caribbean, Johnny Depp's performance was brilliant.

[dwid]

And "Donnie Darko" beats any Tim Burton movie (with the exception of the wonderful Edward Scissorhands) when it comes to dark, brooding, yet intellectual comedy.

I'll second that.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Johnny Depp made Ed Wood, and I suppose you could argue he was reason Edward Scissorhands is so good. That being said,
Johnny Depp is my Oscar Sleeper pick for Best Actor. Say what you want about Pirates of the Caribbean, Johnny Depp's performance was brilliant.

Yeah, but it was a watered down version of his Hunter S. Thompson. Playing a pirate.

[MasterKiller]

I liked the performance because he didn't play it straight, which is what someone like Kevin Costner or Mel Gibson would have done. Depp isn't paranoid about not looking tought or dashing. In fact, I would say he obsessed with not looking that way, which is why I find it terribly hard to understand why he was in the awful movie about the ghost from outer space.

His Hunter S. Thompson was Hunter S. Thompson. That guy really acts like that. I do like Thompson's articles on ESPN.com, though.

[Chang Style Novice]

http://www.materialculture.com/movieposters.html

Handpainted Ghanaian movie posters.

[Judge Pen]

I rented "Swimming Pool" last night. Haven't watched it yet, but I hear that Tinker bell is nude throughout the movie.

[MasterKiller]

I almost rented that, but instead chose to go fluff with House of 1,000 Corpses. It sucked, naturally, but I gotta say, it was almost good. I saw some potential for Rob Zombie to do something different; unfortunately, he didn't.

[Judge Pen]

I'll try to watch it tonight when I get back from class. Saw "Something’s Got to Give" this weekend and it was entertaining. Not great, but enjoyable. Jack is a natural choice to play a womanizer that never dates a woman over the age of 29.

"Words of wisdom, Lloyd; words of wisdom."

[Chang Style Novice]

I watched "Spider" and "Hero" this weekend. That was an excellent, if not exactly coherent thematically, double bill.

Cronenberg's still got it! (That's for "Spider")

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
I watched "Spider" and "Hero" this weekend. That was an excellent, if not exactly coherent thematically, double bill.

Cronenberg's still got it! (That's for "Spider")

I've been wanting to see both of those. Swimming Pool was pretty good. You can tell it had a French Director, but that's not a bad thing.

[Chang Style Novice]

It's funny, cause a couple of weeks ago I'd watched "Red Dragon" which also features Ralph Fiennes going batsh!t crazy, and which isn't really terrible, but certainly nothing special (especially compared to "Manhunter" which might even be better than "Silence of the Lambs") but "Spider" really focusses on him, and he totally inhabits the role, and he hardly has anything to say at all. It's too bad it didn't get a wider release - it never would have made any money, but it might have gotten a little more attention. In the documentary extra features, it's revealed that almost all the creative talent on the movie waived their fees just so they could get it made - Cronenberg, Feinnes, Miranda Richardson, Lynne Redgrave, John Neville...some real heavy hitters, ya know?

IMDB sez Cronenberg's next flick is with Feinnes as well, about a performance artist who distorts his own body into his art by surgical procedures. It's based (loosely, I suppose) on the real artist Orlan (http://www.killthepresident.org/ktp/people/orlan.html).

[Judge Pen]

I liked Manhunter better than Red Dragon (but not better than Silence of the Lambs) but I think Mann F@cked up the ending with a convential shootout. I think it would have been better if they had used the ending from the book (similar to what Red Dragon tried to do). Also, the Miami Vice lighting and music is a little dated and distracting.

[Chang Style Novice]

No argument there, for the most part. But the scenes with the killer are so great, especially where he's falling in love with the blind girl and getting to where he's nearly human in his outlook as the detective gets meaner and crueler while trying to match the mindstate of the killer. I don't blame Fiennes for the failure to humaize the killer in "Red Dragon" since he's obviously a good enough actor to do it (see "Spider") so I assume the fault lies with the director. And the "Manhunter" version of the tiger scene totally blows the "Red Dragon" version out of the water.

[Judge Pen]

Well I agree that the killer in Manhunter was closer to the books version in stature and character, but Manhunter never provided a background to explain what created this monster. I think Fiennes did a good job humanizing him despite the shortcomings of the director. Honestly, I found Ed Norton distracting as the detective. I didn't feel him teetering on the edge the way the character is supposed to. Plus, Hopkins was playing Lector as a caricature by that point. He was great in Silence, but Brian Cox did a better job of the character in Manhunter v. Red Dragon.

[MasterKiller]

I'm not a big Ed Norton fan. He pulled a prima donna act on American History X in which he tried to get the producers to let him edit the film because he felt the director was cutting out too many of his scenes. He even went so far as to actually make a rough cut of his own version.

If you are hired to act, then act, and let everyone else do their job.

[Chang Style Novice]

That was a b!tch move for sure, and it wasn't gonna be a great movie no matter what, so you kind of wonder why he bothered. But I do think he's a great actor.

[MasterKiller]

He saw Oscar in his eyes....

[Judge Pen]

Several poor performances were done with Oscar in the eyes.

[MasterKiller]

I don't think his performace was bad in AHX. But I do think he takes himself a little too seriously as an 'artist.' Most actors take themselves a little too seriously as 'artists.' Of course, most artists take themselves too seriously as 'artists.' Then there are wannabe writers who think just because they wrote a few things they can comment on movies, music, and painting, as if it were all the same thing. Those guys are the worst. :rolleyes: ;)

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, I picked up "Swimfan" at 2 for 1 movie night at my fave local video store, at Judge Pen's recommendation. Then I come back and discover what he actually recommended was "Swimming Pool."

Nice work, Austin.

Anyway, I'll let you guys know if it's any good.

[Judge Pen]

lol

Well, I've been curious if Swimming Fan was a decent movie or your standard teen slop.

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, I can at least recommend "The Swimmer," an older Burt Lancaster picture based on a John Cheever story. I'm guessing it's a late 60s vintage, since I'm feeling to lazy to imdb it at the moment.

[Judge Pen]

You guys going to see any movies this weekend? I'm going to try to watch Open Range as I haven't seen it yet. I like westerns, but Kevn Costner can be heavy handed sometimes.

[MasterKiller]

I bought my wife a day-spa package, so looks like I'll be at home with the baby. No movies for me. :(

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I bought my wife a day-spa package, so looks like I'll be at home with the baby. No movies for me. :(

If you can play playstation with Ema in you lap, you can watch a DVD (albeit a quiet one!)

Oh, kudos for being the good husband.

[MasterKiller]

She's too big for that now. She reaches for the controller and doesn't like to sit still. Nap time is my only salvation!

[norther practitioner]

NETFLIX is dope... I love it always have a bunch of movies on hand.

Plus they have a bunch of standup dvds.. I love to watch standup.
Just finished Robin Williams Live on Broadway and Jerry Seinfeld, I'm Telling You for the Last Tim... both incredibly funny.

:D
They have a few Kung fu movies I don't have in my collection too.

Something's Got to Give was good, but it got long, there were like 25 different endings, seemed they couldn't pick, so they used all of them. Jack is great, Diane did a great job too, but like I said, I think the ending dragged (all of them).

[Chang Style Novice]

I'm not planning on getting to the cinema, but I still haven't watched any of the four discs I rented Tuesday that are due Sunday, so I've got my laziness cut out for me:

What I got: Swimfan, Confidence, Kind Hearts and Coronets, Hopscotch.

[Chang Style Novice]

Confidence - meh.

More to come.

[Chang Style Novice]

Hopscotch - an excellent 1980 movie starring Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson that manages to deftly weave together the romantic comedy and the globe-trotting political espionage thriller. The kind of movie that makes you glad you like movies.

Swimfan - So dull I turned it off after about a half hour. For what's obviously supposed to be a sexy thriller, there's precious little that sexy or thrilling.

[Chang Style Novice]

"Kind Hearts and Coronets" is a black comedy from 1949 england. A distantly relative to a noble family swears to get revenge for his mother's ignominous death, and murders his way to the Dukedom. Starring Alec Guiness as virtually every member of the D'Ascoyne family to come to a bitter, untimely end.

Funny, but in that polite, wry, understated way. Few belly laughs, plenty of ironic amusement.

[MasterKiller]

I bough Shaolin Drunken Monk with Gordon Lui. Not the best KF flick put to celluloid, but certainly watchable.

[Judge Pen]

I was feeling like a classic, so I rented Seven Samurai. Love that film.

[MasterKiller]

I know what I'm renting next weekend. Lost in Translation and American Splendor are both going to be released on DVD next Tuesday (2/3/04).

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I know what I'm renting next weekend. Lost in Translation and American Splendor are both going to be released on DVD next Tuesday (2/3/04).

Excellent. I havent' seen American Splendor yet.

BTW, and on topic, ROTK did well at the Golden Globes.

[MasterKiller]

Always the bridesmaid.

Jackson may get an Oscar for best director because of all the hoopla, but I think there are too many good Non-Fantasy contenders for Best Picture this year, which marginalizes ROTK's chances. Hollywood likes to use the Oscar to legitimize itself, so I bet they go for Mystic River or Cold Mountain.

[Chang Style Novice]

I love "Seven Samurai" "American Splendor" and "Lost in Translation."

I'll also have 14-hour days four days a week for the next several months, and will therefore be cutting back drastically on my vidiocy.

Well, it'll be worth it.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Always the bridesmaid.

Jackson may get an Oscar for best director because of all the hoopla, but I think there are too many good Non-Fantasy contenders for Best Picture this year, which marginalizes ROTK's chances. Hollywood likes to use the Oscar to legitimize itself, so I bet they go for Mystic River or Cold Mountain.

I think Jackson will get the Oscar as a reward for all three which have legitimized fantasy as mainstream hollywood entertainment. Unfortunately that means all the horrid knock offs are coming!

I don't know if it deserves best picture since it's still one of three, but it has to be the front runner. I haven't seen Mystic River yet.

Cold Mountain isn't even in the running: http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,574422_10_0_,00.html

[MasterKiller]

I think Jackson will get the Oscar as a reward for all three which have legitimized fantasy as mainstream hollywood entertainment. I have a problem with giving a serial movie an Oscar for best movie when it is dependent on other movies to make it complete. ROTK would make no sense without the previous two, so it can't be "Best Picture of the Year" as far as I'm concerned. If it can't stand alone, it shouldn't be nominated.

I have already seen knockoffs at the video store, but they are pure camp targeted at the LOTR fans. I doubt we will see too many copy-cats of LOTR (at least at the movies. TV is another matter) because in 3 years, there really hasn't been too much pop culture impact beyond the already established LOTR geek culture. No movie cross-overs, or puns, or jokes. The story and characters aren't easily understood or relatable to the average American audience. Hell, I haven't even seen a pun on the Simpsons. South Park did an episode, but they always follow their own tastes and really don't rely on pop trends for their story lines.

When Matrix came out, everyone was referecing it, even Shrek and Deuce Bigalow. Really, I think after this year, and after the final Super Extended Platinum Collectors Edition DVD set is released, I think everything will go back to normal and these movies will seem a lot less significant than they do now. Are they better than some previous Oscar winners? You bet. Are they in the top 100 of all time. I'm not convinced.

As far as the genre goes, I think Conan the Barbarian is a more significant film. It had a message about the human need for social relevance, and it had an obvious hero. Plus, the dialogue made sense. There have been many, many Conan knock-offs. Even Conan the Destoyer was a knock-off of the original.

[Judge Pen]

I don't think the market's been flooded with knok off fantasy types as they new three movies were made at once. They'll be some more cone down the pike soon. Especailly if Oscar smiles.

[Chang Style Novice]

http://blithesea.net/bk/lotr_01.html

And you thought Gay Hobbits were a problem...

[MasterKiller]

That disturbed me.

Anyway, I rented Love Liza with Philip Seymour Hoffman to watch this weekend. I almost got Owning Mahoney, too. I love him. My favorite part of Boogey Nights is him crying in the car after making a pass at Dirk Diggler. "I'm such a focking idiot....I'm such a focking idiot....I'm such a focking idiot....."

That's realism, folks.

[Chang Style Novice]

He is a helluvan actor. I even like him in movies I hate, like "Magnolia." I think my favorite performances by him are (comic category) Brant in "The Big Lebowski" and (dramatic) the Freddie Miles in "The bunchadjectives Mr. Ripley."

[Judge Pen]

Didn't he try out for the role of Ripley? That would have been interesting as he's a great actor.

[MasterKiller]

Love Liza suck-diddly-ucked. I should have rented Owning Mahoney instead.

[Judge Pen]

I watched Open Range this weekend. It was fair. Great gunfight at the end of the movie. Seemed fairly realistic, with a couple of exceptions.

[Chang Style Novice]

I was feeling lonely and depressed this weekend, so I watched an old comedy I had checked out from the university library.

Unfortunately for me, that old comedy was Billy Wilder's "The Apartment" - which is a brilliant movie, but so bleak and pessimistic about human motives that I'm lucky I didn't take a one-way trip off an overpass.

[Judge Pen]

Whenever I'm feeling down I just throw in Apocalypse Now. That part when they stop the boat for an inspection cracks me up everytime! :D

[MasterKiller]

Lost in Translation was wonderful. A little slow paced, but probably fitting for the theme. Copolla has definitely improved since The Virgin Suicides. I guess it helps when your banging Bill Murray, too. :p

[Judge Pen]

That's why some people are disappointed with Lost in Translation. It's supposed to be slow because these people are bored out of their minds. I hope he wins the oscar although I haven't seen Sean Penn and he is due a win.

[MasterKiller]

Sean Penn should have gotten an Oscar for Carlito's Way.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Sean Penn should have gotten an Oscar for Carlito's Way.

Truer words havent' been spoken. Who beat him out that year?

[MasterKiller]

Tommy Lee Jones (Fugitive) won best supporting actor in 1993, and Martin Landau (Ed Wood) won in 1994, so I'm not sure where Carlito's Way fits since it came out in 1993. I don't even know if Penn was nominated, but I think he did a great job.

<edit> He wasn't even nominated for an Oscar, but he was nominated (loss) for a Golden Globe. in 1994, so I guess Landau beat him.</edit>

[MasterKiller]

American Splendor has to win best picture. It is certainly the best film I've seen in a long time. I was getting all teary-eyed at the end when he adopts the girl...

[dwid]

MK,

I agree totally. I just watched American Splendor yesterday. It's actually really unexpectedly inspiring. Certainly the best movie I've seen in some time.

[Chang Style Novice]

You guys are just now getting to the party? check out my post at the top of page 5.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
You guys are just now getting to the party? check out my post at the top of page 5. Yeah, I know. It never came here, so I had to wait till it came out on DVD.

[Chang Style Novice]

Anyway, I'm glad you liked it, even though it's about a comics geek;)

Now keep an eye out for "Rivers and Tides" - Andy Goldsworthy ain't much like Motherwell, but he is a godd@mn genius.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Anyway, I'm glad you liked it, even though it's about a comics geek;) My issue was with superhero-genre comics, in general, when I said they were soap-operas for boys. This guy was more like the Raymond Carver of the comics scene...

[Chang Style Novice]

Have you read his comics? I've been a fan for years. The fact that he's a jazz record collector nut helps me relate to him strongly as well.

I actually spent a little time talking with Harvey and Joyce once at a book signing a few years ago. This was after his first bout with cancer, the one they spend a lot of time on in the movie. He's a really nice, down-to-earth cat for a wierd, bitter old crank. He laughed out loud at me when I told him his work was a real inspiration for my own!:eek:

[MasterKiller]

Never read them. I'd be curious to look at some now, but I doubt if I'll put much effort into finding any copies. I don't venture into comic shops, and usually, the only ones I do read are Star Wars related while I'm waiting for my wife to checkout at Walden Books.

[Chang Style Novice]

Yeah, distribution of that kind of thing is a pretty serious problem. I'm sure you can find stuff on Amazon and E-bay and the like, if you really want to put in the $$ and effort.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-7070329-1924766

/\ Harvey Pekar search on Amazon.

[Judge Pen]

I'm planning on renting American Splendor this week. From everything you all have said, then I'm looking forward to it.

[dwid]

I was trying to describe the film to a friend of mine today and explained "It's about a guy who worked as a file clerk in Cleveland and turned his day to day experiences into a comic book..."

My friend said "Oh, you mean like Dilbert."

Classic

[Judge Pen]

:o You mean it's not like Dilbert?


:D

[MasterKiller]

Beware JP, it's an 'arthouse' flick. ;)

[Chang Style Novice]

For more of a "Dilbert" vibe, rent the BBC series "The Office." Season one has been out for a while now and season two hits stores in April.

It's very, very funny, but also very, very cruel. Like "Office Space" but with more sadism and realism. Lumbergh and the Pointy Haired Boss together would not be as horrible as David Brent.

Office season 1 at Amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009ZY9E/qid=1076432475/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3392959-4101650?v=glance&s=dvd)

Second season (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001EFVFY/qid=1076432475/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-3392959-4101650?v=glance&s=dvd)

[Judge Pen]

Thanks for the tip on The Office. I'll try to check that out too.

Anyone seen "Monster" yet?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
[B]For more of a "Dilbert" vibe, rent the BBC series "The Office." Season one has been out for a while now and season two hits stores in April.Or you could get Direct TV and watch the show for free on BBC America. It is pretty funny, though.

[Chang Style Novice]

I love it so much I was wearing a Gareth avatar for a while. That guy is the coolest!:D

[Chang Style Novice]

posted elsewhere on the web - some geek with a stiffie for Alan Moore and too much time and Photoshop 7 came up with this:

[dwid]

For more of a "Dilbert" vibe, rent the BBC series "The Office." Season one has been out for a while now and season two hits stores in April.

To me, that's not much of an endorsement. I'm not really a fan of Dilbert. To be honest, I find it irritating. I liked Office Space though. I think maybe my office environment is not corporate enough for me to be able to relate to Dilbert, whereas I find the existential dilemmas in Office Space more universal.

[MasterKiller]

Dwid,
Get a job where you hear the terms 'synergy', 'leverage' and/or 'mission statement' on a regular basis, and you will completely understand Dilbert.

We get random phone calls from upper management testing us to see if we have memorized our company's mission statement. As of today, I have failed this test 5 times.

[Chang Style Novice]

Is "Get their money and haul ass" correct?

[MasterKiller]

CSN, you didn't use enough buzzwords. I'll translate what you said into corporate speak:

To strengthen our position in the global environment by leveraging funds from customers in a real-time marketplace thereby creating synergy between our online capital and our needs assessments.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
CSN, you didn't use enough buzzwords. I'll translate what you said into corporate speak:

To strengthen our position in the global environment by leveraging funds from customers in a real-time marketplace thereby creating synergy between our online capital and our needs assessments.

Does someone smell something? :D

Hey, I went out with a girl that is not only pretty and rich, but she is a movie geek too. Someone pinch me.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen


Does someone smell something? :D

Hey, I went out with a girl that is not only pretty and rich, but she is a movie geek too. Someone pinch me. No, JP. I realize it's been a while, but she is supposed to pinch you; otherwise, you wasted $65 on the date.

[Judge Pen]

No man. I spent $7 bucks on the date. She wanted to go bowling.

Plus I found out that she was an English Lit major and did better on the LSAT than I did before deciding that she didn't want to go to law school so clearly I'm out classed in the intellectual department! :p

[MasterKiller]

Shlt...what's her phone number. ;)

[Judge Pen]

Well most of her movies were of the "chick flick" variety (we watched "about a boy" after bowling) but she does like LOTR too.

Dammn, we stayed up talking until 2 last night and I still met my sifu for a workout this morning. I need more coffee. :cool:

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
Well most of her movies were of the "chick flick" variety (we watched "about a boy" after bowling) but she does like LOTR too.
Nevermind. :p

[Judge Pen]

I thought that might throw you off the trail! :D

[MasterKiller]

The American Splendor DVD came with a sample comic called Our Movie Year. Pretty neat.

[Judge Pen]

I haven't had time to watch it yet.

Did you have a nice Valentine's Day?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
I haven't had time to watch it yet.

Did you have a nice Valentine's Day? Every day with my woman is nice. ;)

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Every day with my woman is nice. ;)

She must post here too. :p

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen


She must post here too. :p I plead the 5th.

[Judge Pen]

One guy's opinion:

Top 5 Oscar Mistakes in the Past 5 Years
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004 - 05:52 PM PST

As the cliché says, “Nobody’s perfect,” even though a trillion and 9 of you probably said that “special someone” was perfect this past Saturday. **** Valentines Day… Anyway, it’s true though, nobody’s perfect, which includes the Oscar voters as well. So, with the latest batch of Oscars in the proverbial oven, waiting to be served, I thought it would be fitting to pick out the bad apples of the Oscars in the past few years. Some of this year’s nominees are another batch in itself, however. Seabiscuit? Best Picture? No Kill Bill: Volume 1 anywhere, not even for RZA’s incredible score? I mean, seriously…So before we go over this year’s mistakes, lets take a look at the mistakes of the past 5 years of Oscar-ness (1999-2003).
Mistake #5 – Jim Carrey not even being nominated for The Truman Show
Back in the day, The Golden Globes were seen as a foreteller for the Oscars, at least as far as the nominations were concerned. And if you won a Golden Globe, it was pretty much a guarantee that you would get an Oscar nomination. Well, there were no guarantees in 1999 when Jim Carrey won a Golden Globe for Best Actor for his performance in The Truman Show, and then was snubbed by Oscar, not even getting nominated for marvelously playing the unsuspecting Truman Burbank. True, Carrey previously paid his rent as a funnyman, and this was his first dramatic role. But even still, I can’t believe he didn’t even get nominated, because he was amazing in that movie, not to mention winning the Golden Globe. Ironically enough, the Oscar winner that year for Best Actor was Roberto Begnini, whose incredibly annoying acceptance speech was a mistake for anyone who was watching that night with sensitive ears.

Mistake #4 – Creation of the Best Animated Feature award
I have to say that I’ve really never been a fan of animated movies since, well, I was 10. Back then, animated movies almost always meant Disney, and Disney almost always meant corny, kiddy stuff. But lately, a lot of animated fare has been just as much for adults as they have been for their children. I think this category, which was added in 2002, is almost seen as the kiddy table at Thanksgiving…for the Oscars. They’re starting to realize that some of these animated movies are just as good as live-action movies, but they don’t quite feel they should compete with the grown-up movies. So it seems that they want to recognize these animated movies, while keeping them at a lower standard than the rest. Now, I’m not saying that they should all win Best Picture, because most of them shouldn’t. And it would be pretty hard to give an acting award to someone who just recorded a voice for their role. But hey, an animated movie has been nominated for Best Picture before (See: Beauty and the Beast) and I just think it’s kind of a cop-out that they created this category right when animated movies started to be taken somewhat seriously. I’ll take a live-action feature over an animated feature nearly any day of the week. But if you want to tell me that Seabiscuit should be a Best Picture nominee, and Finding Nemo shouldn’t, well, I might have to ask you what you’ve been smoking

Mistake #3 – “Blame Canada” losing Best Original Song to Phil Collins
Best Original Song is a category that usually means I’m free to get another ****tail. I’m not a huge music buff, and most of the Oscar-nominated songs are sappy and boring. But I was super-pumped, and frankly, kind of shocked, that “Blame Canada” from the wonderful South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut was nominated for Best Original Song in 2000. The movie was great, the song was hilarious, not to mention “original” and I naively though that it would actually win. I wouldn’t have been too annoyed if “Blame Canada” had lost to “Save Me” by Aimee Mann from Magnolia because that was a great song as well. I still think “Blame Canada” was better, but I would’ve let it slide. But Phil Collins? Tarzan? Come on people. This was Oscar being P.C. again. Do we see a pattern developing?

Mistake #2 – Charlie Kaufman losing Best Original Screenplay in 2000
The screenplay categories are always interesting to watch. The screenplay awards always seemed like a bone that Oscar would throw a great movie that probably won’t win anything else. A prime example is this year in the Best Screenplay Based on Material….whatever, Best Adapted Screenplay. American Splendor is nominated in this category, but nothing else, and it was a phenomenal movie. Anyway, when Charlie Kaufman’s screenplay for Being John Malkovich was nominated for Best Original Screenplay, I thought it would surely win. American Beauty seemed to have everything else locked up, and I thought they would give the screenplay award to Malkovich, which I think is one of the most unique and, yep, “original” movies ever made. Now, American Beauty is one of my favorite movies ever, but given the category, it really shouldn’t have won. Malkovich is just so fresh and crazy it really should’ve beaten out Alan Ball’s script for American Beauty, especially since Beauty won 4 other Oscars. Malkovich deserved an Oscar, and this was the perfect category for it to receive one. Speaking of screenplays, this mistake brings us to…

Mistake #1 – Memento loses screenplay award to Gosford Park
In terms of uniqueness and originality, the only movie since Being John Malkovich to achieve such greatness would have to be Christopher Nolan’s magnificent Memento. It’s backward zig-zag structure is incredibly daring, but effective and just wonderful. When Oscar came around in 2002, I had learned a few things from past Oscar’s, and I figured that the only nomination Memento would garner would be for its screenplay. I was actually wrong, since it was nominated for Best Editing as well, but you get the idea. I figured that since most of the big dogs for the year (In the Bedroom, Fellowship of the Ring, A Beautiful Mind) had their screenplays nominated in the Best Adapted Screenplay category, and Memento was nominated in the Best Original Screenplay category, I figured it was a sure thing to win. My jaw hit the floor when Gosford Park won. This, my friends, is the biggest Oscar mistake, not just because Memento didn’t win, but also because Gosford Park was such an unbelievably crap-tacular movie! There’s a decent little twist at the end, but it’s primarily a bore-fest. The first hour is completely useless and it’s just plain, sloppy storytelling. There is no way in Hades that Gosford Park had a better screenplay than Memento. There’s just no way at all! Period!

This year, it seems that Oscar still has the P.C. bug, which would explain Kill Bill: Volume 1’s tragic exclusion. But it seems they might be willing to change, which would explain Johnny Depp’s nomination for Best Actor for his insanely-great performance in Pirates of the Carribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Granted, he truly deserves to be nominated, but it’s the kind of role that you probably wouldn’t have seen anywhere near the Oscar ceremony in the past. Who knows. Maybe they are willing to change. But if Oscar has changed or not, these past mistakes will give you a guide of what to look for when you watch the ceremony on February 29. And let’s just say I’m saving some space on my list after seeing this year’s nominees.

[MasterKiller]

#5--Jim Carrey plays the same guy in every movie, except Man on the Moon. Truman Show didn't deserve a nod, but his perfomance in MOTM did.

#4--Who cares.


#3--I agree.

#2--Adaptation, while original, was strained and bloated. I didn't even finish watching it because after 2 hours, it sort of lost itself.

#1--Godsford Park was better than Memento.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
#5--Jim Carrey plays the same guy in every movie, except Man on the Moon. Truman Show didn't deserve a nod, but his perfomance in MOTM did.

#4--Who cares.


#3--I agree.

#2--Adaptation, while original, was strained and bloated. I didn't even finish watching it because after 2 hours, it sort of lost itself.

#1--Godsford Park was better than Memento.

I've not seen Gasford park, but it would have to be pretty darn good to be better than Memento. Did you not like Memento?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen


I've not seen Gasford park, but it would have to be pretty darn good to be better than Memento. Did you not like Memento? I liked Memento well enough. I just think Godsford Park was better put together.

[MasterKiller]

Open Range was full-on cheese. The only saving grace was that it has probably the most realistic Western shoot-out ever filmed.

Spider was good, but too subtle for my tastes. I mean, I hate being hit over the head with the plot of a story, but after Spider was over, I was like, WTF made him change his perception of his mother from nurturer to sex-pot? I was expecting some event for him to have witnessed to surface, but I guess you are supposed to assume the boy is just unable to reconcile his latent sexual feelings for his mother.

Down with Love was pitiful. I expect better from Ewan McGregor.

[Judge Pen]

Open Range was very cliched, but I loved the gunfight. People actually missed for a change.

Havent' seen Spider yet. Havent' had time to see many movies lately.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
Havent' seen Spider yet. Havent' had time to see many movies lately. Then I guess I ruined it for you. :p

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Then I guess I ruined it for you. :p

Well, yeah but the Americans beat the Russians in 'Miracle.' There, we're even!

[Chang Style Novice]

Yeah, "Spider" didn't exactly makes sense, but with performances like that (and the fact that it's told 100% from the perspective of a nutbar) I can forgive a little bit of incoherence.

I haven't seen anything lately exapt for more "The Office" reruns, including the Christmas special. We ain't talking Charlie Brown here, kids.

[Judge Pen]

Anyone plan to see the Passion of the Christ? Do you think you have to have a christian belief to enjoy or appreciate this type of movie?

[dwid]

Anyone plan to see the Passion of the Christ? Do you think you have to have a christian belief to enjoy or appreciate this type of movie?

It probably helps a lot. Without the emotional attachment to the figure, the movie looks like it won't be much more than torture porn. I think most Christians have enough of a martyr complex without watching movies like this, but what the hell do I know?

[MasterKiller]

Apparently, the movie is pretty gruesome, and has little to offer in the way of Christian teaching.

Mel's vision seems to be to convery, in great detail, the actual physical torture of Christ to make the audience feel guilty for not appreciating their Dr. Pepper and Cheetos more. It is 120 minutes long, and has 100 minutes of violent imagery. Ebert says it should have gotten an NC-17 rating.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Apparently, the movie is pretty gruesome, and has little to offer in the way of Christian teaching.

Mel's vision seems to be to convery, in great detail, the actual physical torture of Christ to make the audience feel guilty for not appreciating their Dr. Pepper and Cheetos more. It is 120 minutes long, and has 100 minutes of violent imagery. Ebert says it should have gotten an NC-17 rating.

Yeah, I read Ebert's review. He also loved the movie, but that apparently was tied to his own religious background. I've read some reviews from purported atheists that also thought the movie was good.

I'm sure I will be moved by the movie, but that's because of my won backslidden belief system.

[MasterKiller]

If it takes a movie like this to get people to actually start behaving as Jesus suggested, I'm all for it.

Jesus was a cool cat.

[dwid]

If it takes a movie like this to get people to actually start behaving as Jesus suggested, I'm all for it.

Of course, it's a lot more likely the movie will make people sad and perhaps guilty about their behavior but won't change the way they act one bit. Given the fact that the movie doesn't really address the teachings of Jesus at all, it's pretty unlikely watching the man being tortured is going to inspire lots of people to follow in his footsteps.

[Judge Pen]

Sadness and guilt are common techniqes of organized religion, as is fear. Even though Christians believe that God is Love, and Jesus taught more about loving one another than anything else, it sometimes takes a shock of fear before one sees the need for salvation. I expect to feel these emotions when I see this film. I just wish I didn't have any preconceptions of religion so I could be objective with this movie. I mean, what would a person who never considered Christ think? They probably wouldn't understand and the film wouldn't mean much to them.

[dwid]

I mean, what would a person who never considered Christ think? They probably wouldn't understand and the film wouldn't mean much to them.

That's what I've been trying to suggest.

BTW, I was raised in a very strict Christian environment. I've only recently come to respect that Christianity can be a positive force in people's lives, because all I was witness to was a lot of guilt and bitterness. I hope the movie does help some people improve their lives, I'm just afraid of it's potential for the kind of people I grew up around.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by dwid
BTW, I was raised in a very strict Christian environment. I've only recently come to respect that Christianity can be a positive force in people's lives, because all I was witness to was a lot of guilt and bitterness. I hope the movie does help some people improve their lives, I'm just afraid of it's potential for the kind of people I grew up around.

I think Christians like that don't need a film like this to impose their beliefs; however, a film like this can motivate them even more. On an individual level if you don't think/understand that Christ's suffereing was for you personally, and your sins contributed to the torture we will see graphically depicted on film, then you don't understand Christian doctrine. I just don't think I need someone shoving the point down my throat for me to get the point.

I'm looking forward to the personal experience of seeing the film, but I'm not looking forward to every overbearing Christian I know hammering the imagery over my head.

[MasterKiller]

Enough with your religious waxing. This thread is supposed to be about how much I hate LOTR, and which movies I should rent!!!! :D

[Judge Pen]

Fine. :D

I saw matchstick men last night. It was ok, but took a weird turn at the end. Not that the end wasn't predictable, but the tone was a bit odd.

[Chang Style Novice]

"This thread is supposed to be about how much I hate LOTR, and which movies I should rent!!!! "

You've seen "Life of Brian," right?;)

[dwid]

Thanks for getting us back on track MK.

My girlfriend and I rented Spinal Tap and Lost in Translation last weekend.

I think I like Spinal Tap better, but I did enjoy Lost in Translation.

Does this make me a philistine?

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by dwid
Thanks for getting us back on track MK.

My girlfriend and I rented Spinal Tap and Lost in Translation last weekend.

I think I like Spinal Tap better, but I did enjoy Lost in Translation.

Does this make me a philistine? I dunno. I've never seen Spinal Tap. But if it's anything like Best in Show, you are forgiven.

[dwid]

You should definitely check out Spinal Tap. I think it's the best movie by the people who did Best In Show, Mighty Wind, etc...

It has aged really well. I've seen it several times, and still laugh out loud at certain parts of it.

[norther practitioner]

Pi, Swimming Pool (crappy story, but hot chick who is constantly naked, and it is an artsy type film, so your wifey won't be the wiser), got a few more too..........

[dwid]

Sex and Lucia is a kind of twisty Spanish film. Check it out, but not at Blockbuster (the rated version they have seems a little choppy).

[MasterKiller]

I'll tell you, if you like arthouse and independent films, you must get Satellite TV access. I don't have cable (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX), but I watch Sundance and IFC all the freakin time. Without it, I wouldn't have seen great flicks like Y Tu Mama Tambien, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Corndog Man, Slums of Beverly Hills, Buffalo '66, etc.......

Great Stuff.

[Mr Punch]

Hate to send this back to whatever page it was, but I seem to remember csn going on about Andy Goldsworthy's work, and looking through 'Wood' and 'Time' the other day, esp 'Time' I was reminded how when I first read LOTR and the Hobbit, that my imagination saw the elf lands as more like Goldsworthy's (ethereal yet earthy, arty yet pragmatic) work than any of the shi*ty spanking shiney-new garden-centre reject decor we got fed by Jackson.

Liked Jackson's take on LOTR in general but imagine

Jackson + Goldsworthy set designs!

BTW, he's English, but he moved to Dumfriesshire in Scotland, he's not Scottish. Doesn't matter to me or many others, but it's mentioned specifically in all of the biographies I've read in his books so maybe it matters to him. [/shrug]

[Chang Style Novice]

Or to the Scots.

;)

While I don't go - DUDE! THAT'S TOTALLY LOTHLORIEN! when I look at Goldsworthy's stuff, I think you've stumbled on a good idea there. The sets Jackson used were based on the works of some of the most popular fantasy illustrators of Tolkien's stuff, but I definitely agree that the results are decorative - perhaps to a certain kind of fruity rococo excess - and not much more.

[Judge Pen]

ROTK will win Best Picture tonight. I just hope Bill Murray wins Best Actor. He deserved it for "Rushmore."

[Judge Pen]

Wohoo. 11 Oscars. A total sweep. Kind of boring with no surprises on the victories.

BTW, I finally watched "The Last Temptation of Christ" this weekend. (The Passion being sold out and all) I didn't see where the controversey was. What did Christians get mad over? Despite some artistic licenses, I thought the overall tone of the movie was very reverent.

[MasterKiller]

Christians got pizzed because it showed Christ as "too human."

I prefer the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Christ as "perfectly human," which means he comes along with all the characteristics that make one human, including the desires, etc...

[Chang Style Novice]

Yeah, if memory serves the controversy was centered around the idea that Christ's temptations might include sex and family.

And although I'm not any kind of authority, doesn't Roman Catholic doctrine state that Christ was both completely human and completely divine? I wasn't aware of any philosophical schism between the Easterners and RCers on that point.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
And although I'm not any kind of authority, doesn't Roman Catholic doctrine state that Christ was both completely human and completely divine? I wasn't aware of any philosophical schism between the Easterners and RCers on that point. Dunno.

[Chang Style Novice]

So anyway.

Despite the fact that it stars Jim Carrey, I find myself eagerly awaiting "The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" due to a number of factors.

1 - the director, Michael Gondry has made some amazine short films, including a lot of music videos by Bjork, Beck, and other artists with just one name that starts with B and ends with K.

2 - the writer is Charlie Kaufman, of "Adaptation" and "Being John Malkovich"

3 - several friends who are privy to advance screenings say its great.

4 - the premise is pretty compelling.

5 - Is that a coolass title or what!

How 'bout you guys?

[Judge Pen]

I'm seeing it Friday. I actually talked a date into going with me. If she likes this type of movie, then that will go a long way in my mind as to her intangibles.

[MasterKiller]

I've read good things about it. I like the premise of Adaptation, but I think it lost itself in the end. I did enjoy Being John Malkovich, though; I think Eternal Sunshine has a lot of potential.

The premise is actually what Total Recall was supposed to be about before it got all Ahnuuld'd up. Few people realize the original leading man was going to be Richard Dryfus before they rewrote the script.

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, I don't agree with that completely. It's true they're both about manipulating memory so you can't trust identity or reality, but the PKD short story "Total Recall" was vaguely based on (I think it's called "We Can Remember it for You Wholesale") did have spy stuff in it. You're right, though, that it was about a nebbish looking for vicarious thrills, not a giant vitamin S induced action hero. "ESotSM" apparently is more about relationships and emotional regret and stuff, which can only make for a more interesting story.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Well, I don't agree with that completely. It's true they're both about manipulating memory so you can't trust identity or reality, but the PKD short story "Total Recall" was vaguely based on (I think it's called "We Can Remember it for You Wholesale") did have spy stuff in it. I'm speaking purely about the initial incarnations of the movie storyline, not the short story it was based from. I've never read the short story.

[Judge Pen]

I caught a glimpse of the Rock last night. He was promoting his new movie "Walking Tall." Just wanted to share.

[MasterKiller]

I can't believe they remade Walking Tall. That movie was fine the way it was. :mad:

[dwid]

Yes, Joe Don Baker was the bomb.

Anyone ever see Mitchell? It was a Joe Don Baker movie they had on Mystery Science Theater 3000. It's one of the funniest things they ever did.

[Judge Pen]

you know, I really liked the first Walking Tall, but I'll give the remake a chance. I actually like the Rock. He seems really intelligent and doesn't take his action star status too seriously.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
you know, I really liked the first Walking Tall, but I'll give the remake a chance. I actually like the Rock. He seems really intelligent and doesn't take his action star status too seriously. I agree. I think he has a CPA license or a degree in accounting or something, and he seems pretty grounded. I loved his Superman skit on SNL.

But....................he's a horrible actor, and it looks like they Hollywooded-up Walking Tall, with the hot chick and explosions and everything.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I agree. I think he has a CPA license or a degree in accounting or something, and he seems pretty grounded. I loved his Superman skit on SNL.

But....................he's a horrible actor, and it looks like they Hollywooded-up Walking Tall, with the hot chick and explosions and everything.

So is Ahnuuld, and I've loved some of his movies. He just needs to find the right vessle for his skills. The Rundown was enjoyable. Not great, but not a bad popcorn movie.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Judge Pen


So is Ahnuuld, and I've loved some of his movies. He just needs to find the right vessle for his skills. The Rundown was enjoyable. Not great, but not a bad popcorn movie. The only Ahnuuld movie I watch is Conan the Barbarian. That movie is great, and Ahnuuld's poor acting and speech only add creedance to the theme that he is a social misfit unable to fit into a conformist society because he was separated at and early age and educated outside the system...

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
The only Ahnuuld movie I watch is Conan the Barbarian. That movie is great, and Ahnuuld's poor acting and speech only add creedance to the theme that he is a social misfit unable to fit into a conformist society because he was separated at and early age and educated outside the system...

The first Conan, The first two Terminators, and Predator were all good action movies.