Best Actor: Some angry twat who played the exact same angry "Character" at least 50 times.
I guess there's something to be said for "range."
Best Picture: One-third of a story.
Best Original Screen Play: A long, slow story that barely manages a single twist.
Not to speak disparagingly of the Academy -- these are, after all, the same people who awarded "Best Picture" to "Gladiator" -- but I do image that there's quite a lot of lead paint in Hollywood.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:43:49 -0500, JTEM <gymra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Best Actor: Some angry twat who played the > exact same angry "Character" at least 50 times.
I thought she did a fine job.
Oh, you meant *him*. Nehverrr mahhhhndd!
-- "The effeminate are swishy, and they're barred OUT of God's Kingdom. Who wants to spend eternity with a bunch of fairy's anyway?" -- Y'all can put your hands down now, Thurgood was only presenting this question rhetorically.
>>Best Actor: Some angry twat who played the exact same angry >>"Character" at least 50 times.
> I may be biased, but I thought Sean Penn richly deserved it; > his performance was stupendous. Tim Robbins deserved his too. I > would have given two more to that film: best supporting actress > and best picture.
I thought Mystic River was a bit slow and meandering, but I did like the performances a lot.
LotR got the awards not for the one movie but for the trilogy. All three movies were consistently high quality and it was epic story telling.
"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza." -- Daria
Scott Safier <sc...@pink-triangle.NO.org.SPAM> wrote: > Jess Anderson:
> > John McGinnis:
> >>Best Actor: Some angry twat who played the exact same angry > >>"Character" at least 50 times.
> > I may be biased, but I thought Sean Penn richly deserved it; > > his performance was stupendous. Tim Robbins deserved his too. I > > would have given two more to that film: best supporting actress > > and best picture.
> I thought Mystic River was a bit slow and meandering, but I did like > the performances a lot.
I found it an intensely dark and haunting film.
> LotR got the awards not for the one movie but for the trilogy.
I agree with you, but...
> All > three movies were consistently high quality and it was epic story > telling.
I found the second a little less compelling but still extremely fine- especially the second half or so. I'm afraid the last 10 minutes of "The Return of the King" bored me stupid. Oscar, who usually sleeps a little during movies over 90 minutes (and to be fair, he was jet-lagged this time) woke up enough to start complaining aloud. Luckily, given it was Hogmany, the theatre was practically empty, so he didn't bother anyone. Shame about the ending though, because up until that point, I thought it was probably one of the best cinematic experiences I'd ever had. The ending doesn't dull the rest of the film too much for me, but it _is_ the last thing you see.
David
-- David Horne- (website under reconstruction) davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> I found the second a little less compelling but still extremely fine- > especially the second half or so. I'm afraid the last 10 minutes of "The > Return of the King" bored me stupid. Oscar, who usually sleeps a little > during movies over 90 minutes (and to be fair, he was jet-lagged this > time) woke up enough to start complaining aloud. Luckily, given it was > Hogmany, the theatre was practically empty, so he didn't bother anyone. > Shame about the ending though, because up until that point, I thought it > was probably one of the best cinematic experiences I'd ever had. The > ending doesn't dull the rest of the film too much for me, but it _is_ > the last thing you see.
"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza." -- Daria
>>>I thought Mystic River was a bit slow and meandering, but I >>>did like the performances a lot.
>>I found it an intensely dark and haunting film.
> I thought it was anything but meandering; that every scene and > every shot opened the characters more to our understanding, > that within the darkness of their lives there was humanity, > yes, even in murderers.
What a guy, that Jess. With a heart of gold. His heart opens to the humanity in *murderers*, yet he is cold as stone to anyone whose politics do not align exactly with his, even when he and they are in, like, 95% agreement.
Hmmm, maybe I should ditch being a "disaffectoid" and become an axe-murderer, so Jess could see my "humanity".
Nah, on second thought, I couldn't do that much time.
Dissident <q...@7600.net> wrote: > What a guy, that Jess. With a heart of gold. His heart > opens to the humanity in *murderers*, yet he is cold as > stone to anyone whose politics do not align exactly with > his, even when he and they are in, like, 95% agreement.
> Hmmm, maybe I should ditch being a "disaffectoid" and > become an axe-murderer, so Jess could see my "humanity".
I'd ditch the grudge first.
David
-- David Horne- (website under reconstruction) davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
David Horne wrote: > Dissident <q...@7600.net> wrote:
>>What a guy, that Jess. With a heart of gold. His heart >>opens to the humanity in *murderers*, yet he is cold as >>stone to anyone whose politics do not align exactly with >>his, even when he and they are in, like, 95% agreement.
>>Hmmm, maybe I should ditch being a "disaffectoid" and >>become an axe-murderer, so Jess could see my "humanity".
> I'd ditch the grudge first.
I don't see you holding Jess to the same standard. I'd ditch the preferential standards first, if I were you.
David Horne wrote: > Scott Safier <sc...@pink-triangle.NO.org.SPAM> wrote:
> > All three [LoTR] movies were consistently high quality and it was epic story > > telling.
> I found the second a little less compelling but still extremely fine- > especially the second half or so. I'm afraid the last 10 minutes of "The > Return of the King" bored me stupid.
I did think he made a mistake with that. The multiple endings were true to the book, of course, and appropriate for the style Tolkein was emulating. But it didn't work in the film, at least not for the theatrical release. Considering all the other changes they made, I thought they'd have been better off keeping to one climactic ending for the theaters, and saving the rest of them for the extended DVD. Those of us who are buying those would eat it up. And we'd have loved to have the *Real Endings* all to ourselves to make us feel more special.
Kathryn Burlingham <pi...@pacifier.com> wrote: > David Horne wrote: > > Scott Safier <sc...@pink-triangle.NO.org.SPAM> wrote:
> > > All three [LoTR] movies were consistently high quality and it was epic > > > story telling.
> > I found the second a little less compelling but still extremely fine- > > especially the second half or so. I'm afraid the last 10 minutes of "The > > Return of the King" bored me stupid.
> I did think he made a mistake with that.
I'm glad we're not the only ones. I'm aware of the relationship with the book, but in all the glowing reviews I've read and heard about the film none that I came across seemed to find this a problem.
> The multiple endings were > true to the book, of course, and appropriate for the style Tolkein was > emulating. But it didn't work in the film, at least not for the > theatrical release.
Good point- I've wondered if I might not be more convinced when a longer version comes out.
> Considering all the other changes they made, I > thought they'd have been better off keeping to one climactic ending > for the theaters, and saving the rest of them for the extended DVD. > Those of us who are buying those would eat it up. And we'd have loved > to have the *Real Endings* all to ourselves to make us feel more > special.
For me, the problem isn't entirely different to opera- it was a question of pacing, and no matter the 'relevance' to the 'text' I felt that the ending of the Return of the King just plummeted in terms of energy and narrative. I felt as if it were a desperate attempt to tie up lots of loose ends which the film itself (the book aside) didn't actually need to do.
David
-- David Horne- (website under reconstruction) davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
David Horne wrote: > Kathryn Burlingham <pi...@pacifier.com> wrote: >>Considering all the other changes they made, I >>thought they'd have been better off keeping to one climactic ending >>for the theaters, and saving the rest of them for the extended DVD. >>Those of us who are buying those would eat it up. And we'd have loved >>to have the *Real Endings* all to ourselves to make us feel more >>special.
> For me, the problem isn't entirely different to opera- it was a question > of pacing, and no matter the 'relevance' to the 'text' I felt that the > ending of the Return of the King just plummeted in terms of energy and > narrative. I felt as if it were a desperate attempt to tie up lots of > loose ends which the film itself (the book aside) didn't actually need > to do.
Maybe because I watched the "extended" versions of the two previous films at the Cinerama Dome during the week prior to watching RotK; but I wasn't at all let down by the multiple endings. Perhaps because at that point it seemed like the culmination of one gigantic 11 hour saga, and 20 minutes or so of tying up all the narrative threads just seemed to be fitting and proportional. Also, I found myself moved to tears (admittedly, I'm an easy cry in movies), and such emotional catharsis helps to keep boredom at bay.
An interesting contrast exists between the ending of LotR and the final scenes of the first STAR WARS trilogy. The fairly rapid triumphal ceremony which ended of RETURN OF THE JEDI seemed perfunctory and something of a letdown. I know which ending I preferred. But then, I was never much of a STAR WARS fan; and I consider LORD OF THE RINGS to be a monumental achievement, literally the greatest epic in the history of cinema.
Ken Rudolph <ke...@comcast.net> wrote: > Maybe because I watched the "extended" versions of the two previous > films at the Cinerama Dome during the week prior to watching RotK; > but I wasn't at all let down by the multiple endings.
I'm certainly open to changing my opinion after seeing the extended versions of all three- I haven't even seen the extended versions of the first two.
> Perhaps > because at that point it seemed like the culmination of one gigantic > 11 hour saga, and 20 minutes or so of tying up all the narrative > threads just seemed to be fitting and proportional.
I wouldn't argue that you separate the different films, but they _were_ presented to us, the public, 12 months apart from each other. So yes, I'm judging the film very much on its own merits. I can see why you'd argue the proportion was correct- but for me, it wasn't- it went on too long, and I'm not sure if I even needed the postlude in the context of the film. I'd repeat that up until that point, I thought it was probably the most remarkable cinematic experience I'd had- which cushioned the negative aftertaste of the ending quite considerably.
> An interesting contrast exists between the ending of LotR and the > final scenes of the first STAR WARS trilogy. The fairly rapid > triumphal ceremony which ended of RETURN OF THE JEDI seemed > perfunctory and something of a letdown.
Yes, I'd agree with that. It's silly on many levels.
> I know which ending I > preferred. But then, I was never much of a STAR WARS fan; and I > consider LORD OF THE RINGS to be a monumental achievement, literally > the greatest epic in the history of cinema.
I don't really compare the two- they're so different. I still find the original STAR WARS trilogy compelling though- its odd quirks notwithstanding.
David
-- David Horne- (website under reconstruction) davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Ken Rudolph <ke...@comcast.net> writes: > An interesting contrast exists between the ending of LotR and the > final scenes of the first STAR WARS trilogy. The fairly rapid > triumphal ceremony which ended of RETURN OF THE JEDI seemed > perfunctory and something of a letdown. I know which ending I > preferred. But then, I was never much of a STAR WARS fan; and I > consider LORD OF THE RINGS to be a monumental achievement, literally > the greatest epic in the history of cinema.
Turin Turambar! Yvanna and the Trees! Feanor! Akabaleth! -- Michael Thomas (m...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
> Maybe because I watched the "extended" versions of the two previous > films at the Cinerama Dome during the week prior to watching RotK; > but I wasn't at all let down by the multiple endings.
Well, I did too. Watched them, that is (though it was on a large screen TV with surround sound in the basement of the house of a friend of a friend (who had been watching them almost obsessively for months, to soothe herself over the pain of having her partner dump her)). I thought while watching the ending(s) that some of them would have been much better shown less explicitly, with the detail left for the DVDs. Just a shot or two could have done the job of whole scenes in conveying the gist, and given a tighter close to the movie.
But hey, it's all an amazing achievement. I hope his King Kong goes as well.
>> Maybe because I watched the "extended" versions of the two previous >> films at the Cinerama Dome during the week prior to watching RotK; >> but I wasn't at all let down by the multiple endings.
[...]
> But hey, it's all an amazing achievement. I hope his King Kong goes as > well.
And then, if all goes well, The Hobbit. Apparently New Line have the rights to make it but MGM have the rights to distribute it. Jackson says it's a good thing he's tied up with King Kong so the lawyers have lots of time to sort it out, but he also said he wants Ian McKellan back as Gandalf and for it to have the same feel as LoTR, to be part of the same mythic universe.
--
"I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody, barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for outraged apoplexy." Betty Bowers, http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html
> For me, the problem isn't entirely different to opera- it was a > question of pacing, and no matter the 'relevance' to the 'text' I > felt that the ending of the Return of the King just plummeted in > terms of energy and narrative. I felt as if it were a desperate > attempt to tie up lots of loose ends which the film itself (the > book aside) didn't actually need to do.
Well, that's what happens when you take out the main post-climax dramatic event. The scouring of the shire would have fixed this problem, but I understand perfectly well why they chose to leave it out.
And I wasn't bored at all.
The length of the denoument should be proportional to the explosiveness of the climax (do you like it when I talk dirty?), and I think it was about right.
Also, this was farewell to the characters for all *three* films, so I think it was fine.
In article <1ga844h.m8hsu17f0g1wN%this_address_is_for_s...@yahoo.co.uk>,
David Horne <this_address_is_for_s...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[]
>I'm glad we're not the only ones. I'm aware of the relationship with the >book, but in all the glowing reviews I've read and heard about the film >none that I came across seemed to find this a problem.
I believe Billy Crystal made a joke about it at the Oscars. -- Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven" j...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96 Get your Ellenwear at http://www.cafeshops.com/ellexia All the cool kids are doing it.
Ken Rudolph wrote: > Maybe because I watched the "extended" versions of the two previous > films at the Cinerama Dome during the week prior to watching RotK; but I > wasn't at all let down by the multiple endings. Perhaps because at that > point it seemed like the culmination of one gigantic 11 hour saga, and > 20 minutes or so of tying up all the narrative threads just seemed to be > fitting and proportional. Also, I found myself moved to tears > (admittedly, I'm an easy cry in movies), and such emotional catharsis > helps to keep boredom at bay.
I liked it alot, but I had to piss like a racehorse by the end and I think my perception was altered by my exploding bladder. What happened to intermissions?
>> I liked it alot, but I had to piss like a racehorse by the end >> and I think my perception was altered by my exploding bladder. What >> happened to intermissions?
>Blame Wagner.
As far as I know (which is pretty far, actually), no single act by Wagner comes anywhere near the length of _The Return of the King_. -- ---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------ "Compared to my lover, toilet paper looks trivial, but I have no intention of giving it up." --John Whiteside
