For Discussion: My Top 20 Movies of 2003

[rf_ucsd]

Since the CD thread help me a lot, I'm going to go ahead and post my top 20 movies of 2003. Same rules as before.

I haven't seen some of the latest releases (like House of Sand and Fog).

I also included my list of preferred nominees for the major Academy Award categories because I an uber dork.

1. Return of the King
2. Mystic River
3. 21 Grams
4. Cold Mountain
5. The Barbarian Invasions
6. Big Fish
7. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
8. Lost in Translation
9. Elf
10. The Last Samurai
11. Kill Bill, Vol. 1
12. Intolerable Cruelty
13. Mona Lisa Smile
14. The Missing
15. Something's Got to Give
16. School of Rock
17. Love Actually
18. X2: X-Men United
19. My Life Without Me
20. The Matrix Reloaded

Best Picture
RETURN OF THE KING
Mystic River
21 Grams
The Barbarian Invasions
Cold Mountain

Best Actor
Sean Penn (21 Grams)
SEAN PENN (Mystic River)
Jude Law (Cold Mountain)
Bill Murray (Lost In Translation)
Remy Girard (The Barbarian Invasions)

Best Actress
NAOMI WATTS (21 Grams)
Cate Blanchett (The Missing)
Sara Polley (My Life Without Me)
Julia Roberts (Mona Lisa Smile)
Scarlett Johansson (Lost in Translation)

Best Supporting Actor
TIM ROBBINS (Mystic River)
Tommy Lee Jones (The Missing)
Ken Watanabe (The Last Samaurai)
Alec Baldwin (The Cooler)
Paul Bettany (Master and Commander)

Best Supporting Actress
Maria Bello (The Cooler)
Maggia Gyllenhaal (Mona Lisa Smile)
Marie-Josée Croze (The Barbarian Invasions)
MARCIA GAY HARDEN (Mystic River)
Rene Zellwegger (Cold Mountain)

Best Director
PETER JACKSON (Return of the King)
Anthony Minghella (Cold Mountain)
Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill, Vol. 1)
Peter Weir (Master and Commander)
Edward Zwick (The Last Samurai)

Best Screenplay
Alejandro González Iñárritu, Guillermo Arriaga (21 Grams)
Sophia Coppola (Lost In Translation)
DENYS ARCAND (The Barbarian Invasions)
Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal (Mona Lisa Smile)

Best Screenplay, Adapted
Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philipa Boynes (Return of the King)
Anthony Minghella (Cold Mountain)
Ken Kaufman (The Missing)
BRIAN HELGELAND (Mystic River)
Peter Weir (Master and Commander)

Best Art Direction
Christopher Burian-Mohr, Jess Gonchor, Kim Sinclair (The Last Samurai)
JOE BLEAKLEY, SIMON BRIGHT, DAN HENNAH, PHILIP IVEY, CHRISTIAN RIVERS (Return of the King)
Roy Barnes, Robert Fechtman, Jack Johnson, Richard L. Johnson (Big Fish)
Bruce Crone, Mark W. Mansbridge (Master and Commander)
Derek R. Hill, James E. Tocci, Donald B. Woodruff (Pirates of the Caribbean)

Best Cinematography
John Toll (The Last Samurai)
Andrew Lesnie (Return of the King)
RUSSELL BOYD, SANDI SISSEL (Master and Commander)
John Seale (Cold Mountain)
Robert Richardson (Kill Bill, Volume 1)

Best Costume Design
Ngila Dickson (The Last Samurai)
NGILA DICKSON, RICHARD TAYLOR (Return of the King)
Penny Rose (Pirates of the Caribbean)
Wendy Stites (Master and Commander)
Julie Weiss (The Missing)

Other Movies Seen
Open Range
The Cooler
Shattered Glass
Triplets of Belleville
Bruce Almighty
Pirates of the Caribbean
Sylvia
Terminator 3
American Wedding
Veronica Guerin
Daredevil
Basic
The Matrix Revolutions
Runaway Jury
The League of Extraoridinary Gentlemen
Beyond Borders
The Human Stain
Jackass
Timeline
Stuck on You
S.W.A.T.
Once Upon a Time in Mexico

[gvargas]

Wow! You are gonna make it for top poster of new threads soon! :sneaky:

...and yes...you have confirmed it...YOU ARE a dork :lol:

kidding...kidding...gollum doesn't have to get mad!

[rf_ucsd]

WE HATES HER!
WE HATES HER FOREVER!

No, Smeagol likes her.
Smeagol wants to stay with Gisela.

SHE'S FALSE. SHE'S TRICKSY.

[gvargas]

I am darn Tricksy alright!!! :D ;) :lol: :lol:

Stop eating my food!!

[rf_ucsd]

We don't eats that. We hates nasty Elf bread.
Why can't be have some birdses ... some crunchable birdses.

[gvargas]

I have fish if you want some....you must come and and get it....

*runs away with smelly delicious fish*

:sneaky:

[rf_ucsd]

We must go ... now? ... master?

[gvargas]

Yes...now....Master does not want Smeagol to finish his 39 posts....see we are tricksy little hobbits

*throws the fish across the room*

(Okay...so we are off topic...a bit :D )

[rf_ucsd]

True ... hopefully this doesn't disuade people from posting re: my list.

[gvargas]

:D :D :D

Anyone like this nerdy boys list??? Anyone?? :kiss:
I'm sorry I couldn't help myself!!

No really, nice list...I have to catch many of those flicks!

do you really think LOTR has a chance for best movie?

[rf_ucsd]

:lol: :lol:

I think it has to be considered the favorite, though I could see Mystic River or Cold Mountain also winning. Looking back at the Academy Awards, I would hate to have to put money on this year's race, as RotK would be the first fantasy ever to win. The Academy tends to be made up of older votes who are less likely to be impressed by the computer dependent visuals. In addition, RotK gives those older voters reason to look to another movie if they want to: Some bad dialogue at times, an ending which drags and drags, and some aspects of the story which aren't fully explained.

That said, I think there's a good change RotK will win because a lot of voters know the Academey will take a credibility hit if RotK doesn't show well, and if there's one thing the Academy has shown it cares about it is its own prestige.

[gvargas]

I mean....ET never one!!!!!!!!!! So why should this one?

It would be kind of cool if a fantasy film won.

[rf_ucsd]

And really, some good but not great movies have won just because they were artsy and dramatic. But, it is what it is. That's the whole reason why I like keeping my list. If the Academy was always right them I would just wait for their results. But I like sitting down, thinking about it, and then being able to articulate why I disagreed with "THE ACADEMY".

[Juliana]

We´ve got the same tastes! I love those movies!

[sailormaxx]

nice list! :)

I've only seen two of the movies out of your top 20... must see more.... :stunned:


I love movies. :smug:

[gentleparachute]

Love your list. Though I did think Pirates might have deserved to get on the list (lightweight fare that it is...) I did think that it was well made.

Doesn't Gollum care for things that don't always pull the biggest emotional punch? Must be the precious whispering into your ear always, "I'm gonna weigh you down, I will weigh you down... Down, down, into the neverending darkness we gooo..." :P

Nothing personal, just a thought (for myself, I prefer darker, emotionally heavy movies too like you). But neways, that's just my opinion :)

[soleil]

ok, Elf is higher on 'the List' than Last Samurai? Am I missing something?
I guess I really should see that movie.


Unless those Acadamy people are different this year, there is no way Return of the King will win this year.

[chuckie]

You do have a nice list there, but I think there might be one movie missing from it......I dunno, but I thought that "The Italian Job" was a really good action flick....I just like seeing things being blown up :P

[rf_ucsd]

You do have a nice list there, but I think there might be one movie missing from it......I dunno, but I thought that "The Italian Job" was a really good action flick....I just like seeing things being blown up :P

Ah ... I can't rate movies I don't see :)

[rf_ucsd]

ok, Elf is higher on 'the List' than Last Samurai? Am I missing something?
I guess I really should see that movie.

The Last Samurai, in my mind, was a spectacularly produced movie with some serious problems in its plot. Elf's goals were different ...

... but at some point a movie needs to be rated on its ability to entertain people. At some point you have to return to that. That is the whole point, isn't it?


Unless those Acadamy people are different this year, there is no way Return of the King will win this year.

Why do you say that? I mean, I can see why. I'm interesting in why you say it.

[rf_ucsd]

Love your list. Though I did think Pirates might have deserved to get on the list (lightweight fare that it is...) I did think that it was well made.

I agree: it was well made. I have it in some of the categories (like Art Direction and Customes). To me, the movie sacrificed story for spectacle. I did generally enjoy the movie, though.

Doesn't Gollum care for things that don't always pull the biggest emotional punch? Must be the precious whispering into your ear always, "I'm gonna weigh you down, I will weigh you down... Down, down, into the neverending darkness we gooo..." :P

I rated Elf and Kill Bill very highly. I rated Lost in Translation and Mona Lisa Smile lower than I've seen others rate them. Emotional stories do tend to be more compelling, but I think that's just the nature of the game: If you can include more in your movie rather than less, then you're probably doing the better job.

That said, some people cringe a bit when I talk about Elf being a Christmas classic. That movie is going to be on TV every year for the rest of my life. I think it hit that much of a nerve. People loved it, and I am one of them. Yes, it has issues ... but movies are like children: they all have issues.

Nothing personal, just a thought (for myself, I prefer darker, emotionally heavy movies too like you). But neways, that's just my opinion :)

No, it's a good point. It should be said that I consider numbers 9 thourhg 17 on the list basically interchangable, and everytime I look at the list I think I should rate Love Actually higher.

But these are the kind of comments I love ... I think there is a reason to rate movies that are emotional higher than ones that are not (see comment above), but I love ot hear people argue that shouldn't be so.

It's all good discussion.

[Manders]

dun worry i used to be a crazy movie freak also if return of the king doesnt win im going to suffocate myself with applesauce.

[rf_ucsd]

dun worry i used to be a crazy movie freak also if return of the king doesnt win im going to suffocate myself with applesauce.

No! Don't do it ...

... are you back from skiing?

P.S., I liked your previous avatar more :P

[rf_ucsd]

Thanks, everybody, for all the feedback! I love you all ... in a very platonic, virtual kind of way.

Incidentally, I just got back from House of Sand and Fog. Pretty average movie. Some people will think it better than that; others will think it worse. I enjoyed my time but it wasn't really noteworthy.

[soleil]

Unless those Acadamy people are different this year, there is no way Return of the King will win this year.

Why do you say that? I mean, I can see why. I'm interesting in why you say it.

Because the Academey is very traditional and likes to vote for movies such as movies based on Shakespeare (like the one w/ Gwyneth Paltrow) or boring movies like The Last Emperor or movies that say something in it or are creative with the plot like that American something movie with Kevin Spacey in it. Lol. I forget all the movies names!
I think that ROTK spent a lot of time on action and on scenery for the viewers. Don't know how much of an impact this movie really makes. I'm not sure how the Academy will respond, but I think they will pick something that hasn't made millions of dollars. There were also some
corny scenes and such. Don't how they will react to that.
But I really have no idea :/

[rf_ucsd]

Unless those Acadamy people are different this year, there is no way Return of the King will win this year.

Why do you say that? I mean, I can see why. I'm interesting in why you say it.

Because the Academey is very traditional and likes to vote for movies such as movies based on Shakespeare (like the one w/ Gwyneth Paltrow) or boring movies like The Last Emperor or movies that say something in it or are creative with the plot like that American something movie with Kevin Spacey in it. Lol. I forget all the movies names!
I think that ROTK spent a lot of time on action and on scenery for the viewers. Don't know how much of an impact this movie really makes. I'm not sure how the Academy will respond, but I think they will pick something that hasn't made millions of dollars. There were also some
corny scenes and such. Don't how they will react to that.
But I really have no idea :/

Good observations around.

RotK is a movie on a scale of no other before it. Previous examples might not hold.

Also, it wasn't too long Gladiator won for best picture.

[soleil]

Darn. Forgot about Gladiator. But that movie won b/c everything else sucked that year!

[rf_ucsd]

That and Dreamworks is really freaking powerful.

[soleil]

Are they the mafia of the academy?

[rf_ucsd]

They'd have to be to get Russell Crowe the Oscar that year over Denzel Washington ...

... but it all worked out the next year when Denzel won over Russell when Crowe should have won for A Beautiful Mind.

[soleil]

oh yes, i liked a beautiful mind more than gladiator. but i did like the gory stuff in gladiator. did braveheart win anything. 'cause that movie was better than gladiator. i personally think denzel could've won the award for another movie and not the one he won that year.

halle berry went crazy that year.

:D

[Majson]

Crowe god the oscar for gladiator because A)it was a good solid emotional performance B) because the year before he was even more amazing in "the insider" for which he out acted al pacino (how rare is that)

anyway

1. Return of the King
2. Mystic River
3. 21 Grams
4. Cold Mountain
5. The Barbarian Invasions
6. Big Fish
7. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
8. Lost in Translation
9. Elf
10. The Last Samurai
11. Kill Bill, Vol. 1
12. Intolerable Cruelty
13. Mona Lisa Smile
14. The Missing
15. Something's Got to Give
16. School of Rock
17. Love Actually
18. X2: X-Men United
19. My Life Without Me
20. The Matrix Reloaded

i have so many problems with this list.

Forone,ROTK, such an over-rated pile dung in my personal opinion. The plot and story, like the books beforehand, areover-polluted. Too much time is wasted on stupid scnery shots. The movie isover-long, the SFX are nothing special(and a big marketing ploy ec is based around the sfx for some reason). The acting isn't that great. And while i do respect Jackson for attempting something so bold, and for trying to be this brave...it also has to be said that it's the fanboys who rate this film etc.

Personally i have never felt anything for the characters, never got involved in the story, never enjoyed whatis aw, just finding it more and more pointless and boring. Any good movie, in my view, should makeyou feel something for the charaters, should engage you, should captivate you..none of the LOTrfilms have done that, and so i cannot and will not ever put it in my top lists for anything.

anyways....the matrixc was also a huge over-rated pile of uber dung also, but like the LOTr trilogy i never felt for any of the characters or the storyline, which i've seen done better with a morehuman side to it before.

my list, although it wont hold the same "wow" factor you have, is my list and i will stae why for each one

(there is no order as i beleive this year to be downright awful in ters of good film releases)

NARC

twograbbing perfornaces from the leads, with a very plot centred story, that gives the characters chance to grow, to blend the two is a raritythese days. I figured parts of it out, as that's what ti leads you to belive, but you're always left guessing "is this the right answer?" and"did that really happen?"

The Pianist

this wasan utterly grabbing movie, very quiet performance from Brody but believable and wellacted. Not since Shindlers List has so many emotions been brought up by a war film (i find saving private ryan to be boring and lacking in emotion). A wonderful effort, with amazing scope and horrible images.

Dark Blue

a wonderful performance from Kurt Russel, and in very much the styleof LA confidential. Shamefully missed at the box office, but it's a solid story, based on true events and solidly acted. Some slightly boring points true but it's oozing with goodness :)

Life Of David Gale

Ok, biased here because i'm a huge kevin spacey fan. Ad this got such bad reviews, i couldn't udnerstand why. Two very brilliant, very believableperformances from it's two big stars. With an ending that is quite easy to spot, it doesn't make it any worsehow-ever.A clever film, solidly told and acted. I like it

Confidence

It wont win any awards, but i enjoyed it.full of twists and turns, fast paced, clever, perhaps a littletoo clever for it's won good. but a solid crime caper, that borrows the best bits of the way sixth sense had it's twists and develops them. One of those fewmovies where making you keep guessing what's going to happen actually works. With solid acting, and one of my faves dusting hoffman is in it too.

Finding Nemo

amazing technological advancement again. Wonderfully scripted, wonderfully voice acted, funny for both adults and children alike, one of those few disney movies that get made in the last 4or 5 years, aka..good for the entire family. Aside from these disney pixar films, disney cannot do films like it used to. So yay to this

28 Days LAter

i hat, just hate horror films. But this..had such scope, such vision, such chilling views and scenery. A deserted britina, very few survivors, i'm sorry but this has to be in my list. I adored it, i reallydid. It could have been so much better yes, but even as it is, it's good. Well acted, good effects and just chilling cinematography.

Seabiscuit

Ok i felt this was an uplifting movie, with solid performances allround. Perhaps a little over-long but it still is in my list. a good solid effort all round, and a good feelgood movie :) Told in a very old fashioned way

Ripleys Game

I loved this film. Malckovich and scott are stunning, with ray winstone good in a suporting role too. The plot is good, simple and effective, the scenery is simply beautiful, the music is quiet yet plays well. A solid all round effort that i can happily watch again and again because it is so well done. Scripting is clever, although one ro two annoying lines otherwise very solid and very clever with the ideas it raises.

MYstic River

This is a good film, also told ina veryold fashioned way i believe. Quite a bithappens, well scripted and generally quite emotional attimes. i liked it

The Man Who Sued God

not amazing by any means, but i thought it was clever and witty.And billy Conely gives a good performance. I loved someof the ideas raisedabout religion, and it was quiteuplifting to me aswell.

ok thats' only 11, there's one or two mor ei like, the rest of the movies this year i found rather average...but then i've probably forgot a loadoffilms too

[dionisio]

:stunned: ..so many movies i wanna see...i gotta see....

@garry.....i agree totally on the pianist and others also otherw Polanski & Brody wouldnt have got the oscar!! ;) ....fascinatin movie...& to findin nemo...WOW..lol...

wow..ive got to see 21 grams..i believe i will be blown away after that movie..coz Inarritus "Amores Perros" left me speechless........prolly one of my all time favs

so heres my list of the movies i wanna see.... :D :P
21 grams.....mystic river....lost in translation.....lotr 3........maybe cold mountain....

:cool:

[Dania]

:snore: :snore: :snore:

[weedy_gonzalez]

ive only seen 2 movies out of the top 20 :o

[dionisio]

:snore: :snore: :snore:


of course u dont have any interest....if u keep watchin cheesy bollywood productions.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Dania]

:angry: u know i never :angry:

[dionisio]

:rolleyes: :snore:

[Dania]

:angry: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[rf_ucsd]

Hey all! I see there's two pages of responses :stunned:

Undoubtedly there will be a lot of disagreement.

I just got home from work and am really looking forward to responding to this thread. Hopefully there's some really good stuff ... I hope so. There are a lot of movies in 2003 that I didn't see ... hopefully people will point me in the right direction.

And I hope everybody has had a great day in Coldplaying land.

[rf_ucsd]

We´ve got the same tastes! I love those movies!

Thanks, but you know what they say about people who agree with idiots ...

... that they're seeing somehting that nobody else is.

[rf_ucsd]

Crowe god the oscar for gladiator because A)it was a good solid emotional performance B) because the year before he was even more amazing in "the insider" for which he out acted al pacino (how rare is that)

Crowe did get jobbed that year, and if anything it started a three year run where the Academy gave out award based on resumes rather than actual performance. Denzel Washington's recreation of Ruben Carter in The Hurricane should have garnered the ultimate recognition, as should have Crowe's protrayal of John Nash in A Beautiful Mind. Alas, I am not an authority and I don't have the final word on any of it.

Still, Crowe's performance was good for what the role in Gladiator asked of him, but the problem is that the role was not a very demanding one, and ideally the top award would go to somebody whose role ask more of him (and he was able to deliver).

anyway

1. Return of the King
2. Mystic River
3. 21 Grams
4. Cold Mountain
5. The Barbarian Invasions
6. Big Fish
7. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
8. Lost in Translation
9. Elf
10. The Last Samurai
11. Kill Bill, Vol. 1
12. Intolerable Cruelty
13. Mona Lisa Smile
14. The Missing
15. Something's Got to Give
16. School of Rock
17. Love Actually
18. X2: X-Men United
19. My Life Without Me
20. The Matrix Reloaded

i have so many problems with this list.

Oh no! Well, that is why I posted, for feedback. I hope it's good feedback.
Note from later: Generally, the feedback was very good.

Forone,ROTK, such an over-rated pile dung in my personal opinion. The plot and story, like the books beforehand, areover-polluted. Too much time is wasted on stupid scnery shots. The movie isover-long, the SFX are nothing special(and a big marketing ploy ec is based around the sfx for some reason). The acting isn't that great. And while i do respect Jackson for attempting something so bold, and for trying to be this brave...it also has to be said that it's the fanboys who rate this film etc.

Personally i have never felt anything for the characters, never got involved in the story, never enjoyed whatis aw, just finding it more and more pointless and boring. Any good movie, in my view, should makeyou feel something for the charaters, should engage you, should captivate you..none of the LOTrfilms have done that, and so i cannot and will not ever put it in my top lists for anything.

This is far too harsh.

You're entitled to your opinions, as we all are, but there is something in there that crosses the line between valid criticism and undue cynicism. Using the term fanboy is uncalled for. It implies a personal bias in one's enthusiasm that clouds their judgement of those which might comparable. Given that acclaim for Return of the King is pretty widespread, the term is being misused. At the point the number of fanboys becomes significant enough to dictate a prodominence of opinion you should consider that the group has ceased to be fanboys.

And frankly, the term is offensive. I have never even read the books.

But beyond that, criticisms that the movie is too long and that the acting is not great seem appropriate to me. I have a major objection to the length, the ending, and the performances of Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and Orlando Bloom (among others). The characters are at times undeveloped, but this can be said of almost any movie. It all depends on where you want to look. In a lesser movie, this would prohibit such a high ranking.

However, no movie is perfect, and excellent parts of RotK redeem this movie. To say that the effects are nothing special is just wrong. One of the main reasons a Lord of the Rings live action movie had never been done before was the limitations of technology in either cost or capability. Jackson and WETA were able to develop technologies that made the effects managable, realistic, and cost-effective. The visual of this ends up being spectacular. Anybody who witnesses the scene where Gandlaf rides out from Minas Tirith to meet the the Gondorians from Osgiliath and shiled them from attacking Feel Beasts would see a great union of effects, cinematography, art direction and story. It's a poignant moment that would have been infeasable fifteen years ago; impossible twenty five years ago.

The fact that Peter Jackson is able to carry out this juggling act over the entirely of the movie is amazing. Most of the scenes require an improbable blending of technologies (be then new or old). I think the synergy of these effects, the art direction and the story are what put this film ahead of Mystic River. It is a vision unparalleled in movie history (though at times the script doesn't keep up with the majesty of the visuals). Is it far ahead of Mystic River? No. I wouldn't put it as far ahead as many would.

Pile (of) dung is unfair, but I respect your opinion ... especially your willingness to go against popular opinion. It does, at times, sound like more of a rant than a criticism.

anyways....the matrixc was also a huge over-rated pile of uber dung also, but like the LOTr trilogy i never felt for any of the characters or the storyline, which i've seen done better with a morehuman side to it before.

There is a reason it is at number twenty and not number one. At a certain point, you're moving beyond a criticism of the art and looking more towards the movies which have the most redeeming quality. At that point of the list, the twentieth ranked movie is basically interchangable with the thirty-fifth.

my list, although it wont hold the same "wow" factor you have, is my list and i will stae why for each one

(there is no order as i beleive this year to be downright awful in ters of good film releases)

Thanks for your list, too. From your list, these films were released in 2002:

NARC
28 Days LAter
Ripleys Game
The Pianist
Dark Blue

And this one was released in 2001:

The Man Who Sued God

The 2003 films that weren't on my list:

Life Of David Gale
Confidence
Seabiscuit
Finding Nemo

I have to admit that the only one from this list that really interested me was Life of David Gale, and I guess my life must have gotten busy at that time and missed it when it was here. It looked good, and I generally like both Spacey and Winslet, so I hope to see it. For the other three, I will try to make an effort to see them, as you wrote such good things about them.

Of course, any movie with Rachel Weisz is probably worth my time :).

[rf_ucsd]

ive only seen 2 movies out of the top 20 :o

it that because you're in Poland, you're not hugely into movies, or both?

[rf_ucsd]

:snore: :snore: :snore:


of course u dont have any interest....if u keep watchin cheesy bollywood productions.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:lol:

Thanks dionsio!

I was kind of hurt when I saw all those snoozies :bigcry:

[soleil]

You didn't see Seabuiscuit? :rolleyes: :lol:

[rf_ucsd]

No, it didn't look good to me ...

But now so many people are recommending it to me both here and elsewhere. I'm not a give fan of Tobey MacGuire, Jeff Bridges, horses or horse racing.

I like going to movies and I want to see everything, but at some point I have to make choices ...

... I would have much rather gone to Seabuiscit that S.W.A.T., but that one wasn't my choice :(

[soleil]

lol, someone forced you to watch swat?
yeah, i'm not into horses AT ALL, but i still think the movie was pretty good.

[shangrila]

rf_ucd

Sorry, don't know your name.

It looks like you got all the time in the world to have written all of this.

So dude, do you want to be a movie critic? :confused:

[i heart chrismartin]

I didn't see 20 movies this year... but from those I saw my favorites were:

LOTR: ROTK
28 DAYS LATER(it was released in 2002? but i saw it this year)
FINDING NEMO
MATRIX RELOADED
X-MEN: 2
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

[Majson]

Denzel Washington's recreation of Ruben Carter in The Hurricane should have garnered the ultimate recognition, as should have Crowe's protrayal of John Nash in A Beautiful Mind. Alas, I am not an authority and I don't have the final word on any of it.

I actually felt that Denzal wasn't the best actor in that year, although i do love the film..and i also felt crower, while good as Nash also wasn't the best actor of that year.

Still, Crowe's performance was good for what the role in Gladiator asked of him, but the problem is that the role was not a very demanding one, and ideally the top award would go to somebody whose role ask more of him (and he was able to deliver).

i think it was a hard role to do, i mean it was both physical, filmed in hot condidtions, with sdo much going on. The more i think abou it, the more i appreciate the affort invovled from everyone invovled.

This is far too harsh.

You're entitled to your opinions, as we all are, but there is something in there that crosses the line between valid criticism and undue cynicism. Using the term fanboy is uncalled for. It implies a personal bias in one's enthusiasm that clouds their judgement of those which might comparable. Given that acclaim for Return of the King is pretty widespread, the term is being misused. At the point the number of fanboys becomes significant enough to dictate a prodominence of opinion you should consider that the group has ceased to be fanboys.

But beyond that, criticisms that the movie is too long and that the acting is not great seem appropriate to me. I have a major objection to the length, the ending, and the performances of Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and Orlando Bloom (among others). The characters are at times undeveloped, but this can be said of almost any movie. It all depends on where you want to look. In a lesser movie, this would prohibit such a high ranking.

However, no movie is perfect, and excellent parts of RotK redeem this movie. To say that the effects are nothing special is just wrong. One of the main reasons a Lord of the Rings live action movie had never been done before was the limitations of technology in either cost or capability. Jackson and WETA were able to develop technologies that made the effects managable, realistic, and cost-effective. The visual of this ends up being spectacular. Anybody who witnesses the scene where Gandlaf rides out from Minas Tirith to meet the the Gondorians from Osgiliath and shiled them from attacking Feel Beasts would see a great union of effects, cinematography, art direction and story. It's a poignant moment that would have been infeasable fifteen years ago; impossible twenty five years ago.

The fact that Peter Jackson is able to carry out this juggling act over the entirely of the movie is amazing. Most of the scenes require an improbable blending of technologies (be then new or old). I think the synergy of these effects, the art direction and the story are what put this film ahead of Mystic River. It is a vision unparalleled in movie history (though at times the script doesn't keep up with the majesty of the visuals). Is it far ahead of Mystic River? No. I wouldn't put it as far ahead as many would.

Pile (of) dung is unfair, but I respect your opinion ... especially your willingness to go against popular opinion. It does, at times, sound like more of a rant than a criticism.

Well that is fair enough for you to say, but i am drawing my opinion based upon the people i know who have sene it and rant about how amazing it is. Maybe if is aw a more serious person who loved it, someone who didn't just jump up and down and que for hours to get a glimpse of the stars of the film at a premiere i would take the opinions more seriously.

I, however, cannot take that kind of opinion seriously. Although i do respect their opinion, and would never try tellign them that they're wrong (who am i to say that?) i also know that they are biased in what they're going to beleive, just like i will be with any kevin spacey film.

When LOTr 1st came out i really wanted to see it, it osunded like my kind of film, and i was dreading seeing harry potter. A stupid magician that just seems to borrow elemtns from everry great idea before it. It turned out i loved the entire idea of potter and felt bored during LOTR. I couldnt figure it, i still can't. On paper LOTr has what it takes to be one of the all time greats, but when i see it it just lacks that something for me to like it. As i've said, it just doesn't engage me on any level. Wish it did cos it would appear i'm missing out on something amazing.

Thanks for your list, too. From your list, these films were released in 2002:

NARC
28 Days LAter
Ripleys Game
The Pianist
Dark Blue

And this one was released in 2001:

The Man Who Sued God

they were all released in 2003 in the uk. I can only base my films of 2003 of those i saw in 2003. The pianist might have made the last oscars lsit but to me it was a 2003 film, as was NARc, ripleys game was released in june. so meh

As for spacey and winslet..yes their performances are good, the plot of david gale si solid, but if i'm honest it might only make my list because it's got spacey in and i'm just a spacey fan. But i like the film, there are spacey films i dont like "hurley burely" for example,. so it can't be totally bad

[badlydrawngirl]

I LOVED Kill Bill and Love Actually, they're my top recommendations from this very year :) :cool:

[rf_ucsd]

they were all released in 2003 in the uk. I can only base my films of 2003 of those i saw in 2003. The pianist might have made the last oscars lsit but to me it was a 2003 film, as was NARc, ripleys game was released in june. so meh

meh? nice.

I would love to put a lot of movies from 2002 or 2001 or 2000 on my list ... but that's not the topic here, is it? It is one thing to recommend those movies, but to say you have major problems with my list then produce a list where more than half of the movies are not 2003 releases ...

... well, i guess that's a little American-centric and slightly unfair. However, they're not 2003 movies to me and, technically, they're not 2003 movies at all. The movie In America was just released here two months ago and would be in my top 10 ...

... where it a 2003 movie.

Meh?

[gentleparachute]

I have never even read the books.

But beyond that, criticisms that the movie is too long and that the acting is not great seem appropriate to me. I have a major objection to the length, the ending, and the performances of Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and Orlando Bloom (among others).

This overlong ending showcases just how much Peter Jackson is committed to the original LOTR as presented / written by the author JRR Tolkien. I'm sure he (Jackson) was aware that most audiences would find the ROTK ending too long (20 minutes to wind down after the climax) but I think he wanted to introduce the spirit of the book to the cinematic audiences. As a fan of the book (and the movies), I personally found the 20 minutes a big treat even though it did drag pacing of the movie.

However I can't quite decide whether the acting felt 'subpar' (as compared to the rest of the movie) due to the actors themselves or the director not being able to capture / mould the film into a more wieldy form emotionally. Coz objectively speaking (after taking a step back from the film), I think many of the acting performances are better than many other films, and yet when I watch the film I have difficulty connecting / absorbing its full impact. The film may be too long for this; also Peter Jackson's relentless pressing on and piling on the emotions doesn't help either. Then again, he had no choice... How else to keep the audiences' rooted attention for 3 hours? :) It is an amazing feat by itself that the movie (huge as it is) managed to keep afloat and preserve its original spirit & gravity. Hats off to all concerned :lol:

The fact that Peter Jackson is able to carry out this juggling act over the entirely of the movie is amazing. Most of the scenes require an improbable blending of technologies (be then new or old).

This, as well as the fact (as pointed on top) that Jackson was willing to sacrifice pacing for faithfulness to Tolkien's original LOTR vision and spirit (as opposed to his own- he is fully capable of coming up with his own vision that is cinematically powerful) is why I think he (Jackson) is an amazing director and person. Though I do suppose the latter (sacrificing the pacing) will legitimately throw a question as to his oscar claim. :cry:

The characters are at times undeveloped, but this can be said of almost any movie. It all depends on where you want to look. In a lesser movie, this would prohibit such a high ranking.

To analyse, I think this is due to the fact that Jackson wanted to retain as much pace to the movie as possible, yet not change the feel of the film during translation from the book to screen so much that the movie lost its original feel from the book. Afterall, the director had already changed some parts to make them more cinematically effective.

However, no movie is perfect, and excellent parts of RotK redeem this movie. To say that the effects are nothing special is just wrong. One of the main reasons a Lord of the Rings live action movie had never been done before was the limitations of technology in either cost or capability. Jackson and WETA were able to develop technologies that made the effects managable, realistic, and cost-effective. The visual of this ends up being spectacular. Anybody who witnesses the scene where Gandlaf rides out from Minas Tirith to meet the the Gondorians from Osgiliath and shiled them from attacking Feel Beasts would see a great union of effects, cinematography, art direction and story. It's a poignant moment that would have been infeasable fifteen years ago; impossible twenty five years ago.

Redundant of me, but just have to say... I fully agree! :D

The 2003 films that weren't on my list:

Life Of David Gale
Confidence
Seabiscuit
Finding Nemo


Well, Finding Nemo was another quite good movie that might have made the list (I have to admit I haven't seen quite enough movies this year to make a qualified judgement). The characters (and animations) were real enough and they connected, though they weren't on the grand scale or dealt with huge affairs e.g. war, death etc. :D As usual, this is not the overwhelming criteria for me when I rate films... It used to be, but then I realised only certain types of films would only ever get good ratings if evaluated this way :P

Cheers y'all. Happy New Year! Have a good 2004...

[rf_ucsd]

This, as well as the fact (as pointed on top) that Jackson was willing to sacrifice pacing for faithfulness to Tolkien's original LOTR vision and spirit (as opposed to his own- he is fully capable of coming up with his own vision that is cinematically powerful) is why I think he (Jackson) is an amazing director and person. Though I do suppose the latter (sacrificing the pacing) will legitimately throw a question as to his oscar claim.


Thanks for all the good comments (most of which I'm gonna let stand since my feedback would be redundant.

In the end, I think the worst parts of the acting performances, script, direction and other production elements can be traced back to the cast and crews seeming desire to adhere to the text at points where it may have been better to opt for a better piece of film. That, however, doesn't seem to be their primary goal. As such, they're probably very happy with the sacrifices they did and didn't make.

[gentleparachute]

In the end, I think the worst parts of the acting performances, script, direction and other production elements can be traced back to the cast and crews seeming desire to adhere to the text at points where it may have been better to opt for a better piece of film. That, however, doesn't seem to be their primary goal. As such, they're probably very happy with the sacrifices they did and didn't make.

Well said, well said!

Btw, (may not really fit this thread's discussion - sorry rf_ucsd), is anyone interested to say anything about whether LOTR should have been: made to be more cinematic, truer to the book, or just remain as it is?

[Carol_Berryman]

I loved Love Actually, LOTR, Pirates of Caribbean, Lisbela e o Prisioneiro and Os Normais (brazilian movies).