Best Picture: 1998
'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' is one of the best edited films I've ever seen. It feels like a stand alone film (a claim which no other film in the trilogy can truly bolster) and although the main parties are never on-screen at the same time, they are unified by music and theme. It has a darker sense of realism missing from the first, which was more concerned with naive fanboy rebirth; whereas 'The Two Towers' contains relevant metaphors to our current situation in the world, rendering it accidentally relevant but relevant nonetheless. It has a fantastic final battle, some of the most amazing effects I've ever seen, and the best sequences in the trilogy. I love it and I think it's one of the strongest piece of pop entertainment since 'Back to the Future'. I would argue that the first and third entries of the series hinge on the success of this fantastic blockbuster.
"How's the despair?"
When I got home after seeing Shakesspeare In Love I immediately went to imdb to see what other films Tom Stoppard had a hand in. A wonderful story. Especially loved the end with the suggestion of how Shakespeare may have been inspired to write Twelfth Night. I know it was not supposed to be funny but I was laughing out loud because it struck me as so clever.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
-
Aceisgreat
- Temp
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 7:56 am
"Saving Private Ryan" for me, although "Shakespeare In Love" has grown on me.
I enjoy both "Elizabeth" and "Elizabeth I," the former more so than the latter (and in terns of accuracy, the latter is much more off the wall than the former).
I enjoy both "Elizabeth" and "Elizabeth I," the former more so than the latter (and in terns of accuracy, the latter is much more off the wall than the former).
"I can't stand a naked light bulb any more than I can a rude remark or a vulgar action." -- Blanche DuBois
I thought Elizabeth I was a complete waste of time, Mirren's strong work excepted.
I adore Lord of the Rings though - I'm a fanboy through and through.
As for 1998 - this is a year I'm very dispassionate about. I love two films flat out (Out of Sight and The Celebration), and a few more that I love as if they're masterpieces but know they're not (The Butcher Boy, The Truman Show, A Simple Plan). But after that, it trails off. At first, I assumed that it was because I hadn't seen a lot of the acclaimed works, but if you go by this list, I've seen all but the Kitano works.
I adore Lord of the Rings though - I'm a fanboy through and through.
As for 1998 - this is a year I'm very dispassionate about. I love two films flat out (Out of Sight and The Celebration), and a few more that I love as if they're masterpieces but know they're not (The Butcher Boy, The Truman Show, A Simple Plan). But after that, it trails off. At first, I assumed that it was because I hadn't seen a lot of the acclaimed works, but if you go by this list, I've seen all but the Kitano works.
Ditto.Eric wrote:I disliked Fellowship enough that I've never finished the trilogy. Actually, no, I tried to get into Two Towers but turned it off after about 15 minutes.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Eric -- I'm not a Rings fanboy or anything (the second one is the best of the trilogy in my opinion, and I wouldn't have voted for any of them for Best Picture) but I really hated Saving Private Ryan. I take it you dislike the trilogy?
Atomicage -- I was sort of kidding by classifying it a "war film." My point was just that SPR sucks and I was trying to debunk the importance we assign to categories like "war films" by selecting a gay nerd fantasia like Lord of the Rings. A lot of people seem to think SPR is an "important" film and therefore must be a good one (Eric, I know this was never your claim). It's the same thing Virginia Woolf complained about in A Room of One's Own -- that men write about war, war is thought to be important and epic, and so male issues are always seen as bigger than women's issues.
Ok ok, that actually wasn't what I intended at all, but it could have been, and it works well selecting a bloated epic like Rings for a "war film."
Edited By Akash on 1196722683
Atomicage -- I was sort of kidding by classifying it a "war film." My point was just that SPR sucks and I was trying to debunk the importance we assign to categories like "war films" by selecting a gay nerd fantasia like Lord of the Rings. A lot of people seem to think SPR is an "important" film and therefore must be a good one (Eric, I know this was never your claim). It's the same thing Virginia Woolf complained about in A Room of One's Own -- that men write about war, war is thought to be important and epic, and so male issues are always seen as bigger than women's issues.
Ok ok, that actually wasn't what I intended at all, but it could have been, and it works well selecting a bloated epic like Rings for a "war film."
Edited By Akash on 1196722683
Oh I definitely see his point. I've just never thought of it necessarily like that. ???OscarGuy wrote:Akash has a point. J.R.R. Tolkien was a military man and much of his creation of the world of Middle Earth occurred while he was in the trenches. Thus, there's a significant war-story bent to the entire production, including the camaraderie developed between the characters as they brave the horrors of the War of the Ring, which is indeed what the entire trilogy was centered around.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Akash has a point. J.R.R. Tolkien was a military man and much of his creation of the world of Middle Earth occurred while he was in the trenches. Thus, there's a significant war-story bent to the entire production, including the camaraderie developed between the characters as they brave the horrors of the War of the Ring, which is indeed what the entire trilogy was centered around.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I was considering asking you if you were crazy, but as I always say, to each his own. I've never bothered comparing the two (one being Ryan and the other being the whole trilogy) until now... I said that LOTR is a better film, but I really don't think it's fair to compare the two, in the end. I enjoy both in their own respects.Eric wrote:Lord of the Rings is sooo not a better any type of film than Saving Private Ryan, and that (of course) includes fantasy.
Well, I guess if you count Lord of the Rings as a war trilogy, then yes, you are correct. Though War is not exactly the genre I've heard any three of the films (except maybe Return of the King) categorized as. It's like Star Wars... sure, there are battles, but I've never heard anyone call them war films.Akash wrote:Lord of the Rings is a better war film than Saving Private Ryan.
I had fun too, Steph. You are awesome!