Jump to content

Welcome to 1Emulation.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Favorite movies of 2003? Not only Oscar nominated.

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#12
stealthcat

stealthcat

    Member

  • Members
  • 79 posts
Click to view battle stats
LOTR got shafted 2 times already, just let it win for once. Can't believe it lost to Godsford Park 2 years ago :)

#13
Gryph

Gryph

    The K Man

  • 1Emu Veteran
  • 14,666 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL
Click to view battle stats
Gosford Park was a good movie, though. It had intrigue, plot, wonderful acting, and everything else.

Why should LOTR win just because it was shafted twice? The award should go to the best movie of the year, which consequently is most probably LOTR.

#14
ovalprocess

ovalprocess

    silicone lifeform

  • Premium Members
  • 148 posts
Click to view battle stats
lotr are fine action/adventure movies... but i think that the main reason why people like them so much isnt because they are technically quality films. the nostalgia is what sells them 9 times out of 10, even if people dont realize it. put some fancy schmancy special effects and half-decent acting in a classic story and its almost always a guaranteed hit.

doesnt really make it oscar calibur tho, imo.

#15
Captain FuKu

Captain FuKu

    Proud Fan

  • Premium Members
  • 438 posts
Click to view battle stats
Probably Kill Bill vol.1 for overall personal favorite.

As for The Last Samurai, it wasn't a bad movie; and I'd go so far as to say it even had some emotionally moving scenes -- even from my point of view, which is saying quite a bit if you know me in real life. But then, even after such "moving scenes", I can't help it, but it hits me: this movie is not very accurate. Or specifically, the problem is that it portrays Samurais in a very unrealistic romantized view -- aka, not historically true (nevermind that Cruise's character was entirely fictional, but everything else as well). I could describe in great detail, but I'll choose not to waste time. (Still, not a bad movie, as long as you keep things in perspective that in no fashion is any of the ideas proposed in the movie accurate.)

Last, LOTR: The Return of the King was not a bad movie. It had it's negatives, but the audience knows that it is complete fantasy so it can get away with a lot. Only downside for me was that the last half hour of the movie or so, I felt like it had been overly long with its farewells and its unsuccessful attempt at creating "moving/touching scenes", cuz frankly, for me the only reason I stayed till the end was to see the death of Saruman.

*BUT* as we all know (or most of us who've read the books), that scene never made it to the theatrical release. And so, the theatrical versions have all these gaps because it never specifically addressed what happened to Saruman after his defeat -- just to name one. So I ended up staying that last half hour just to see that scene, and I find that it was cut out, and we end up watching some humdrum goodbyes and farewells, which never brought a single drop of tear to my eyes.

I just left the theater feeling robbed of that last half hour, when otherwise, it could have been a much "fuller/complete" experience. Oh well, that's why there's always the extended edition DVDs, no? Eh...sorry, enough rant.

Edited because I can be a grammer freak at times.

Edited by Captain FuKu, 06 February 2004 - 11:32 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users