The Shawshank Redemption

Well if your going to mention kubrick you have to throw paths of glory somewhere on that list.

Holy cow you’re right, I can’t believe I left that one off.

Really all of Kubrick’s films, with the possible exception of Killer’s Kiss, should be on the top 100. That man just did not make a bad film. Pretty amazing.

[i]Originally posted by jcl49er[/i]@Sep 14 2004, 09:13 PM [b] Of course, there are 3 Lord of the Rings movies in IMDB.com's top 10 also and I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through two minutes combined of all three movies, so to each their own I suppose. :)

[/b]


If you read the books then watch the movies you may come to appreciate the movies a lot more. To see the extent that went into these movies is unbelieveable. I know the first time I saw Fellowship I didn’t care a lot for it because it didn’t make sense. But once I read the books and watched it again I thought it was great.

Fellowship was great, the other two sucked out loud. As a movie fan, I thought they were boring and hokey, as a LOTRs fan, I thought Jackson totally decimated the books.

Best comedies:

  1. Office Space
  2. Old School
  3. Caddy Shack
  4. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
  5. Meet the Parents
  6. Animal House
  7. Dodgeball

Best movies:

  1. The Matrix
  2. The Godfather
  3. Fight Club
  4. Pulp Fiction
  5. Full Metal Jacket
  6. American Beauty
  7. The Godfather II
  8. Star Wars
  9. Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2 (it was supposed to be one movie after all)
  10. Saving Private Ryan

Three Bad Movies:
Matrix Revolutions
Godfather III
Star Wars Episode I

[i]Originally posted by Powerbait[/i]@Sep 20 2004, 01:21 PM [b] Fellowship was great, the other two sucked out loud. As a movie fan, I thought they were boring and hokey, as a LOTRs fan, I thought Jackson totally decimated the books. [/b]
You think Jackson decimated the books?! Sure there was no Bombadil or Glorfindel, and he expanded Arwen's character, and the relationships between Gimli/Legolas, and Frodo/Sam could have been fleshed out more... but decimated?! I'm a diehard LOTR/Tolkien fan. And while Jackson did take some liberties, the movies exceeded my expectation by far. I was expecting a complete butcher job. If he was to have gone word-for-word, scene for scene, while sure the diehard Tolkien fans wouldn't mind sitting down for 7hrs for just TTT, nor the 5hrs for ROTK.... as a movie it wouldn't have done nearly as well. Somethings got to give.

The movies a movie fan I thought they we great. As a Tolkien fan, I thought Jackson did as well as could be expected, if not better, in his adaptation to film.

Jackson redefined the movie epic; first time that has been done in decades.

And like Star Wars did for Sci-Fi 25+ years ago, he also saved/established/finally broke through the cinema stigma against the fantasy genre & made it transcend all market demographics.

LoTR was a staggering success for fantasy/science fiction and epic cinema. A lot of people who read this board weren’t born or cannot remember the last time this happened (star wars).

On a personal note, I loved the movies, but as a Tolkein fan, I love the extended editions so much more. RotK is gonna be 4 hours and 10 minutes total and I cannot wait to see the extra hour of footage. The whole extended series is something like 11 hours long - all painstakingly fulfillment of Tolkein’s vision. I daresay he would not have been able to do it any better if he were alive to oversee the project, and therefore, I bet he would have approved. It’s “just a movie” after all.

JCL - phooey on you :stuck_out_tongue:

[i]Originally posted by CPA_Niner+Sep 20 2004, 12:53 PM-->
[b]QUOTE[/b] (CPA_Niner @ Sep 20 2004, 12:53 PM)
[i]Originally posted by Anborn[/i]@Sep 20 2004, 02:38 PM [b] You think Jackson decimated the books?! Sure there was no Bombadil or Glorfindel, and he expanded Arwen's character, and the relationships between Gimli/Legolas, and Frodo/Sam could have been fleshed out more... but decimated?! I'm a diehard LOTR/Tolkien fan. And while Jackson did take some liberties, the movies exceeded my expectation by far. I was expecting a complete butcher job. If he was to have gone word-for-word, scene for scene, while sure the diehard Tolkien fans wouldn't mind sitting down for 7hrs for just TTT, nor the 5hrs for ROTK.... as a movie it wouldn't have done nearly as well. Somethings got to give.

The movies a movie fan I thought they we great. As a Tolkien fan, I thought Jackson did as well as could be expected, if not better, in his adaptation to film. [/b]


I didn’t say I wanted it word for word or scene for scene.

If you’re going to use the argument that the books were too long, then I’m going to use the argument that he shouldn’t have made up new stuff that made the movies even longer and that totally went against the books.

Why take the ring to gondor? Why make Aragorn the centerpiece of this story? Why make Legolas superman? Why make Gimli a joke? Why ruin the Ents?

As a movie fan, I don’t want to sit through a 10 minute sequence showing mountain tops. I don’t want to see people run through mountains for another 10 minutes.

The two towers was terrible, the ending of RotK was almost another movie.

Fellowship was well done, true to the story and the spirit of the book and an enjoyable movie.

It’s been so long since I’ve seen the suckfests that I forgot all the things he did wrong, but suffice to say that they were pretty lousy adaptions of a novel and bad movies to boot. I don’t want to sit through another three hours of suck.

Come now, Kubrick made a lot good movies, but “Eyes Wide Shut” is not one of them. Not even Tom Cruise’s acting and Nicole Kidman’s body could overcome the plot. And that’s saying a lot.

[i]Originally posted by Powerbait[/i]@Sep 20 2004, 06:18 PM [b] [QUOTE=Anborn,Sep 20 2004, 02:38 PM]

Why take the ring to gondor? Why make Aragorn the centerpiece of this story? Why make Legolas superman? Why make Gimli a joke? Why ruin the Ents?

[/b]


Powerbait, although you probably won’t do it, you should watch the movies with the commentaries. He provided a lot of insight as to why he did things. Some things just don’t translate well into the big screen. His reasoning for taking the ring to Gondor was that you can’t build up this ring as being the most powerful thing in the world only to have Faramir say, “No, I don’t want it”, like he did in the book.

Personally I think they are three of the best movies ever, sure there are parts that could have been better but that’s the case with every movie. Overall they were great, hence the 11 Oscar sweep for ROTK.

[i]Originally posted by CPA_Niner[/i]@Sep 21 2004, 08:18 AM [b] [QUOTE=Powerbait,Sep 20 2004, 06:18 PM] [QUOTE=Anborn,Sep 20 2004, 02:38 PM]

Why take the ring to gondor? Why make Aragorn the centerpiece of this story? Why make Legolas superman? Why make Gimli a joke? Why ruin the Ents?

[/QUOTE]
Powerbait, although you probably won’t do it, you should watch the movies with the commentaries. He provided a lot of insight as to why he did things. Some things just don’t translate well into the big screen. His reasoning for taking the ring to Gondor was that you can’t build up this ring as being the most powerful thing in the world only to have Faramir say, “No, I don’t want it”, like he did in the book.

Personally I think they are three of the best movies ever, sure there are parts that could have been better but that’s the case with every movie. Overall they were great, hence the 11 Oscar sweep for ROTK. [/b]


It wasn’t so much that he didn’t want it in the book, it’s that he feared what he would do with it. I think that would make sense in the movie. Faramir was a true noble man. He understood the importance of Frodo’s mission, unlike his brother.

I loved the first one, I think it was great. One day someone will probably talk me into watching the director’s cut of the other two, but not any time soon. That’s a lot of time to invest in a movie I don’t like, especially when I feel it total ruins a great book.

I can accept things like the Elves showing up at the Battle of Helms Deep, but other things were just laughable (like the flashlight that Gandalf uses to attack the Nazgul).

But, one thing that will never make sense to me, why do the Ents have to be talked into fighting Sarauman? They were pretty ticked off and ready to go in the first place, they just get pushed over the edge. For Star Wars fans, that’s like when they made Han fire second.

Little things like that are really annoying, and the movie gets really cheesy sometimes. I don’t think Viggo Mortensen is that great of an actor, personally. I think Orlando Bloom is nondescript. I hate Liv Tyler, and I hated the stupid romance that they made such a big deal. I seriously hated watching people run. We get the idea, it’s a long way, put in more action, more story, less running and shots of stupid mountains being set on fire.

However, I understand that people like the movie a lot. A lot of people loved Titanic too, and I thought it was mediocre. Fellowship of the Ring is easily the best fantasy movie ever made, I was sad that the other two were such a let down.

[b]Kubrick made a lot good movies, but "Eyes Wide Shut" is not one of them.[/b]

EWS is an under-appreciated gem, and given time it will establish itself as a classic. Much like Blade Runner and Mallrats before it, some things don’t pan out well in the beginning but find their own over time.

I loved it from opening day. Great film, IMHO.

Shawshank is on again tonite- 8:00 AMC. Don’t miss it