Ernest Rister

"It features the first digital actor as a principle emotional actor in a film."

I thought Draco the Dragon in 1995's Dragonheart featured the first emotional character performance by a CGI character. Not to mention good old Woody and Buzz in Toy Story. Gollum is seven years behind.

"It represents a literary achievement by bringing a fantasy film to critical acclaim, including non-technical areas like acting and directing (some might call it the first legitimately great fantasy film)."

A work of cinema represents a literary achievement?

And great critical acclaim has been given to many filmed fantasy adaptations -- including Best Picture nods to Mary Poppins (Best Picture nomination, Best Actress winner - Julie Andrews) and MGM's Wizard of Oz? (Best Picture nomination, Judy Garlans, Oscar-winner for Best Juvenile Performance) just to list the two most famous examples. As for opinions that there hasn't been any "great fantasy work of substantial literary acclaim" that also won serious cinema accolades, what do you make of the esteem for the 1935 version of Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream? Also a Best Picture nominee, it was so well-thought of, that to this day, it is the ONLY film to actually see a WRITE IN vote trump the actual nominations! In addition to the Best Picture nod, it won for Best Cinematography, despite failing to even be nominated in that category!

"And it provides a "cast of thousands" concept updated to the digital world with their Massive special effects engine."

So did Lucasfilm with the crowd scenes in The Phantom Menace and the battle scenes i Episode II. So did Disney with Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1995. They didn't use "Massive", they used different software. A greater innovation than Massive, in my opinion, is Virtual Cinematography, invented for the Matrix sequels, an innovation that may one day change the face of filmmaking as we know it.

"I have no problem listing it among the landmarks of cinema."

I think it is a modern achievement. Whether it ranks among the best achievements in all of cinema history is another story altogether...

KyleG

OK, I'll revise...it's AMONG the greatest achievements in cinematic history. And yes, achievements are accomplished through work...and the end product is still, in the case of the Lord of the Rings, among the best ever put on screen. Hands down. So are all the films you mentioned. It takes a great combination of variables to create a final film, and yes, as a film student, I can say that we have studied LOTR, and used some of its footage in several editing classes. I don't want this to be a pissing contest. Opinions are opinions. All I've done is agree with you about the films you listed, and I can see you disagree on this particular set of films. They do transcend entertainment, or will in the future. Digital effects does not equal "just entertainment." There is an elegance to these films that simply must be recognized.

Kyle\'s 2003 Movie Wrap-Up

Poop Eatery (Kyle\'s Movie Reviews)

KyleG

Also, we should probably "take this outside," considering this is a best of 2003 thread...

Kyle\'s 2003 Movie Wrap-Up

Poop Eatery (Kyle\'s Movie Reviews)

Jan H

The LOTR films are a damn sight closer to Lawrence of Arabia and 2001 than they are to Cleopatra, the Abyss and other bloated dreck that passes for epics. For its ability to fuse visionary sweep with claustrophobia, technology with emotional intimacy, mythology with humanity, these films will be remembered as long as people watch films. Is it "great art"? A ridiculous question because of its utter subjectivity. But is there great artistry? In my view, unquestionably.

Steve Christou

Well in this case the end product was great whether Signor Ernesto says so or not, Ernest, hmmm weren't you the guy that promised to...



Wow you really do have it in for ROTK don't you? I suppose if it does win Best Picture we'll never hear the end of it, and how Mystic Bloody River was so criminally robbed of Oscar glory.

Ernest Rister

"Ernest, hmmm weren't you the guy that promised to..."

...drink my own urine if Return of the King won Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. I'll do it, too. It's an easy bet to make, because it aint gonna happen.

"I suppose if it does win Best Picture we'll never hear the end of it."

Hardly, since I think it's a no-brainer that ROTK is going to win. I've been saying that it is going to win for three months now. Trouble is, it's better to not know an injustice is about to take place, rather than having to stew in it for weeks. ROTK is going to win for the same reasons Fellowship lost to A Beautiful Mind -- and these are steeped in Academy politics, not individual achievement. Fellowship was the best film of 2001, and it lost because it was time to reward Ron Howard. Excellence had nothing to do with it. Return of the King is going to win not because it is the best individual film of 2003, but because it is time to reward the LOTR films. the best films of 2003 are going to have eat it and watch the absurdity take place.

When awards are handed out in such a fashion, they lose all credibility. The fact that the AMPAS failed to reward Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese for directing should tell you something. The fact that Gladiator beat Traffic should tell you something. The fact that Almost Famous wasn't even nominated should tell you something. The fact that A Beautiful Mind beat Fellowship should tell you something. The fact that Paul Giamatti wasn't nominated for American Splendor should tell you something. The fact that Julia Roberts beat Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream should tell you something. At what point do you finally realize that the annual AMPAS awards are not about awarding excellence in film craft, but are instead a highly-political industrial trade show based on nothing more than perception, that they are an ephemeral popularity contest no different than all of our pathetic grade school student council elections?

They're a joke. Go on and pretend they mean something if it makes it feel like "you won" because you're a LOTR fan. I'm sure Forrest Gump fans felt like they won in 1994, only to watch helplessly as audiences discovered a little film called The Shawshank Redemption, a film that has since gone on to challenge even the great Schindler's List as "best film of the 90's".

Mystic River is destined to join Raging Bull, Goodfellas, LA Confidential, Traffic, Shawshank, 2001, Citizen Kane, and scores of other Oscar losers who had to stand by and watch as conventional mass-market films were feted over brave, critical, innovative works...at this point, it's starting to look like winning a Best Picture Oscar is a stamp of mediocrity. The same people gave Oliver Best Picture over 2001: A Space Odyssey. Refused to award Welles, Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Scorsese.

Yeah - some big arbiter of excellence.

KyleG

"When awards are handed out in such a fashion, they lose all credibility. The fact that the AMPAS failed to reward Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese for directing should tell you something. The fact that Gladiator beat Traffic should tell you something. The fact that Almost Famous wasn't even nominated should tell you something. The fact that A Beautiful Mind beat Fellowship should tell you something. The fact that Paul Giamatti wasn't nominated for American Splendor should tell you something. The fact that Julia Roberts beat Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream should tell you something. At what point do you finally realize that the annual AMPAS awards are not about awarding excellence in film craft, but are instead a highly-political industrial trade show based on nothing more than perception and ephemeral popularity contest, no different than all of our pathetic grade school student council election? They're a joke."

Amen. Except I think ROTK deserves it this year. Mystic River tain't without it's flaws. Lost in Translation is more of a character study than great film, although I do believe it is an excellent excellent movie.

Kyle\'s 2003 Movie Wrap-Up

Poop Eatery (Kyle\'s Movie Reviews)

Steve Christou

I think you take the Oscars far more seriously than some of us do Ernest, they are fun to watch and chat about and they are mercifully totally forgotten a week or a month later, no one remembers who won what when or how, in a few years time the man on the street will be convinced Fellowship of the Ring did win the Best Picture Oscar, that 2001 won Best Picture in 1968 (it wasn't even nominated incredible as it may seem), Citizen Kane must have won back in 1941, and that no friggin' way could Shakespeare in Love have won over Saving Private Ryan 5 years ago!

Dana Fillhart

DVDs (24 Feb 2006): Discs - 2579, Titles - 1688 (Avg. 17 Titles/Month) • Films I\'ve Seen: 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002 • 2001

Alex Spindler

Argh, I was tired. I was trying to say...something that may have used words in that.

Some may be able to make a case for a showcase digital actor in a film, but I don't think any reached the level of Gollum in terms of emoting or believability. I don't think Draco or Jar Jar or any other digital character reached those heights. People were honestly talking about Academy recognition, which is quite an achievement. The only thing left is one that doesn't have a substantial amount of human motion capture behind them.

And Attack of the Clones was on par with the battle of Helm's Deep in The Two Towers but didn't come close in terms of scale or level of detail as Return of the King.

Much of this is, of course, subjective, so feel free to append IMO tags where appropriate.

ZacharyTait

The weird thing is, Shawshank did exactly that. When I saw Schindler's List, I knew I had seen one of the greatest films of all time. Now a decade later, only one film out of the 1,000 or so I've seen since then has managed to surpass it as the best film of all time. That film? Shawshank.