MikeG-1221
Joined Aug 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews13
MikeG-1221's rating
I've read comment after comment for this movie, and I can't believe that people don't get it. I saw this movie in the movies back when it came out, and found myself laughing hysterically. I wasn't laughing because the movie was sweet, but because Richard Curtis has served up a ridiculous parody of these types of movies. The funny thing is that nobody gets it. Every story, however, parodies the idea of love as something that is superficial and based on looks, rather than something that is deep and lasting. There is not a single moment in any of the multiple story lines that offers a sentimental reason for characters to be together. In particular, I thought 1) the storyline where the British guy goes to America and the American women immediately fall all over themselves for him and 2) the storyline where the Prime Minister's girlfriend is called "fat" and "plump" over and over again by everyone that knows her were not meant to be taken literally. This movie is not about love and is not a popcorn movie! I just can't believe that so many people missed how subversive and twisted this movie really is. What an incredible and subtle send up of love by Curtis that so few people really got what this movie was about!
The biggest blockbuster of this winter, King Kong had all of the promising elements of not only a financial winner for Hollywood, but the chance to be a critical darling as well. With a top flight cast, a big special effects budget, and a director who knows how to use those effects to actually make a movie and not just blow stuff up, King Kong had the opportunity to be that rare movie that is all things to all people. Sadly, it just wasn't to be.
It starts off in an extremely promising way, and Jackson builds up suspense in a way that the Lord of the Rings Series wouldn't do. The great thing about an archetypal story such as this is that we all knows what's going to happen; it truly takes a great director/writer to actually build suspense and make us care about what's going to happen next. Jackson does this, which makes the middle of the movie all the more aggravating.
Simply put, Jackson loses control. There's too much going on on the island. There are too many monsters, too many harrowing situations and (sadly) too many B movie clichés. The theme of the original story is lost and there's not much to put in its place. What you're left with is a movie where you're just waiting for an ending and, when that ending comes, the disappointment is palpable. It's too bad, too, because Jackson starts out with a bang and ends with a whimper. I don't know if this is the most critically overrated movie of 2005, but it's certainly the most overrated mainstream movie I've seen all year.
It starts off in an extremely promising way, and Jackson builds up suspense in a way that the Lord of the Rings Series wouldn't do. The great thing about an archetypal story such as this is that we all knows what's going to happen; it truly takes a great director/writer to actually build suspense and make us care about what's going to happen next. Jackson does this, which makes the middle of the movie all the more aggravating.
Simply put, Jackson loses control. There's too much going on on the island. There are too many monsters, too many harrowing situations and (sadly) too many B movie clichés. The theme of the original story is lost and there's not much to put in its place. What you're left with is a movie where you're just waiting for an ending and, when that ending comes, the disappointment is palpable. It's too bad, too, because Jackson starts out with a bang and ends with a whimper. I don't know if this is the most critically overrated movie of 2005, but it's certainly the most overrated mainstream movie I've seen all year.
This was a great film.
I've slogged through comment after comment for "Fellowship" and "The Two Towers," wondering what the fuss was. I won't go into it all again here, but I was disappointed by both the first and second movies. This movie, however, not only blows away the first two movies in the series, but also stands on its own as a masterpiece.
All of the problems in the first two movies disappear, as if Peter Jackson finally realized the great vision of LOTR in one spectacular movie.
The action in this movie moves swiftly and brings the viewer right in, right from the opening scene with Smeagol. The direction captures the feel of climax immediately, and doesn't let go until Frodo accomplishes his mission of destroying the ring.
In a movie like this, special effects generally stand out over acting. But a few performances in what is a solid ensemble shine majestically over the rest. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin capture the anguish of carrying ring and the struggle between the weight of their quest and the toll it takes on their friendship. Wood's body language and facial acting say more than any dialogue could have possibly said.
The big surprise for me in this movie, though, was Viggo Mortensen's performance. Whether it was because of Mortensen himself, or because of the fact that the first two movies obliterated much of his dialogue, his performance in the first two films didn't stand out. In this movie, he takes the mantle as the title character and infuses his character with strength and courage. Almost every moment he's on the screen, he exudes charisma and strength, qualities that are hard enough to reveal in a book, let alone a movie.
The triumph of ROTK, however, is in the plotting and action itself. In some movies, characters dominate the story, while in other movies, characters are swept along by events. LOTR is clearly in the latter category, and Return of the King thrusts the viewer into the action early and doesn't stop until the ring is destroyed and Frodo and Sam are rescued. The writing team finally gives up on sticking in tons of cute Gimli lines and avoids long speeches that seem out of context and almost jarring. Every character in the movie reacts to the heft of the quest.
If you loved the first two movies, I'm sure you'll love this one. If you didn't like the first two movies, I'd still recommend "Return of the King." Unlike many of the rabid Rings fans, I'm reluctant to bestow awards left and right after walking out of the theater. However, Peter Jackson's direction is award-worthy, without a doubt. No fantasy movie has ever captured the combination of splendor and gothic darkness of the fantasy genre more than this movie did.
ROTK is clearly an epic, even though the first two movies were not. This is movie is a perfect 10 out of 10. I'll let time be the judge of whether or not this movie is an all-time great, but this is definitely the best movie I've seen in 2003.
I've slogged through comment after comment for "Fellowship" and "The Two Towers," wondering what the fuss was. I won't go into it all again here, but I was disappointed by both the first and second movies. This movie, however, not only blows away the first two movies in the series, but also stands on its own as a masterpiece.
All of the problems in the first two movies disappear, as if Peter Jackson finally realized the great vision of LOTR in one spectacular movie.
The action in this movie moves swiftly and brings the viewer right in, right from the opening scene with Smeagol. The direction captures the feel of climax immediately, and doesn't let go until Frodo accomplishes his mission of destroying the ring.
In a movie like this, special effects generally stand out over acting. But a few performances in what is a solid ensemble shine majestically over the rest. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin capture the anguish of carrying ring and the struggle between the weight of their quest and the toll it takes on their friendship. Wood's body language and facial acting say more than any dialogue could have possibly said.
The big surprise for me in this movie, though, was Viggo Mortensen's performance. Whether it was because of Mortensen himself, or because of the fact that the first two movies obliterated much of his dialogue, his performance in the first two films didn't stand out. In this movie, he takes the mantle as the title character and infuses his character with strength and courage. Almost every moment he's on the screen, he exudes charisma and strength, qualities that are hard enough to reveal in a book, let alone a movie.
The triumph of ROTK, however, is in the plotting and action itself. In some movies, characters dominate the story, while in other movies, characters are swept along by events. LOTR is clearly in the latter category, and Return of the King thrusts the viewer into the action early and doesn't stop until the ring is destroyed and Frodo and Sam are rescued. The writing team finally gives up on sticking in tons of cute Gimli lines and avoids long speeches that seem out of context and almost jarring. Every character in the movie reacts to the heft of the quest.
If you loved the first two movies, I'm sure you'll love this one. If you didn't like the first two movies, I'd still recommend "Return of the King." Unlike many of the rabid Rings fans, I'm reluctant to bestow awards left and right after walking out of the theater. However, Peter Jackson's direction is award-worthy, without a doubt. No fantasy movie has ever captured the combination of splendor and gothic darkness of the fantasy genre more than this movie did.
ROTK is clearly an epic, even though the first two movies were not. This is movie is a perfect 10 out of 10. I'll let time be the judge of whether or not this movie is an all-time great, but this is definitely the best movie I've seen in 2003.