LotR Takes Top Spot on IMDB 433
Dwarf_Sibling writes "Hard to believe but with over 11,000 votes tallied LoTR:FoTR has displaced "The Godfather" as the highest rated movie at IMDB. Over time I'd guess this will fall lower, but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie."
Well deserved (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a fantastic movie, and apart from slightly too long fight scenes, an overuse of dramatic music, and a penchant for long fly by panning shots, there is very little to be criticized. Excellent execution that keeps you riveted to your seat for 3 hours straight. You have to respect LotR for making a superb movie given the challenges, versus saying putting a bunch of people in suits and getting them to talk with an Italian accent.
Deservedly so! (Score:3, Interesting)
With good reason, too (Score:3, Interesting)
I went to see it by myself, so I had no one to discuss it with, but as I was leaving, I glanced over the people I had watched it with. Most were staring off into the night with eyes gleaming, remembering. The frightening Nazgul, the oh so beautifully rendered Balrog, the horror of Boromir's betrayl, and the stern stuff that hobbits are made of.
Since seeing the movie, everyone I've spoken to it about has been heaping praise upon praise on it, and it completely deserves it.
I've also been following its rise on IMDB, even contributing my vote (10). When I voted, it was rated at 9.7, and listed at #6. If a movie deserves to be #1, this would be it.
Doing well due to 2001 circumstances (Score:4, Interesting)
Movies like Moulin Rouge, Memento, Mulholland Drive, and a few others have a lot of quirks in them that makes them not completely acceptable by the broad general public. High-budget movies such as Pearl Harbor did not live up to their expectations. And Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone made most of its money in the first few weeks just to satisfy the pent-up demand from all those young readers of the Harry Potter books (it's a good, but not a great movie).
I think in the end, 2001 will be the year that only two movies will have good box-office take over a long period of time: Shrek and Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.
IMDB Pisses Me Off (Score:1, Interesting)
So don't trust their ratings!!!!!
IMHO, as per
J:)
Studio vote stuffing (Score:2, Interesting)
as an indicator of new movies nowadays, because
of the massive vote stuffing used by the
studios. Starting with the Blair Witch Project,
the studios have rolled this into their marketing
campaigns. I have seen favorable comments posted
on Imdb even before the movie was officially released by people claiming to have seen the preview.
Magnus.
Re:With good reason, too (Score:1, Interesting)
The film would have been great anywhere, but for where I watched it was terrific. I live in Wellington, New Zealand and watched the film in Peter Jackson's local theatre!
I read that some people heckle the ending. There was no chance of that tonight. Our Jackson-loving audience clapped and cheered as the credits rolled!
Rich
IMDB (Score:3, Interesting)
Another problem is that the voting scale is too fine for most people and that people tend to be conservatively critical. The number of people voting 2 or 3 is much lower, statistically, that those who vote 8 or 9 becuase people tend to be too NICE when rating a film unless they REALLY hate it in which case they'll give it a 1. A scale of one to four or five would be more indicative than the current scale.
Yes we do! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:A Satisfied Non-Fantasy Fan (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd certainly be a bit pissed if the producers or studio say, "We have to call it Lord of the Rings II, or the idiots won't be able to tell the difference." You just know there's dumb enough people in Hollywood to think that and even push it through.
IMDB is a web poll (Score:1, Interesting)
Some fantasy and SCI-FI fans seem to have a bizarre sense of competition with other categories of movies and entertainment. They are hell-bent on defending their preferred choices of entertainment because they are so different.
Is LOTR good, a surprisingly wide variety of people (i.e. sci-fi/fantasy fans and non-fans alike) think so. Is LOTR the best movie ever produced, I doubt it. Will film scholars think so, probably not. Do sci-fi/fantasy fans feel the need to go completely overboard in praising the movie, apparently so. Why?
Re:Cool, but with a grain of salt. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Deservedly so! (Score:3, Interesting)
As for showing Sauron... a big mistake, I think. Yes, an audience needs to have a valid enemy... but if done right, an unseen one would be even more threatening and disturbing. Perhaps PJ wasn't quite brave enough to attempt it.
The details were nice, mostly out of the way of the general audience while giving us addicts small injections.
Galadriel issue you mentioned was a disappointment - not that one instance specifically, but overall... a lot of the sad/beautiful/etc themes and back-issues were left out.
Overall very good. *Sigh* 2 more years.
Wow... I can't believe this! (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially, I feel this was a (successful) attempt to put readers' favorite scenes from the book on film, and to do it in a very expensive way, and to make a lot of money off that hype. But I think it fails at being a great movie on its own. This was definitely better than The Phantom Menace, but it is far from being the best movie ever.
Re:I don't agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently not a fluke (Score:4, Interesting)
-- the external reviews have been very good, so it's not just sci-fi-fantasy types lauding it;
-- if you look in the top 10 grossing films - 6 of 10 are sci-fi in both the us box and worldwide box - no other genre is close;
-- i've always been a sci-fi fan, and a tolkien nut, and have always deferred to mainstream films when it comes time to high praise - i was glad annie hall won best pic in 1977 - star wars deserved technical awards, but was not the best film made that year...
-- but this has me thinking - sci fi movies are great entertainment and make for outstanding cinematic experiences - this stuff makes good movies in a more rounded way than i'd imagined.
-- now if only hhgg can still be made, we'd have the best of all worlds! as funny as anything that won an oscar, just techie enough and honestly good plot/story arc/characters, all that good stuff.
List of 14 movies as good as the books (Score:5, Interesting)
Has there ever been a movie that's been "as good" as the book?
Absolutely. Off the top of my head, and I know I'm missing a bunch:
Re:Studio vote stuffing (Score:3, Interesting)
A Non-Reader's Persective (Score:4, Interesting)
I went into LotR with an open mind. Having never read the books, I really didn't know what to expect. From the opening sequence, I was enthralled.
Several things struck me about this movie. First and foremost, it takes itself seriously. I'll never be able to watch Phantom Menace again, because LotR does what PM should have -- presented a serious and dark tale of myth.
After seeing LotR for the second time, I find it curious that so many people complain about character progression. When your last impression of Sam and Frodo is of them walking off together, and then you see them at the beginning of the movie again, the change is stark.
The special effects were fantastic.
The acting was fantastic.
The dialogue and pacing were fantastic.
The last action/adventure movie I saw that was this good was the Matrix, period. For three hours I was swept away into a different land with vivid scenery, odd creatures, and a compelling story. I can't imagine what more I would want from this movie.
Best movie ever? If Towers and King turn out just as good, then I believe the trilogy as a whole is worthy of such consideration. It's certainly not a cinematic masterpiece like Citizen Kane, but if you were going out this weekend, which movie would you rather see?
Fellowship of the Rings could be described with one word that I rarely use but is completely apropos: epic. How many other movies can claim the same?
LOTR and the Missing Plot (Score:4, Interesting)
It is however, a very Cliff Notes friendly version of the plot. I'll take two instances here, and let you decide the rest.
1) Bill the horse. One of my favorite characters from the book is undoubtedly cut to shreds by the film. I don't know why they even bothered including the five-second scene of Sam and Bill. Maybe simple nostalgia from Jackson and possibly trying to give Sam some type of emotional grounding since his only other character scene was dancing with Lucy in the first moments in Hobbiton.
2) The Aragorn/Arwen romance. I have no problems whatsoever with this type of story manipulation, and I am glad that Arwen got such a prominent role in the film (and undoubtedly in the next two as well). But this romance is forced, with the simple gestures and "remember how we met" dialogue not enough emotional foundation to give them the effect that is needed.
These are just two examples, there are plenty more. The word is that Peter Jackson's first cut of the film was 3 hours 30 minutes. It's possible that New Line, scared enough that it was over 3 hours, didn't want to risk such a long cut since the longer it is the fewer showings the film can have. So 30 minutes of character development probably went right out the window.
Must I point out that Titanic, a great flick (despite all you naysayers), is 3 hours 20 minutes, has solid character development, "legs" like you wouldn't believe (ie, stayed on the charts for more than 3 months), and grossed more than any film in history. The hobbits are dreadfully bland, Legolas (especially) and Gimili are bystanders at best. Boromir is given one scene where he describes Gondor as his character moment, with most of the screen time given to the leads. Gandalf is represented best, which is why his (SPOILER WARNING) demise (SPOILER END) is so powerful. I loved the after-Moria sequence, though it was easily apparent that the on-the-rocks scene where Boromir is teaching Merry and Pippin how to sword fight was cut down to shreds, when it really shouldn't have been--after such a huge setpiece, a character-driven segment would've been welcomed.
It wasn't until I saw the film the second time that all of this occurred to me. Having re-read the books this summer to get a feel for them, I knew all the characters and took all of the shortcuts for granted. Though one can still enjoy the film as it is constructed (hell, even my girlfriend liked it), when you read the books the events are much more effecting, bringing to life all of those superb moments you once built in your imagination.
The plot goes as such: a little story, a big action sequence, a little story, a big action sequence, etc. Repeat ad nauseum.
Let's just hope that judging by the immense reaction, both from fans and critics--a rare event indeed, that New Line will give Jackson more leeway with The Two Towers and Return of the King and let him include some truly meaningful character moments.
And damn I can't wait for the LOTR:FOTR Director's Cut!
Re:Better than the Godfather? (Score:2, Interesting)
You'll also find that Empire Strikes Back is number 17 on IMDB, and I know many people, myself included, who feel it is the best of the SW movies. But a conclusion? Heck, it ended with a main character abducted, betrayal then help of a friend, the group split up, a hero in turmoil, and evil in control. Uh... sounds more like FOTR than I thought...
Anyway, I think Hollywood pushes too hard to wrap movies up with a bow. A good movie is a snapshot of life somewhen/somewhere else, and life doesn't always resolve things neatly.
Agreed. (Score:3, Interesting)
When one compares the artistry at work here to anything Lucas has done, it's almost embarassing that Lucas is working as a filmmaker at all.
Re:I don't agree (Score:2, Interesting)
Notice the presence of 'Star Trek: First Contact' at no. 7 (!) above Casablanca in 1996. Now it is nowhere to be seen on the 250. Also 'Trainspotting' has fallen further down the list. Both these movies were in release around the time the poll was made. Who remembers 'Lone Star' now?
If you follow the imdb 250, a new movie shooting into the top ten happens all the time. It's nice to see this movie up there but don't assume too much from the rating just yet.
Re:Well deserved (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, a lot of that was done with good old-fashioned trick photography. The technique is called "forced perspective".
I agree. It was done extremely well.
Even more impressive is the near-universal acclaim. Conservative websites (National Review), liberal websites (Salon), even most of the fundie Christian websites (other than the babbling lunatic at capalert.org) all thought it was fantastic. True, Tolkien was himself a devout Christian, and the theology of LOTR is essentially Christian, but I didn't expect them to Get It.
It missed 4 stars in Ebert's review, only because Ebert himself is something of a Tolkien fanboy, and found some of the (necessary) changes a little offputting.
Still, I can't recall the last time a movie got anything like this level of critical support COMBINED with this level of popularity. Well done, Mr. Jackson!
Contrast FotR to Titanic? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the box office, December 1997:
Paramount releases Titanic on Friday, to a weekend box office take of only $28,638,131, which is actually not bad given the mere 2,674 screens it played on. A Bond flick released the same day does nearly as well, around 25 mil. This is a good opening, but not remarkable. However, over the week, it takes another $24,331,205, and then another $35,455,673 the next weekend. Then another $35,727,684 over the week, then $33,315,278 on the weekend. This trend continued over the next two months, bouncing around in the $25-35 million range both weekends and weekdays totals, until the end of February, when it slipped below $20mil on weekends, and plummetted on weekdays to the (more typical) $5mil range. It then started to slide slowly down toward the $12mil weekend range, with a brief spike for spring break, until the end of April. Then it abrubtly dropped to about $5mil at the begining of May. A month later, it was drawing about $1mil a week, which was pretty much finis. What was unprecedented was: The weekday take was as high as weekend for the first two months (Leno's "housewife factor"?), and; The falloff curve was typical of a solid drama making 20% the weekly gross, not the much more flash in the pan spike and settle of an action film. For contrast, the first three months curve of Titanic (on a by week, not by day, basis) is pretty much lockstep matched by the two week older "Good Will Hunting"... but about five times as high.
How is this significant with regard to FotR? FotR has the potential to pull in a broader demographic than most films that would be reviewed here. It's getting the same kind of fervered reviews as Titanic did (with much better cause, IMO, but I'm biased... I saw Titanic for the effects, and because it was playing and my friends wanted to see it, but I wouldn't have gone a second time if the most attractive woman I knew had begged me on bended knee... not that she would have, being one of the most razor-minded people I've known, and regarding the film as manipulative drek... ah, how I miss her... but again, my bias is showing) and has the potential to create a repeat viewing draw. It seems to be growing in popularity, not diminishing, which is (sadly... my, what fools these mortals be...) unusual, though we won't have a clear picture on that for two more weeks. It has sequels coming close behind it, and they may sustain the excitement a while. It's already a threat to episode II... putting the EpII preview before this film was a mistake, as the contrast is going to diminish the Star Wars film even more (but it will quite possibly actually create a small late boost in viewing of FotR if it's still on enough screens, which could be interesting) and it has the additional distinction of getting a great deal of weekday attention. Even on the normally brutal Xmas week, there's been two sellout shows today at the theater in the mall next to the offices I work in. The first one was an 11:00 matinee. I don't know (only noted this in passing while grabbing something to nibble on) but there's a chance the next (5:00) show is already running out of tickets. It's currently 2:45. And I think it was on two screens, too. Thing is, though, it's not hauling nearly what "Harry Potter" did. That's bad, right? No. Potter isn't making much anymore, not much at all. It hauled, and it's holding, but it was a Monty Haul, or Hall, and those blow over. FotR opened on the (theoretically) worst week of the year for a debut. No, really. So did Titanic. Was that a factor? Well, not exactly... but sort of. FotR is making a lot more than Titanic did at the begining (or anywhere in its run), but Titanic lasted (oh, my aching head, did that stinker last...) and given it's nature, FotR is really not making nearly as much as it would if it were, say, released in May. Initially. That'll change. (A lot more movies were released in December these last three years than had been previously. Go figure.) And if FotR can keep the momentum long enough, it might even get one last upsurge from anticipation of the sequel. TT will be out the same time next year.
I wouldn't say FotR was the best movie I've ever seen, but it is the best one with mainstream appeal, and I'd really like to see it unseat Titanic. Rest assured, however... as a trilogy, it will certainly do so, and more.
Re:LOTR and the Missing Plot (Score:2, Interesting)
One thing that I enjoyed in the movie was Jackson's suttle note of certain details. I do wish that he would have talked more about certain important things...like the plot around Aragorn's sword...but you dont have time to talk about every little thing in a movie. I like how he still managed to throw some of the little details in there...like Bill the Pony and the new cloaks that everyone recieved from the Elves (notice the clasps before and after Lithlorien (sp)). Anyway...little tidbits like that made the movie a bit more fun for those of us who have read the books (in my humble opinion).