2 get's a little slow... but nothing that noticeable.
I didn't see any issues with 3, most people consider it the best one.
I personally liked 1 the most.
But I consider the entire thing a single movie really, like an old epic film only it goes for 9-12 hours.
Boy... the director's cut is quite something. It's not exactly boring, but it's so long even when filled with good content that it felt like a marathon in one sitting. It's all good throughout the 12 hours, but not in one sitting like I did. That's insanity and you should not try it.
That fact that it's been 20 years and nothing has changed in many people's opinion of it just goes to show that it has to be number 1 now.
I just don't see how films could outdo what it set out to do. And I don't see how it could have been done better in the past or nowadays. It was perfect time for the perfect movie and it just happened and everything fell into place perfectly like magic.
How that happened is utterly baffling to me now I've seen so many flops and failures, including many Jackson films since.
>you now remember the horrible film: King Kong (2005)
I knew from that moment Jacko would never make another film like LotR.
>King Kong (2005)
it's growing on me as an attempt at big adventure just laughably bad on a serious first watch 3h+. No idea why rifftrax never parodied it.
>but also a lot of silly CGI nonsense
Yeah but it's not bad even 20 years later.
Compared to Phantom Menace or most other shit out at the time it still looks fine. A little odd, but nothing too jarring.
They could really fix that up now too. Kinda baffling they haven't. It's not like star wars where they CGI'd over legit animitronix and solid puppetry that honestly made the cgi look like shit in comparison - now THAT was outrageous.
I remember thinking as a teen that SW episode 4-6 looked different to how I saw it in 2000 as a 6 yr old on vhs, in a bad way. That's how bad the changes in the 00s were.
Unlike LotR which looked fine as a 6 yr old and fine as a 26 yr old.
The Hobbit though... that looks like crap and I don't know what the frick happened to make it so much worse than in the LotR. In cinema I was legit getting pissed off at how bad the cgi and acting (because of green screens) was.
Overrated, some good scenes but most of the movie is a snooze fest
[...]
Actual masterpiece
[...]
There's a lot of heart in those movies but also a lot of silly CGI nonsense and it precipitated the worst years of Hollywood
it's not my favorite but considering how well it aged and how influential it is, has very solid pacing for it's time too, Billy Wilder has many more 5/5s
why can't Cinemaphile or any other place give a definitive answer? most pf the time its memeing or average movies like shawshank, lotr, nolan movies, etc.
I'm not telling
I bet it's the same as mine.
It has to be Lord of the Rings.
It still looks amazing after 20 years.
(you)
Love it, but 2 and especially 3 suffer from the shitty comedy and plot changes.
2 get's a little slow... but nothing that noticeable.
I didn't see any issues with 3, most people consider it the best one.
I personally liked 1 the most.
But I consider the entire thing a single movie really, like an old epic film only it goes for 9-12 hours.
Boy... the director's cut is quite something. It's not exactly boring, but it's so long even when filled with good content that it felt like a marathon in one sitting. It's all good throughout the 12 hours, but not in one sitting like I did. That's insanity and you should not try it.
This. Greatest cinematic achievement of all time.
That fact that it's been 20 years and nothing has changed in many people's opinion of it just goes to show that it has to be number 1 now.
I just don't see how films could outdo what it set out to do. And I don't see how it could have been done better in the past or nowadays. It was perfect time for the perfect movie and it just happened and everything fell into place perfectly like magic.
How that happened is utterly baffling to me now I've seen so many flops and failures, including many Jackson films since.
>you now remember the horrible film: King Kong (2005)
I knew from that moment Jacko would never make another film like LotR.
>King Kong (2005)
it's growing on me as an attempt at big adventure just laughably bad on a serious first watch 3h+. No idea why rifftrax never parodied it.
not really. as others said, large portions of 2 and 3 would not be out of place in a Marvel marathon. the first one is timeless though.
Look I also like 1, but 2 and 3 aren't too different. I don't see why they seem to rustle your jimmies so much. They're great movies.
Peak Hollywood.
Everything before and after is worse.
Overrated, some good scenes but most of the movie is a snooze fest
Actual masterpiece
There's a lot of heart in those movies but also a lot of silly CGI nonsense and it precipitated the worst years of Hollywood
>Sunset Boulevard "Masterpiece"
>Heat "Snooze fest"
This homie incapable of getting it on.
>but also a lot of silly CGI nonsense
Yeah but it's not bad even 20 years later.
Compared to Phantom Menace or most other shit out at the time it still looks fine. A little odd, but nothing too jarring.
They could really fix that up now too. Kinda baffling they haven't. It's not like star wars where they CGI'd over legit animitronix and solid puppetry that honestly made the cgi look like shit in comparison - now THAT was outrageous.
I remember thinking as a teen that SW episode 4-6 looked different to how I saw it in 2000 as a 6 yr old on vhs, in a bad way. That's how bad the changes in the 00s were.
Unlike LotR which looked fine as a 6 yr old and fine as a 26 yr old.
The Hobbit though... that looks like crap and I don't know what the frick happened to make it so much worse than in the LotR. In cinema I was legit getting pissed off at how bad the cgi and acting (because of green screens) was.
based
cringe
Collateral is way better
whatever baby jane is objectively better
I enjoyed this movie a lot and it aged supremely well, but what makes you think its THE greatest
it's not my favorite but considering how well it aged and how influential it is, has very solid pacing for it's time too, Billy Wilder has many more 5/5s
Metropolis
anchorman
Robocop
Robocop
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Predator
Lotr
There is no such thing. You'd have to set up some parameters to measure against, and those are arbitrary.
Some suggestions here, and why they fail:
Lord of the Rings -- Completely dropped the ball at the ending, compared to the books, failing to translate the giddy nature of destroying the ring.
Lord of the Rings? Isn't there some anime cartoon you need to argue about?
See three movies besides LOTR, LOTR BEST!
>Lord of the Rings -- Completely dropped the ball at the ending
That's the only part of 3 you absolutely cannot criticise in my opinion.
The frick?
Kung Fu Hustle
It's good but Shaolin Soccer is better.
wrong, even God of Cookery is better than that.
Magic Mike
anything made before 1970 is shit
quit posting these movies
>anything made before 1970 is shit
a controversial take
but I have to mostly agree
Jurassic Park.
Gattaca
Definitely not. That said it is one of the few movies that deserves the designation of "cult classic"
The Fifth Element
Problem Child 2
L'homme et le Magasin Avec un Nouveau Nom
Ghostbusters
why can't Cinemaphile or any other place give a definitive answer? most pf the time its memeing or average movies like shawshank, lotr, nolan movies, etc.
You know is true