What was the last movie you've seen?

[Pulsar_t]

He will own you! 8/10

[dsheinem]

wow, I posted review of 9 films the other day and the only one y'all commented on was the lame-ass NOES

...anyway, here's one more. I picked up the LOTR Extended Edition films on Blu-Ray during Amazon's Black Friday sale (the whole set cost me $20 after using some Amazon credit I had). I'll tell you now that all three of the films, in their extended format, will earn a 5/5 from me in these reviews. Not only did I grow up as a gigantic bookworm who devoured everything Tolkien (including the mountains of stuff published by his son), but I have seen each of these films probably 5-10 times (either in their theatrical run, standard DVD release, or EE DVD releases...or when i catch it on TV, etc.). So yeah, I am a huge Tolkien nut and love the films as well. So keep that in mind when you read these reviews!

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) - While this film might not be the best in the trilogy, it was undeniably the most important in defining how Jackson would treat Tolkien's fiercely loved work. From the opening scenes retelling some key backstory to the details seen in the time spent in the Shire early on in the film, doubts and anxieties about filming a series that seemed unfilmmable quickly started to disappear. It speaks volumes about Jackson's attention to the source material that so much of what he puts to film - from the angles he uses to the dialogue selected to the lighting choices - were near matches to how I had envisioned the events unfolding as I had regularly read and reread the books over the years. In addition, what he adds - a sweeping score, perfect casting, engaging effects, etc. - these more than make up for what is left out (e.g. Tom Bombadil). The extended edition of the film makes it feel like an epic in the greatest tradition of old Hollywood (long and with an intermission), and the added scenes do much to flesh out characters and motives whlle doing nothing to hurt the excellent pacing of the film. A masterful first installment of the greatest fantasy film series ever put on screen.
Grade: 5/5

[noiseredux]

wow, I posted review of 9 films the other day and the only one y'all commented on was the lame-ass NOES

which should show you how glaringly awful your assessment was.

[dsheinem]

wow, I posted review of 9 films the other day and the only one y'all commented on was the lame-ass NOES

which should show you how glaringly awful your assessment was.

fuck that. i stand by it, and y'all are blinded by the haze of nostalgia.

[noiseredux]

yeah I'm sure we're all wrong.

[dsheinem]

yeah I'm sure we're all wrong.

glad you finally agree

[noiseredux]

yeah I'm sure we're all wrong.

glad you finally agree that I'm being a tool

yup.

[dsheinem]

yeah I'm sure we're all wrong.

glad you finally agree that I'm being a tool

yup, it takes one to know one!

[noiseredux]

[Ack]

wow, I posted review of 9 films the other day and the only one y'all commented on was the lame-ass NOES

From 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die 5th anniversary edition:

"Wes Craven's signature film, A Nightmare on Elm Street was at once a critical and commercial success that managed to creatively combine horror and humor, Gothic literary motifs and slasher movie conventions, gory special effects and subtle social commentary. And it let loose a new monster in America's pop cultural consciousness: That wisecracking, fedora-wearing teen killer, Freddy Krueger.
"Craven's first two films, Last House on the Left(1972) and The Hills Have Eyes(1977), had established the former English professor as a low-budget horror auteur along the lines of Tobe Hooper and George Romero. After his next few works failed to live up to this early potential, Craven developed the idea of a killer who claims his victims in their own dreams. Made for less than $2 million, A Nightmare on Elm Street was cast with unknown and B-movie actors (including a 21-year-old Johnny Depp in his film debut) and was completed in just 32 days. Not bad for a movie that would gross over $25 million at the box office, and which has inspired six sequels to date, making it one of the most profitable series in the history of horror cinema.
"The film opens inside a surrealistic basement-cum-workshop, where a hideously scarred man wearing a red-and-green sweater and crusty old hat welds razor-sharp blades to metal fingertips and attaches these to a battered leather glove. As events unfold and long-repressed secrets are revealed, we learn that this inhuman dream invader is Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a former child killer who was burned to death by a mob of furious Elm Street parents after being released from prison on a technicality. Years later, Freddy has returned from the grave as evil incarnate, obsessed with taking revenge on the adolescent offspring of those who ended his mortal life. Residing in his young victims' subconscious, attacking them while they sleep, Freddy is virtually omnipotent, capable of rewriting the laws of physics and effecting all manner of grotesque yet creative killings. The film's spectacular set pieces, laden with special effects wizardry and gallons of fake blood, are balanced by an anxiety-inducing score and a gripping narrative, as we feel for the intended victims in their hopeless battle to stay awake.
"Unlike earlier slasher films like Halloween(1978) and Friday the 13th(1980), A Nightmare on Elm Street's monster-murderer is less a silent death machine than an archetypal "evil trickster," a kind of gothic antihero, a vicious killer who with charm, sense of humor, and flair for the dramatic, proves appealing to viewers. Nightmare combines elements of gothic literature-the seductive villain, the terrible place, the emphasis on dreams and subjective vision-with elements of the generic slasher movie-victims picked off one by one, the indestructible killer, the resourceful and virginal female survivor."

Figured I'd throw that up and add fuel to the fire.