Reviews

I had a tremendous headache yesterday, but was not about to miss a movie I had waited two years to see! Hard to describe without overused words. By far the most moving of the three. If Sean Astin does not get Best Supporting Actor they should close the Academy, they don't know what they are doing! His fantastic portrayal of loyal Sam, faithful, self-sacrificing Sam contrasts strikingly with the treacherous, scheming Gollum.

The scenery is, of course, spectacular! The sets, especially Minas Tirith make it easy to forget you are looking at a model! Unbelievable battle sequences, tops even Helm's Deep! The Paths of the Dead sequences were very well done, also.

Would have liked to see the Saruman scenes that were cut, and more development of the friendship between Legolas and Gimli, one of the best sub-plots in the books.

Some (many) will complain about the length. Allow yourself to be drawn into the story, believe in its message, and it's not long enough! Tolkein speaks to real world truths: Good will triumph over evil, but not without cost; Evil will win if good men merely do nothing; good cannot overcome evil by using the same weapons, evil has only the power to destroy, it cannot create, only pervert. ROTK does not have the memorable lines that FOTR & TTT had: Gandalf & Frodo in the Mines; Sam's epilogue to TTT; Frodo to Faramir outside Osgiliath; but it features some of the most memorable visuals of the trilogy.

I had never read Tolkein before FOTR, but the day after the movie, I bought the trilogy and started reading TTT because I could not wait to find out what happened next. I have become a true fan, having read through the Silmarillion, went back to the Hobbit through FOTR, and am now halfway through Unfinished Tales.

Especially at the end, the goodbye scenes take a while, but I think Jackson gave fans a glimpse of what the actors themselves have said. After filming for four years, they really didn't want to say goodbye. And neither did I.

I did not anticipate that TTT could equal FOTR, a movie I have now seen 16 times. But in some ways, this one was actually better! More action, faster pace, positively Apocalyptic battle scenes. As for the poor reviews of some, if I knew as little about my job as some of these people do about this movie, I'd get fired! I guess I'm just too easily entertained.

Gollum is wonderful, almost "real", easily the best CGI character to date. Jackson does take several "liberties" with the plot, but unlike other fans of the book, I realize that Jackson has made an ADAPTATION of the books, not a literal translation! The book spans some 20-25 YEARS of time, come on folks! The movies are already 3 hours! But even though it is long, I never looked at my watch! The action is compelling throughout.

I have only two criticisms, which prevented me from rating the movie a 10 (which only FOTR has received so far): 1. the storyline with Merry & Pippin is almost distracting. In the midst of intense battle, we are abruptly transported to the forest, and the pace SLOOOOOWWWWSSS way down. 2. Gollum's schizophrenic war within himself reaches, well, comic proportions. The cuts from "bad Gollum" to "good Smeagol" I found funny in spite of myself. I'm sure this was not what Jackson had in mind.

On a positive comical note, the banter between Legolas and Gimli is great. Their friendship was one of my favorite themes in the book, I hope it is expanded in The Return of the King.

A must see, even if you only mildly liked the first one. This one is much more for the "twenty-first century moviegoer." More action, faster pace, and although darker and bloodier than FOTR, it is not overdone. But then again, it SHOULD be darker, the middle of the story is a darker and more desperate time than the early chapters. Go see it, give it a chance, and cut Jackson some slack on the plot!

Like many fans, I was sorely disappointed with Episode one. So much so, that I wasn't too interested in seeing this one. A friend talked me into it, and it was worth it! This movie is as far above Episode I as Episode I was below the originals! Epic battle scenes, that unfortunately will be criticized by the same people who criticized the CG battle in Fellowship of the Ring. My only complaint, and it isn't really fair, is that all of the vehicles (although they do begin to resemble the vehicles used in Episode IV, as logic should expect)look more advanced than the vehicles that replace them (ie., in Episode IV and beyond). I know, I know, no one wants to see a movie made in 2002 that uses technology from the 1970's. But if I'm designing vehicles for a movie supposedly set BEFORE the original, I'd see it as a challenge to make them look interesting, but becoming obsolete, to be replaced by the next generation (which happens to be 25 years older). Fans who felt they wasted their money on Episode I will not feel that way with this one. The Yoda fight scene alone was worth the money! Yoda kicks BUTT! Gets around pretty good for a decrepit old...er...man.

Outstanding, both in visual spectacle and gripping tale. I've never read the books, so I can't speak to the film's faithfulness to the original material, but the film was simply one of the best I've ever seen. First time I've ever given any movie a "10." See it, then you decide. A shoo-in for Best Costume Design, and maybe other little golden men as well.

Change the "n" to an "l" and you're right on! This movie was TERRIBLE! Lame plot, wooden actors, and the racing scenes were worse than "Days of Thunder." I never thought I'd be saying those words! Computer generated special effects were too obvious, and crash sequences, trying to be "spectacular," were so unrealistic it was pathetic! I can't believe I actually bought this thing! $20 DVD! I'm a racing fan, so I thought if nothing else the racing scenes would be worth it. WRONG! There were two good scenes in the whole movie: the chase through the streets of Chicago (though that was nearly ruined by poor editing), and Burt Reynolds "blowup" at Stallone in the garage. Stallone's ex needs to switch to decaf, too. I wonder if I can burn over this thing like we used to do with lousy VHS movies...

This is the story of General George (Old Blood & Guts) Patton. A remarkable man perhaps born out of his time. Eccentric, hard to figure out, but absolutely no nonsense, a true soldier. No middle ground, extremely passionate about everything, from his soldiering, to his patriotism, to his courage, to his poetry. Film based somewhat on General Omar Bradley's account. How much so, I don't know, but Bradley certainly looked good in the telling. Film had a decidedly anti-British flavor that I personally didn't care for, and it affected my vote. Made AFI's Top 100 list at #89. I don't know if we'd want a bunch of Patton's running our military, but we sure could use just one!

This is actually two movies: a sappy love story that is totally useless (until the last five minutes, then it's all worth it), and a gripping, intense dramatization of the real life horror of Pearl Harbor. The director does an outstanding job of depicting the terror of the situation, without resorting to "severed limbs" tactics. I was especially impressed with the use of the "halo-like haze" in the hospital scenes. One gets the impression that, under such extreme circumstances, that may well have been just how the doctors and nurses saw it. He also pays excellent attention to details of that fateful morning. Ben Affleck is okay, but the real star is Josh Hartnett. His affable character and boyish shyness make him the hero of the story as much or more than his courageous deeds. Cuba Gooding, Jr. plays the best (albeit a small) part as a young black soldier, fiercely and lovingly loyal to his country and his commander in what were for blacks in the 1940s Navy very difficult circumstances. His poignant words of comfort to his dying Captain, and again later at the flag-draped casket, are some of the most memorable scenes of the film. As I said, this movie should be required viewing for anyone between 13 and 35 (I'm 36), lest we forget (or worse yet, ignore) the horrible, bloody cost of the freedom we enjoy. Here in Tennessee, we have a state representative who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the House Chambers. I'd like to sit her @#% down and make her watch this film, then explain to her that the flag she says represents "oppression" represents a country in which she was free to be elected!

I don't understand all of the negative comments about this movie. It's not like they set out to make another Gone With The Wind, people. I usually hate this kind of movie, but I loved this one! Ford was just beginning to come into his own as an actor, and did a wonderfully believable job. The plot, though a bit predictable, at least went about it in a reasonable way. Entertaining way to spend a couple of hours. I guess I'm just one of those people who doesn't understand what movie making "art" is all about. I've seen a lot of critically acclaimed films that I wouldn't use to balance a short table leg.

I know I'm bound to get panned for this review, but I'm going to do it anyway. Not since I decided to prepare for an upcoming semester by watching a College Algebra telecourse have I spent so much time staring at my television in utter bewilderment. Spectacular visuals, stunning sets and locations, and perhaps the best movie soundtrack ever, but the story itself is almost lost in the process. Entire plot could have been adequately covered in about 25 minutes. LOOOOOOONG sequences with no dialogue make it hard to follow the storyline. Beginning with a pre-historic version of "West Side Story", and concluding with a "What the heck was that all about?" dream (?) sequence, I have no idea what Kubrick was trying to say at the end. Worth seeing just to know that this type of filmwork could be done in 1968, it is truly amazing what they accomplished without modern computers. Pity their predictions of the year 2001 were not more accurate in some respects (Video phones are commonplace, a base on the Moon, Jupiter having a solid surface, the survival of Pan-Am, etc.).

AFI ranked this film as the best American movie ever made. After seeing it, I can understand why. Epic tale of an American success story, brilliantly portrayed by Orson Wells. I am not a technophile, but even I could appreciate the phenomenal camera work and artistry of the director. Storyline moves at a brisk pace, creating a compelling tale. Personal tastes might prohibit a person from saying it is the best movie one has ever seen, but even if you don't like it, you'll have to admit it is a masterpiece. Should be required viewing for all aspiring directors.

An outstanding film, it is obvious why this movie won Best Picture, and why Sir Alec Guinness won Best Actor. An Epic tale of the indomitable human spirit. The raw determination of the British commander vs. the centuries-old code of honor of the Japanese commander. I doubt life in the real camps was as easy as this movie depicts, but in the 50's, movies left more to the imagination. A startling twist near the very end, I won't spoil it for you. Must see, any complete collection must have a copy. Rated #13 on AFI's top 100 of all time. I sometimes wonder what the AFI was looking for, but not with this one. Deserving of its place among the best ever.

U-571 is the semi-historical tale of the capturing of the Enigma Code Machine used by the Nazis during WWII. Suspenseful throughout, though historically inaccurate. Not sure just how much so, but enough to taint the movie (e.g. Enigma was captured by Britain, not USA; Nazi sub commander munches fresh fruit, a distinct rarity on board a sub that has been out of port more than a few days). A little bit predictable in the plot. Submariners say that life on a sub is "hours of sheer boredom, punctuated by minutes of sheer terror." This film depicts the terror well, but misses the boredom. I know, I know, moviegoers don't want to see boredom, but it was (and is) a very real part of the story. I like movies like this because we are quickly losing sight of how hard WWII was, and particularly, how close we came to losing it. If not for the capture depicted in the movie, the war could have had a very different outcome. Unfortunately, history belongs to those who write it, not those who make it. This movie is a fine example of that. Worth a rental.

Hard movie to figure out. The bad guys are good (then bad again) and the good guys are worse. Eastwood is trying to make a statement about the morality of gunplay, sends conflicting messages, but maybe that's what he intended. Made AFI's top 100 list (98). Eastwood's character is likeable, but...well, I won't spoil it for you. I will say I felt like the PG-13 rating was a little too lenient.

An entertaining film, plagued by mediocre performances by Bacon and Moore. Tom Cruise does a good job as a determined young lawyer, and Nicholson does an excellent job as the brash, career military man, convinced he knows best even if you can't talk about it at your cocktail parties. Film's many goofs (see IMDB bullet) don't detract from its good points. Not one of the all time leaders, but a good drama worth viewing, one of my favorites.

Dustin Hoffman begins a stellar career as a young college graduate just home from school and into the dizzying world of expectations. Excellent use of close focus and sweep early in the film to give the feeling that the walls are closing in on him. Hoffman is superb as the naive, insecure boy in a man's body. Funny at almost every turn, it's well worth viewing.

This was a very strange movie, but then again, many in the 70's were. Nicholson is brilliant, of course, and several others were very good as well. It takes a heck of an actor to act believably crazy. Made AFI's top 100 in 20th. Don't know if I'd rank it THAT high, but it was worth the $3.00 I gave Blockbuster.