For Discussion: My Top 20 Movies of 2003

[badlydrawngirl]

I LOVED Kill Bill and Love Actually, they're my top recommendations from this very year :) :cool:

[rf_ucsd]

they were all released in 2003 in the uk. I can only base my films of 2003 of those i saw in 2003. The pianist might have made the last oscars lsit but to me it was a 2003 film' date=' as was NARc, ripleys game was released in june. so meh[/quote']

 

meh? nice.

 

I would love to put a lot of movies from 2002 or 2001 or 2000 on my list ... but that's not the topic here, is it? It is one thing to recommend those movies, but to say you have major problems with my list then produce a list where more than half of the movies are not 2003 releases ...

 

... well, i guess that's a little American-centric and slightly unfair. However, they're not 2003 movies to me and, technically, they're not 2003 movies at all. The movie In America was just released here two months ago and would be in my top 10 ...

 

... where it a 2003 movie.

 

Meh?

[gentleparachute]

I have never even read the books.

 

But beyond that, criticisms that the movie is too long and that the acting is not great seem appropriate to me. I have a major objection to the length, the ending, and the performances of Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and Orlando Bloom (among others).

 

This overlong ending showcases just how much Peter Jackson is committed to the original LOTR as presented / written by the author JRR Tolkien. I'm sure he (Jackson) was aware that most audiences would find the ROTK ending too long (20 minutes to wind down after the climax) but I think he wanted to introduce the spirit of the book to the cinematic audiences. As a fan of the book (and the movies), I personally found the 20 minutes a big treat even though it did drag pacing of the movie.

 

However I can't quite decide whether the acting felt 'subpar' (as compared to the rest of the movie) due to the actors themselves or the director not being able to capture / mould the film into a more wieldy form emotionally. Coz objectively speaking (after taking a step back from the film), I think many of the acting performances are better than many other films, and yet when I watch the film I have difficulty connecting / absorbing its full impact. The film may be too long for this; also Peter Jackson's relentless pressing on and piling on the emotions doesn't help either. Then again, he had no choice... How else to keep the audiences' rooted attention for 3 hours? :) It is an amazing feat by itself that the movie (huge as it is) managed to keep afloat and preserve its original spirit & gravity. Hats off to all concerned :lol:

 

The fact that Peter Jackson is able to carry out this juggling act over the entirely of the movie is amazing. Most of the scenes require an improbable blending of technologies (be then new or old).

 

This, as well as the fact (as pointed on top) that Jackson was willing to sacrifice pacing for faithfulness to Tolkien's original LOTR vision and spirit (as opposed to his own- he is fully capable of coming up with his own vision that is cinematically powerful) is why I think he (Jackson) is an amazing director and person. Though I do suppose the latter (sacrificing the pacing) will legitimately throw a question as to his oscar claim. :cry:

 

The characters are at times undeveloped' date=' but this can be said of almost any movie. It all depends on where you want to look. In a lesser movie, this would prohibit such a high ranking. [/quote']

 

To analyse, I think this is due to the fact that Jackson wanted to retain as much pace to the movie as possible, yet not change the feel of the film during translation from the book to screen so much that the movie lost its original feel from the book. Afterall, the director had already changed some parts to make them more cinematically effective.

 

However' date=' no movie is perfect, and excellent parts of RotK redeem this movie. To say that the effects are nothing special is just wrong. One of the main reasons a Lord of the Rings live action movie had never been done before was the limitations of technology in either cost or capability. Jackson and WETA were able to develop technologies that made the effects managable, realistic, and cost-effective. The visual of this ends up being spectacular. Anybody who witnesses the scene where Gandlaf rides out from Minas Tirith to meet the the Gondorians from Osgiliath and shiled them from attacking Feel Beasts would see a great union of effects, cinematography, art direction and story. It's a poignant moment that would have been infeasable fifteen years ago; impossible twenty five years ago.[/quote']

 

Redundant of me, but just have to say... I fully agree! :D

 

The 2003 films that weren't on my list:

 

Life Of David Gale

Confidence

Seabiscuit

Finding Nemo

 

Well, Finding Nemo was another quite good movie that might have made the list (I have to admit I haven't seen quite enough movies this year to make a qualified judgement). The characters (and animations) were real enough and they connected, though they weren't on the grand scale or dealt with huge affairs e.g. war, death etc. :D As usual, this is not the overwhelming criteria for me when I rate films... It used to be, but then I realised only certain types of films would only ever get good ratings if evaluated this way :P

 

Cheers y'all. Happy New Year! Have a good 2004...

[rf_ucsd]

This, as well as the fact (as pointed on top) that Jackson was willing to sacrifice pacing for faithfulness to Tolkien's original LOTR vision and spirit (as opposed to his own- he is fully capable of coming up with his own vision that is cinematically powerful) is why I think he (Jackson) is an amazing director and person. Though I do suppose the latter (sacrificing the pacing) will legitimately throw a question as to his oscar claim.

 

Thanks for all the good comments (most of which I'm gonna let stand since my feedback would be redundant.

 

In the end, I think the worst parts of the acting performances, script, direction and other production elements can be traced back to the cast and crews seeming desire to adhere to the text at points where it may have been better to opt for a better piece of film. That, however, doesn't seem to be their primary goal. As such, they're probably very happy with the sacrifices they did and didn't make.

[gentleparachute]

In the end' date=' I think the worst parts of the acting performances, script, direction and other production elements can be traced back to the cast and crews seeming desire to adhere to the text at points where it may have been better to opt for a better piece of film. That, however, doesn't seem to be their primary goal. As such, they're probably very happy with the sacrifices they did and didn't make.[/quote']

 

Well said, well said!

 

Btw, (may not really fit this thread's discussion - sorry rf_ucsd), is anyone interested to say anything about whether LOTR should have been: made to be more cinematic, truer to the book, or just remain as it is?

[Carol_Berryman]

I loved Love Actually, LOTR, Pirates of Caribbean, Lisbela e o Prisioneiro and Os Normais (brazilian movies).