mucronate
Joined Jun 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews10
mucronate's rating
I have the impression the LOTR trilogy is in the same category as Matrix and others like them. A first movie is made to set a standard, but subsequent movies are not able to live up to the first. Such was my impressions from watching this third installment of the LOTR trilogy.
I really wanted to like this movie. This was when all would come to an end. When the story would be wrapped up, and all come to a conclusion. For me, this movie missed its mark with a couple of yards. But wait, there are nice things to say too. The scenery was good, and nature gave an overall impression of vastness and divergence of a country in turmoil. From the green fiends of Shire to the dark lands of Mordor.
From there things started to go downhill. I have seen plenty of movies being able to tell twice the amount of feeling in merely half the time of LOTR. The pacing is uneven, and many many loose ends hang from the story. No, I do not want to wait for the four hour plus DVD edition to see what becomes of i.e Saruman, I wanted to see conclusions, but in many cases all I get is a bunch of question marks.
All I can say about the acting was that it was meager, hidden behind layers upon layers of CGI. Today I hear people hail the detailing of Gollum as the best CGI ever, and he is quite impressive, but nevertheless obviously computer made. If not for the voicing of Serkins, Gollum would be long forgotten in a couple of weeks.
The CGI way too often shades the underdevelopment of the story. For example, when the heat of the battle actually gets tense and interesting, and when we see reinforcements come to aid in still hopelessly outnumbered forces, all of a sudden the tension is gone. It is all wrapped up in the same way the battle of Helms Deep in The Two Towers, leaving me only with a "Hey, what happened!?". CGI can enhance elements in a movie, but it can never be all there is, as it does in the LOTR trilogy, escalating by each movie.
Characters are quite two dimensional. No development takes place, and treating the royal son of Glóin as a slapstick-one-liner-sidekick only serves to disappoint me.
Best movie ever? Well, no! It is an Ok action flick, but with better pacing, better acting, and better story telling, this could have been THE movie. As for epic battles, I would prefer Spartacus anytime, without even a touch of CGI, but still extremely tense and impressive.
I feel robbed of an experience. In my book, this gets a 5 out of 10. In visuals it is astounding. In everything else it falls rather short of lots of other movies. Too bad. I really wanted to like this one.
I really wanted to like this movie. This was when all would come to an end. When the story would be wrapped up, and all come to a conclusion. For me, this movie missed its mark with a couple of yards. But wait, there are nice things to say too. The scenery was good, and nature gave an overall impression of vastness and divergence of a country in turmoil. From the green fiends of Shire to the dark lands of Mordor.
From there things started to go downhill. I have seen plenty of movies being able to tell twice the amount of feeling in merely half the time of LOTR. The pacing is uneven, and many many loose ends hang from the story. No, I do not want to wait for the four hour plus DVD edition to see what becomes of i.e Saruman, I wanted to see conclusions, but in many cases all I get is a bunch of question marks.
All I can say about the acting was that it was meager, hidden behind layers upon layers of CGI. Today I hear people hail the detailing of Gollum as the best CGI ever, and he is quite impressive, but nevertheless obviously computer made. If not for the voicing of Serkins, Gollum would be long forgotten in a couple of weeks.
The CGI way too often shades the underdevelopment of the story. For example, when the heat of the battle actually gets tense and interesting, and when we see reinforcements come to aid in still hopelessly outnumbered forces, all of a sudden the tension is gone. It is all wrapped up in the same way the battle of Helms Deep in The Two Towers, leaving me only with a "Hey, what happened!?". CGI can enhance elements in a movie, but it can never be all there is, as it does in the LOTR trilogy, escalating by each movie.
Characters are quite two dimensional. No development takes place, and treating the royal son of Glóin as a slapstick-one-liner-sidekick only serves to disappoint me.
Best movie ever? Well, no! It is an Ok action flick, but with better pacing, better acting, and better story telling, this could have been THE movie. As for epic battles, I would prefer Spartacus anytime, without even a touch of CGI, but still extremely tense and impressive.
I feel robbed of an experience. In my book, this gets a 5 out of 10. In visuals it is astounding. In everything else it falls rather short of lots of other movies. Too bad. I really wanted to like this one.
This movie was made back in 1979 folks, believe it or not. Even so it breathes a fresh wind even today. As I write this 1979 is 24 years ago, and 24 years is a long time, but "Life of Brian" does not apply to that time scale anyway.
Monty Python stands out in history as the group bringing comedy to an entirely new level. Everyone seems to have at least one favorite movie, scene or one-liner that has stuck through the years. The TV-series are still aired at times as well as the movies, and every time I watch them they make me laugh as much as they did the fist time.
Numerous comedians and groups have tried to copy the very special Monty Python humor throughout the years, but no one even comes close of succeeding, I think not even the sometimes reunited Pythons themselves to be honest. Yes, the humor is both utterly stupid and silly but also intelligent and cunning at the same time, without using cheap slapstick tricks. It is, in one word: unique.
The story in "Life of Brian" is simple. A newborn in the stable next to the one where Jesus is born is throughout his life repeatedly mistaken for being the Messiah. And it does not amuse him a bit!
The movie itself contains numerous now classic scenes and dialogue, not to mention the closing scenes and the song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". In a way I can understand why it ticked off Christians around the world who claimed it to be blasphemous, but on the other hand I cannot.
If you are looking for a bonus, the interviews with the Pythons on the making of this movie is a must!
Monty Python stands out in history as the group bringing comedy to an entirely new level. Everyone seems to have at least one favorite movie, scene or one-liner that has stuck through the years. The TV-series are still aired at times as well as the movies, and every time I watch them they make me laugh as much as they did the fist time.
Numerous comedians and groups have tried to copy the very special Monty Python humor throughout the years, but no one even comes close of succeeding, I think not even the sometimes reunited Pythons themselves to be honest. Yes, the humor is both utterly stupid and silly but also intelligent and cunning at the same time, without using cheap slapstick tricks. It is, in one word: unique.
The story in "Life of Brian" is simple. A newborn in the stable next to the one where Jesus is born is throughout his life repeatedly mistaken for being the Messiah. And it does not amuse him a bit!
The movie itself contains numerous now classic scenes and dialogue, not to mention the closing scenes and the song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life". In a way I can understand why it ticked off Christians around the world who claimed it to be blasphemous, but on the other hand I cannot.
If you are looking for a bonus, the interviews with the Pythons on the making of this movie is a must!