LuckyGungan2001

ZkinandBonez said:

I’m still confused as to why the picture is “depressing” and warranting an “ew”.

Am I missing something?

Yep.

Lord Haseo said:

This is kind of depressing actually.

Ew.

ATMachine said:

Lord Haseo said:

ATMachine said:

LOL!

Rewatching the ROTS duel, it seems Obi-Wan wins by listening to the advice of his old master: “Always mind your surroundings.” 😉

If he practiced what he preached Maul would be dead.

I was thinking more along the lines of Bruce Wayne. Subtle joke was maybe too subtle?

Never count on anyone understanding subtlety on the internet.

They should dub his voice with Billy Dee’s so it fits in with Rebels.

Please?

Can’t wait for it to pick up then.

I’ve heard great things about it for years, so I finally bit the bullet and started watching Game of Thrones. The only bad thing I can say is that these first few episodes (I’m up to episode four so far), feel like setup for a big payoff, which I hope will be coming in due time. Anyway, I’m a fan.

Accuontant? Haven’t heard of that one.

I like Batman and Batman Returns, but they aren’t great. 7/10 to the former, and 6/10 to the latter. Still pretty good.

Finally finished re-watching all of the Middle-Earth movies. Most of these films I’ve only seen once all the way through, so it was a treat to watch them again.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

What a way to start off the trilogy. I can find very little to complain about in this film, it’s just brilliant. The characters are layered and have great interactions with eachother, and all the actors do great jobs of portraying them. The score is fantastic, very catchy. The CGI, while dated, is used sparingly throughout, and isn’t in your face most of the time. The only thing I can really complain about is the editing, which is choppy at times, cutting away at odd points, having too many extreme close-ups, which disrupts the pacing. But really, it’s an amazing film.

9/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Once more, a fantastic movie, with even less flaws than the previous. The characters and the acting have improved since the first, and all are incredibly interesting, especially the new characters, like King Theoden, and especially Gollum, who is well acted by Andy Serkis. The CGI has also improved on the first film; I was surprised at how well all the Ents looked. Another positive, which also counts for all the films, is the art direction. All the sets and costumes are authentic looking and very aesthetically pleasing. I do have some qualms, like the overly cartoony moments that don’t mesh with the rest of the film, and the fact that Frodo and Sam don’t really accomplish anything, but that’s about it for flaws.

9/10

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)

It is the worst of the trilogy, barely (the CGI is hokey, the pacing suffers occasionally, the plot isn’t as good as the other two), but it’s still a brilliant movie. The characters are as good as ever (especially Merry and Pippin, who get a lot more to do in this one), and once more the acting is fantastic. The action set pieces are some of the best I’ve ever seen, with real suspense and entertainment to be had with them. The numerous endings don’t bother me, though I don’t like all the fades to black included. I find the endings to be a good way of tying up all loose plot threads. So once more, it’s a fantastic movie, and probably the best third installment in a trilogy I’ve ever seen.

9/10

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

While not perfect by any means, or even that great, it is far from the atrocity many fans make it out to be. The casting, particularly of Thorin and Bilbo, is pitch perfect. Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman give great performances and fit their character very well. The action scenes suffer from being overblown and silly, with cartoony CGI accompanying them (the worst offenders being the Goblins, Wargs, and Azog). Many scenes are pointlessly stretched to accommodate a longer running time, which hurts the pacing. Many will disagree, but my favourite scenes of the film are the ones that take place in Bag End, before the adventure starts. In my opinion, those scenes are the most fun to watch. So, while not up to the standards of the previous trilogy, it’s still pretty good.

7/10

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

It has been my least favourite of all the movies ever since I first watched it, and after watching it again, I can’t say my opinion has changed. However, I don’t think it’s bad, rather heavily flawed. Once more the acting is spectacular, I particularly love the additions of Luke Evans as Bard and Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug. The action scenes are even more overblown than in the last film, though the CGI has improved. The Kili/Tauriel love story is stupid and pointless, as is the inclusion of Legolas, who acts nothing like himself from The Lord of the Rings. It’s frequently boring as well, though when it picks up, it really picks up. I also adore the ending, it’s dark and foreboding, and leads perfectly into the next movie.

6/10

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

I prefer it to the last movie, but overall it clocks in as my second least favourite of the films. That’s not to say that it’s bad or anything, just not great. The character interplay is great for the first act, Thorin’s dragon sickness is a great way to showcase Richard Armitage’s acting, and all the other actors do a god job as well. The beginning is quite rushed, and lessens the impact of The Desolation of Smaug’s ending, but serves as a fun opening. Once the battle gets started, it frequently dips into boring and over the top territory, and also suffers from being overly violent and depressing. Anytime Bilbo Baggins isn’t onscreen (which is a lot), the film is missing the spirit of the novel. But, there are far worse ways to end an epic film series.

6/10

Also, for each film, I watched the theatrical cuts, as I think they are tighter and have better pacing than the extended editions. I feel that in the future, these films (especially the first three), will be looked upon in the same way that Ben-Hur and Laurence of Arabia are today. Now I have to find another series to re-watch.

LexX said:

Tobar said:

You mean this and this?

No.

Why not?

My Hope for the World, dead at 15.

I’ve gone back and edited my original post after re-watching Return of the Jedi, and liking it far more than I remembered. The acting gets a bad rap but I think everyone does a pretty good job. The story is a great one to end a trilogy on, the characters all get important things to do throughout the film, and the score is excellent. The Ewoks don’t annoy me, and I’m more inclined to complain about the ever shifting tone and inconsistent special effects.

suspiciouscoffee said:

SkyderHouseMafia said:

TV’s Frink said:

SkyderHouseMafia said:

I can never understand how people can flip so completely on films (and music for that matter) that they once loved. The Phantom Menace was the first Star Wars film I ever saw at age 10 and I loved it. Even though I now realize it’s objectively a bad movie I still really enjoy watching it.

It’s called “maturity.”

And I’m not taking a shot at your age, I was 26 when I saw it in the theaters three times and loved it. But only because I wanted to. Then I found this place (and FE) and grew up.

So you’re not taking a shot at my age just my maturity 😉 (I’m joking, it’s all cool)
Yeah, I get what you’re saying but…I think that once I commit to liking something and develop a connection with it, I don’t lose that. My tastes continue to evolve and broaden as I get older but they aren’t overwritten - but that’s just me!

captainsolo said:

Casino Royale.

The best bad movie ever made.
The one film they should use to teach everyone what NOT to do. EVER. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

I read ‘Casino Royale’ then skipped to the start of your review and mentally freaked out. Then I saw ‘1967’ and took a deep breath hahah…

IIRC, he thinks 2006 Casino Royale sucks too.

He thinks all the Daniel Craig Bond films suck. Which makes no sense.

Out of ten is my preferred fashion. No .5 scores though, it’s too complicated then.

1 is unwatchable, 5 is okay, 7 is good, and 10 is perfect (or near perfect).

I’ve been watching them all recently, a bit at a time. I’m watching the theatrical cuts. I’ve only ever seen the extended cuts of Fellowship and Towers, and after watching the theatrical versions, I like the faster pacing and less useless scenes (Aragorn eating soup comes to mind). So I agree with the OP.

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

If I were an orange I wouldnt be a tomato. So, if I’m not a tomato does that mean I m an Orange?

Orange you glad you’re not a tomato?

I’ve always found that joke interesting, because it doesn’t make sense when said with an Australian accent, so when kids used to say the joke, nobody would understand it.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Stop tormenting me with your existential grammar mistakes!!!

Clerks: The Animated Series (2000-2001)

It’s not as good as the two Clerks movies, but it’s a pretty fun show, with a bunch of great moments. I wish it had more episodes.

7/10

I’d say that he’s quite good in both. He had more material to work with in The Force Awakens, which puts that above his performance in Return of the Jedi.

DominicCobb said:

This review is so stupid. First of all, it’s almost two hours!

Your senses aren’t that attuned my young padawan learner.

Clearly you aren’t versed in the finer points of Plinkett.

LuckyGungan2001 said:

Well I’ll download it soon and post my thoughts. I can’t wait to see it!

And thus, I never downloaded it, or watched it, or posted my thoughts.

Man, can’t wait to watch it.

When I came home I

a man brutally murdered by