Are the LOTR movies "film classics?"

[Black Breathalizer]

Several well-known and respected film critics have been hailing Peter Jackson LOTR films as "modern-day movie classics."

In your opinion, what makes a movie "a film classic" and do Peter Jackson's LOTR movies fit your definition?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, I'm not sure these movies are old enough to be considered classics. To me, a classic is a movie that was made and was successful at its beginning, but withstood the test of time, and remained popular for years after. The Wizard of Oz would be one example, Gone With The Wind, would be another. Time will tell with LotRs.

[Elf Girl]

Yup. I'll be back to you on that in 20 or so years.

[Black Breathalizer]

I totally agree that true classics are able to withstand the test of time. Only time will tell, but does anybody really believe these LOTR films will be gone and forgotten ten or twenty years from now?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I totally agree that true classics are able to withstand the test of time. Only time will tell, but does anybody really believe these LOTR films will be gone and forgotten ten or twenty years from now? Well, the books are certianly classic, and that in itself could keep the popularity of the movies going throughout the years, unless someone else comes along and does a better job than Jackson.

[Entlover]

It's interesting that some old movies now get 4 stars (out of 4) in the TV reviews, while if they were released now they'd probably get two. Some movies just seem untouchable, once they get into the canon.
Yes, I think these will be classics, but it's true that it's too early to call them that. But movie critics are not rocket scientists.

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I believe they will be. If ROTK is as good as I think it will be, that should cement the status of this trilogy as an enduring classic.

The acting is what will set them apart. True, some of it is borderline over-the-top, but the good performances more than make up for these parts. (read: Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Sam, Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn). The casting was superb. The effects were top notch. The story is the best fantasy story ever.

I don't see anyone else remaking these for a long time, due to the superb cast. It would be very tough to assemble a cast like the one Jackson did until a whole new generation of actors emerge and mature.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Balrog_of_Morgoth
I don't see anyone else remaking these for a long time, due to the superb cast. It would be very tough to assemble a cast like the one Jackson did until a whole new generation of actors emerge and mature. I totally agree with you, B_o_M. PJ's superb cast have already become so tied to the characters, that a new cast will never seem quite right. Once a movie becomes a classic, attempts to remake it for a new generation have always become dismal failures.

[Sween]

What people consider classic movie i dont really understand there are all sorts. The way i would classify these films (well maybew not TTT so much) is epic! Epic in there size and scope and genral filming. The first shots in fellowship are epic some of the moria stuff is epic the journy is epic. I think i will consider them classic movie but then some people consider little women a classic movie

[Gamigar]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Well, the books are certianly classic, and that in itself could keep the popularity of the movies going throughout the years, unless someone else comes along and does a better job than Jackson.

When I take over the world I'll make sure to do that.:D

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Sister Golden Hair]

Spammer.:p

[Rosie Gamgee]

I definately think they will become classics.
A classic is a movie that becomes what M. Night Shamalayn (spl?) calls a 'cultural phenomenon'. It doesn't have to have the best special effects, or even the best acting (although FOTR and TTT have both of those)- it must be something that everybody recognizes. You stick a bumper sticker on your car that merely has a picture of the Ring on it, no caption, no nothing, and people say, "Oh, you like LOTR." Or you mention Orcs or Hobbits, and people know what you're talking about. I definately think that the LOTR films are already like that.
Of course, like you've all been saying, they do have to stand the test of time. FOTR will always be one of my favorite movies.;)

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I totally agree with you, B_o_M. PJ's superb cast have already become so tied to the characters, that a new cast will never seem quite right. Once a movie becomes a classic, attempts to remake it for a new generation have always become dismal failures.

Like King Kong, for example.:D

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Like King Kong, for example.:D Good one, Cirdan. :) But seriously, unlike Jackson I don't happen to view the original King Kong as a classic. Many movie buffs might remember Faye Ray, but the only really memorable character from the film is King Kong himself.

I don't think PJ's King Kong will have anywhere near the critical acclaim that LOTR has generated. I'm just saying it will be a "summer blockbuster" that makes money.

[Cirdan]

KK may be more like The Mummy from what I've seen, except that movies of this genre are coming out pretty frequently and the market is saturated (e.g. "The Rock"'s new movie.) It may do between 50-100M, if it's done well, but your 250M prediction from the other thread is way beyond reason. There's just as good a chance it will crawl away with 20-40M.

[Black Breathalizer]

You're on, Cirdan. I'll bet you that King Kong's total will be a heck of a lot closer to my 250M than your 100M. Name the booty. :)

[Cirdan]

You will put "I am a Tolkien Purist" in your sig.]:-}

[Entlover]

Wait.
You're telling me that PJ, after coming out with the trilogy of LotR, is now working on King Kong?
This is a joke, right? That would be like Lincoln doing a comic book after the Gettysburg Address. Or something.

[Cirdan]

This is what I would call a "likely response". There may by WWI flying aces playing baseball in the sky and dino fights included, but let's face it. It's the the big ape thing... AGAIN!!!:rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

The BB-Cirdan bet on King Kong's gross. Here are the stakes:

If Cirdan wins, BB will change his title to: "JRR Tolkien Purist"

If BB wins, Cirdan will change his title to: "Gushing Peter Jackson Groupie"

:)

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The BB-Cirdan bet on King Kong's gross. Here are the stakes:

If Cirdan wins, BB will change his title to: "JRR Tolkien Purist"

If BB wins, Cirdan will change his title to: "Gushing Peter Jackson Groupie"

:) Oh my. I can't wait. When the time comes, may I do the honors?:D

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The BB-Cirdan bet on King Kong's gross. Here are the stakes:

If Cirdan wins, BB will change his title to: "JRR Tolkien Purist"

If BB wins, Cirdan will change his title to: "Gushing Peter Jackson Groupie"

:)

No "Gushing", unless you like "Slavering Tolkien Purist":p

...and that's closest to gross so you'll need to exceed $175M.

Terminator 3 only managed $150M. King Kong III... well, hasta la vista, bb.

[Earniel]

LOL! :D

But just when is this new version of King Kong coming out?

[Cirdan]

December 2005.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...... wake me when the big ape is dead.:rolleyes:

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Terminator 3 only managed $150M. King Kong III... I promise this is my last post on this silly topic for now but I couldn't resist one more.

When Cirdan reports that a Cameron-less Terminator 3 ONLY managed $150M at the boxoffice, it seems to me that he unintentionally strengthened my case for Peter Jackson's King Kong making at least $175M. :)

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
When Cirdan reports that a Cameron-less Terminator 3 ONLY managed $150M at the boxoffice, it seems to me that he unintentionally strengthened my case for Peter Jackson's King Kong making at least $175M. :)

Yeah, but it still had Arnie in it, so we were all suckered into watching it anyway. :rolleyes:

What are the terms on this little bet? How long do you have to wear the title for? :D

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Yeah, but it still had Arnie in it, so we were all suckered into watching it anyway.


The first one was a true classic especially because Arnie didn't talk much. Why do these future robots keep making ones that are ESL? Can't the robot just kill while speaking a native language?:rolleyes:

The terms should be permanent. It would be worth the chance just to hang him by his epithets. I think I must have "Tolkien Purist of the Ivory Tower" for it's new title, however. I should really be "Unwashed Jacksonian of the Masses", though I did just shower and I don't attend mass.

[Elf Girl]

I don't know how I will wait for King Kong to come out... I will do my part for Cirdan by not going to see it! :D

[Cirdan]

Then you'll be doing us both a favor.:)

You can still rent it, though.;)

[IronParrot]

When I think of film "classics", I think of movies that changed not only film history, but film-making on the whole. Undeniably, The Lord of the Rings is of that number. Some of the images in the films have already established themselves into moviemaking canon.

One of the things cementing this status, as mentioned earlier in this thread, is that nobody will remake it. Not as a feature film, anyway. It's like how nobody dares lay a finger on Gone With The Wind. The reason for this is that no producer with half a brain would finance a film to go head-to-head with the legacy of this one. (Of course, most film producers nowadays don't have half a brain, so who knows?) My point is, Peter Jackson may have changed things from the book, but he did too many things definitively.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Entlover
Wait.
You're telling me that PJ, after coming out with the trilogy of LotR, is now working on King Kong?
This is a joke, right? That would be like Lincoln doing a comic book after the Gettysburg Address. Or something.

Sad, isn't it? :(

[IronParrot]

Wait.
You're telling me that PJ, after coming out with the trilogy of LotR, is now working on King Kong?
This is a joke, right? That would be like Lincoln doing a comic book after the Gettysburg Address. Or something.
Wow. Obviously, some people here have never watched King Kong.

[Sheeana]

Granted, the original King Kong was ground-breaking in terms of cinematography, but not much happens in it. I don't see how PJ is going to add anything new to this already well-marketed franchise.

[Millane]

honestly i really dont know what to expect with King Kong... i really like Peter Jackson and you must watch either Braindead or Bad Taste if you want to really judge him, i think these movies and LotR attract very different audiences and its easy to look at lord and dismiss his talent as being the enormous budget he had to work with and fail to see his talents and imagination that are the real reason that LotR is a masterpiece, Braindead and Bad Taste can easily display PJ 's talents because the quality of them cant be pinned down to a huge budget because there wasnt one, he couldnt employ hundreds of specialists to create an epic and so he improvised and pulled off great films that were IMO better because of there low budgets. At least PJ is really into this remake and i know he will pour his all into it and create a spectacular movie i agree with BB this will earn big money now that PJ has stamped down his authority with LotR...
As far as LotR being a classic i think it was almost predestined to become a classic because of its large budget, and more importantly a live action movie of a classic book... the same principle applies to Watership Down, classic book, classic animated film and if it became live action then i also would lay a fair bit of money on it being regarded as a classic... now we wait for the live action Watership Down:D

[IronParrot]

As far as LotR being a classic i think it was almost predestined to become a classic because of its large budget, and more importantly a live action movie of a classic book...
I would dispute this. A big-budget film based on an established story will not be a classic if it isn't any good. This kind of mentality is why the old-style grand historical epic collapsed as a film genre after the 1960s.

Even in recent years there have been a lot of grand projects based on this mindset that were both financial and critical bombs, despite being touted as "guaranteed hits" prior to Oscar season. It's usually pretty hit-and-miss.

For example, you can bet your bottom dollar that twenty years from now, nobody's going to look back and reflect on how Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor was a "classic". The ambition was there, and so was the money - but something still has to be said for quality.

In fact, I find it doubtful that even the Harry Potter films will be considered "classics" in the long run. On many levels, the two films thus far just haven't demonstrated enough cinematic merit or "revolutionary" status.

The LOTR films are going to be remembered as classics not because of what they wanted to be, but because of what they are: classics.

[Shadowfax]

Originally posted by IronParrot
The LOTR films are going to be remembered as classics not because of what they wanted to be, but because of what they are: classics. Well put; I agree!

[Black Breathalizer]

One of the reasons why PJ's Lord of the Rings films stand out from the crowd is because we've been in a cinematic wasteland for many years when it comes to producing films that could be considered "timeless classics." While there have been a few decent, high quality films over the past few decades, my definition of a timeless classic is one that was almost universally hailed as a 'must see' movie. Being the 'greatest movie ever made' isn't as important as the fact that it successfully captured people's interest and imagination - and people still remain fond of it even after many years.

In fact, it is incredibly hard for me to identify many films during the past thirty years that could reasonably be called a timeless classic. I guess my list would include Titanic, The Godfather, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and ET.

The three Lord of the Rings films will soon be moving to the top of this list.

[IronParrot]

In fact, it is incredibly hard for me to identify many films during the past thirty years that could reasonably be called a timeless classic. I guess my list would include Titanic, The Godfather, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and ET.
If you're talking about the very top echelons of said "list", then maybe the selection is that limited.

But if you're looking for a) universal or near-universal appeal, b) the box office returns to prove it at the audience level, and c) the critical praise to prove it at the professional level - you can probably extend that list a bit. I can name several movies in the past few years that, similar to LOTR, hit near-100% scores on Rotten Tomatoes and sold piles and piles of tickets - and had the "must-see" factor plus the lasting appeal to hold them up.

Still, it's true that LOTR is already two-thirds of the way to being up there in the cream of the crop. Not since Star Wars has a film so defined an entire cinematic generation.

[Gamigar]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Several well-known and respected film critics have been hailing Peter Jackson LOTR films as "modern-day movie classics."

In your opinion, what makes a movie "a film classic" and do Peter Jackson's LOTR movies fit your definition?


yes, they are.

[paulbaggins]

If they are not now they will be in time to come. Remember many people thought the books were only "boys books " But I would hope no one would argue that they are not classics now.:)
So give them time and the movies will be. Especially iof ROTK is as good as the first 2 installments

[Lizra]

Boy's books! Indeed! Ah...to be a boy! :rolleyes: ;)

[Wayfarer]

I don't think there are any real film classics. The film media is less than a century old, and for more than half that time the productions were of such a low quality as to make 'classics' somewhat impossible.

There have only been a handful of films that would even qualify for the running so far as having the kind of persistance that the 'classics' have had over the centuries. As far as jackson's films go, time will tell, but formulaic adherence to a pre-determined pattern does not, in my opinion, make for a lasting impact.

[Insidious Rex]

so you wouldnt say Citizan Kane or Godfather were classics?

Originally posted by Cirdan
December 2005.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...... wake me when the big ape is dead.:rolleyes:

careful Cirdan. By then tickets to movies might be like $25 a pop the way things are going. Every movie will be making $100 million. And dont even ask about the popcorn...

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
careful Cirdan. By then tickets to movies might be like $25 a pop the way things are going. Every movie will be making $100 million. And dont even ask about the popcorn...

...and we'll all be driving flying cars.;)

Citizen Kane and the Godfather have been imitated using slicker production values, etc. Movies are very technology oriented, so as production quality improves and formerly new and innovative ideas become common place, classics lose their original impact. Some people call Birth of a Nation classic but if you watch it now for the first time it is a steaming pile of celluloid.

Films that rely solely on story, acting, and simple clean production can retain their appeal. Dr. Strangelove is, IMO, a good example of this approach. Comedies tend to have the best longevity because they are light and usually not anachrononistcally challenged as drama. Casablanca probably had much more impact for people who experienced WWII. When Larry hits Curly with a crowbar, it doesn't matter in what era it happened.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
formulaic adherence to a pre-determined pattern does not, in my opinion, make for a lasting impact. I'm sorry, Professor Wayfarer, but could you explain this to me and other blissfully ignorant LOTR movie fans who sadly don't possess your incredible film expertise.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm sorry, Professor Wayfarer, but could you explain this to me and other blissfully ignorant LOTR movie fans who sadly don't possess your incredible film expertise.
Itjust proves that since you don't understand what he means - may be one of the reasons why you think the Lord of the Rings movies will be classics. Jackson used everything he could from Filmmaking 101 class - but using cliched dialog and slow motion - does not make a great lasting film. The film needs more than action and great scenario to make it an enduring success - it needs characterization, it needs to draw the viewer in an speak to them.

Most people I have talked to who have not read the books simply view the movie as an action flick, with very limited emotion. It's LotR books fans who are PUTTING in the missing emotion and dialog that Jackson took out. I find the book fans who don't like the movies can seperate the movies from the books far better. I have talked to book fans - they are constantly saying something was in the movie from the book - which wasn't. This is because they have added the missing parts to the movie. The movie is basically a disjointed collection of action scenes wiht no sense of timing.

[IronParrot]

I don't think there are any real film classics. The film media is less than a century old, and for more than half that time the productions were of such a low quality as to make 'classics' somewhat impossible.
Strongly disagree. I just watched Citizen Kane the other day, and quite frankly, nothing out of all of today's technology can make Kane's Xanadu seem more real. Some of the shots in that movie have yet to be matched on both the technical level and the deeper, symbolic level.

The screenplays to some of these films - presented with motivically appropriate imagery - are already taken seriously as classic works of literature. Casablanca has been analysed line-by-line in the same manner as the works of Shakespeare.

Point being, it's true that there were a lot of low-quality productions back then, but there still are today. No difference. Also, the lack of technical proficiency in old low-quality productions is precisely the reason behind the emergence of modern classics such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, which took all the ambitions of the 1930s serials, rolled them together and made a real movie out of them. The Lord of the Rings is a classic precisely along that same vein: it's the fantasy film that everybody wanted to make but couldn't. Not just because of their technological limitations, but also because of their visionary limitations, both of which Peter Jackson has overcome by a farthing.

I suggest you watch more classic films, and if that doesn't make you eat your words, you must be full.

Most people I have talked to who have not read the books simply view the movie as an action flick, with very limited emotion. It's LotR books fans who are PUTTING in the missing emotion and dialog that Jackson took out. I find the book fans who don't like the movies can seperate the movies from the books far better. I have talked to book fans - they are constantly saying something was in the movie from the book - which wasn't. This is because they have added the missing parts to the movie. The movie is basically a disjointed collection of action scenes wiht no sense of timing.
Funny, I've heard the same thing said about The Godfather.

I would also hypothesize the inverse, that the detractors whose concerns are mostly adaptation-centric have a lot more trouble seeing the film as a distinct, separate entity, and thus cannot judge it objectively on cinematic grounds. My advice: stay on your turf, 'cause you know it better.

The thing is, the quality of a film is not determined by how general audiences see it. I hate to say it so arrogantly, but today's average movie audience is... well... stupid. Most people turn off their brains when they walk into a cinema, and it takes years (and hundreds of movies) for people to develop a really keen cinematic eye. You also have a tremendous anti-intellectualist backlash against the informed scholars of the medium going on. Your argument that "most general audiences can't see beneath the surface, therefore it's shallow" (to paraphrase) just doesn't hold up.

Most of the people I've met never even bother reading into movies. Any movies. Does that mean all movies are shallow, and anyone studying it as an art form is wasting their time? I guess this is in line with Wayfarer's belief that there are no such things as classic films.

The thing is, the quality of the LOTR films are a fundamentally separate matter from the faithfulness of the adaptation. Nobody can argue that there were changes. (Okay, maybe Black Breathalizer. :p) But those niggling differences don't detract from the film when it is viewed as a separate entity - and that's how you have to view it when judging whether or not it is a film classic.

Historians and physicists in particular are the groups in academia that most often, and most proficiently, criticize films for their factual fallacies. These fallacies fall into the same category as how the LOTR films differ from the book; they do not reflect on filmmaking merit. It doesn't matter that William Wallace's victory at Stirling Bridge was fought on an open green without a bridge in sight - Braveheart is still the definitive filmic vision of14th-century Scotland. And similarly, Jackson's The Lord of the Rings is the definitive medieval-style (i.e. swords/sorcery) fantasy adventure.

Mind you, there is one area where I think the Jackson/Boyens team played it safe and populist, and that was when they decided to cut The Two Towers in chronological order rather than using Tolkien's structure. Of course, Tolkien's sense of structure in the book was already an elaborate house of cards, so maybe it was better to reconstruct it from the bottom up.

5000 characters... okay, I'll stop here.

[hectorberlioz]

I think that the critics were eager to please people by calling them(LOTR) "classics".
no doubt they will be classics though.
If They Stand The Test Of Time.
I am confidant they will.

[IronParrot]

Itjust proves that since you don't understand what he means - may be one of the reasons why you think the Lord of the Rings movies will be classics. Jackson used everything he could from Filmmaking 101 class - but using cliched dialog and slow motion - does not make a great lasting film. The film needs more than action and great scenario to make it an enduring success - it needs characterization, it needs to draw the viewer in an speak to them.
The film does have depth and characterization, and the fact that it doesn't have the time and space to delve as deep as the book doesn't automatically make this non-existent.

As for the Filmmaking 101 comment (and I just have a gut feeling you've never taken it) - put The Lord of the Rings next to Chris Columbus' point-and-shoot static camera work in the first Harry Potter (shining example of great adaptation, little to no cinematic achievement). Put Andrew Lesnie's control of colour palettes that parallel the progression of the story next to the lifeless, toneless work of a hundred other films I've seen - I'll pick the most recent example, being (looks it up) Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life. Okay, so that's an unfairly easy target. Put Howard Shore's score (a massive accomplishment as it is) next to... oh, any other epic score that doesn't have the name Williams, Steiner or Jarre beside it. Put Christopher Lee's Saruman the White next to the Ralph Bakshi film's Aruman the Red.

And just try telling me that The Lord of the Rings isn't on a whole other existential plane of achievement.

If you honestly can't see the difference... then you have to watch more films.

I'm not saying you'll end up liking Jackson's The Lord of the Rings - you won't - but how much you like a film isn't the same thing as how good it is. I'm not particularly fond of Pulp Fiction, but I recognize that it has merit. Now there's an example of a modern classic that I'm not quite sure deserves that status.

[IronParrot]

I think that the critics were eager to please people by calling them(LOTR) "classics".
Ooh, trust me. Never have I seen near-unanimous favour on the part of the major critics because they wanted to please people.

It's a real pity that most moviegoers ignore critics. That's why trashy teen comedies still somehow manage to make money. I'm not saying that people should agree with critics all the time (I certainly don't) but they should at least try to grasp their argumentation and rationale, so they learn how to think about the movies they're ingesting and give respectable films the respect they deserve.

[hectorberlioz]

NO! I listen to critics. Critics are awsome. most critics do a good job. What I was saying was that: critics were calling lotr "classics" (which they are not 'YET!') to please people. not that they were doing it JUST to please people, meaning that they said it just for the sake of saying it, and not really believe it.

[IronParrot]

Yes, I understood what you meant the first time around, but I still disagree - for the most part.

On another level, I think everybody, critics included, should have reserved judgment until all three films and their respective Extended Editions had been released. But that was wishful thinking. (I originally tried this, but didn't last very long.)

[hectorberlioz]

OK. glad we cleared that up.

[jerseydevil]

Actually IP - I only think the Jackson films are average. No difference in characterization than T3. I didn't say that there was no character development - but most of the meat of the heart of the movies was replaced by mindless and endless over the top action scenes.

The matrix has a lot of action sequences - but it in my opinion is a much better film - with much better character development. Also - contrary to your statements - it makes you think. When I came out of the theater with my cousin - we were discussing what different things might have meant.

There isn't much thought involved with Lord of the Rings at all. And all the heart of the books has been thrown on the cutting room floor. You may disagree - but that is fine.

By the way - I studied movies in high school - I had wanted to go into movies in one form or another. I wanted to be a director, I wanted to be a special effects artist and I had thought about being an animator. I also know several people who write screenplays. I may not have taken classes in film school - but anyone who has studied films for even a little bit can see the cliched use of slow motion, as well as the many other things I have pointed out ad nauseum.

[IronParrot]

The use of slow motion does not automatically make a movie cliché. There are entire websites dedicated to classifying the logical errors you're making in insinuating that. Slo-mo is used very sparingly in the grand scheme of the film - and yes, I too wish the shot of Legolas mounting the horse was done at full speed, but that doesn't send the entire movie tumbling down.

Most things done in any movie can be traced back to something else that had come before. It's a question of how well it's done. It can be said on purely objective grounds that if you place LOTR next to... oh, name a film... it is definitely way above average. And I'm not saying that just because the "average" nowadays is so abysmally low.

I've met a lot of people who have read Tolkien and decided that it was from the same old generic fantasy yarn with boring parts written in High English between big battle scenes. That doesn't automatically make Tolkien's work dumb, does it? (Oh hey, this is usually the part where I get to make a quick wisecrack about Robert Jordan.)

As for character development, you can extrapolate a tremendous amount of information about the behaviour of each of the major characters from the film of The Lord of the Rings - WITHOUT making reference to the books. Even once. I won't do this tonight because I'm tired, but I will if you ask. Backwards.

There's a huge difference between mindless action scenes and well-crafted action scenes, which is why Raiders of the Lost Ark rules all heaven and earth and Tomb Raider is so unwatchable it's hardly even a "movie" by any civilized definition. Bob Anderson remains the top swordfight coordinator in cinema history, and his influence shows. The larger battles are crafted in such a way that takes the influences of directors like Michael Curtiz and Akira Kurosawa and escalates them to new limits.

The matrix has a lot of action sequences - but it in my opinion is a much better film - with much better character development. Also - contrary to your statements - it makes you think. When I came out of the theater with my cousin - we were discussing what different things might have meant.
I'm sure this doesn't apply to you or your cousin, but I certainly saw a lot of people come out of The Matrix Reloaded (in my opinion, a much smarter film than its somewhat simplistic, yet enormously fun predecessor) - discussing the film, yes, but mostly because they didn't understand it. Just something to think about.

In fact, the mere occurrence that some people can see LOTR as "only" an action movie, those surface viewers who don't really know movies - that in fact further entrenches the LOTR films as potential classics. Similarly, I've met tons of people who think they love Star Wars, but they don't really understand it. Not all of them are kids, either. And that's okay. The reason behind my argument here is that what you have standing before you is a film that is accessible on multiple levels - both on the surface and upon further, detailed analysis.

Like I said, if you want, I'll start from the film itself and extrapolate mountains of substance without reference to the book. Then I'll see if I can match that count with Terminator 3, even though in some ways, that was a cut above the norm as well.

[hectorberlioz]

Amen! Ironparrot, youve hit the target in the middle. I totally agree with you.