The Fellowship of the Ring

[Ruin Explorer]

Can't say as you are wrong (though I do think I like all of those listed movies considerably more than you do, lol), as Tree of Life (which I would short list for best film of all time, in addition to the 21st century) has an IMDB has a rating of 6.8/10 after 185k reviews, which is clearly a crime.

However, I find more professionally vetted lists have their head up their rear in different ways, so what can one do?

(You are probably right about reasons being best not gotten into, but I am at the same time genuinely curious what you mean specifically lol)

Professionally-vetted lists, in my experience, usually mostly reveal the age of the writer, because they'll always have a few questionable or really mediocre-to-awful-in-retrospect movies which were huge when the writer was young and hip, or worse, which are nostalgic to that period. But they'll usually have more genuinely great movies than duds, so long as the writer actually, genuinely has a broad experience of film. I do agree that head-in-butt syndrome is not something they entirely escape. Let us never, ever forget that the bloody Academy gave Crash (2004) multiple Oscars including Best Movie! And plenty of critics of that era praised it - the majority did, even (though the were those going "what the hell is this?!?" even then).

I mean, people remember the mawkishness and lame-ness of the general "both sides-ing" of literally everyone by that movie, but what they forget is why it's genuinely vile and contemptible, which is that it's about a deeply-racist and misogynist white male police officer, who abuses his office to sexually assault a black woman, something the movie makes clear is because of his racism and misogyny, is also racist and demeaning to another black woman because she can't help him for reasons out of her control, and then after this, the movie decides to make a hero out of this guy, by having him pull the same woman he sexually assaulted from a burning car, and then has a scene where we're supposed to see that like, actually he's a really good guy, and she can see that now, Then it goes back to just both-sides-ing everyone. Just absolutely grotesque. Grim. Still has 7.7 on IMDb! Considerably better than an actual artistic masterpiece like Tree of Life!

Re: reasons, I'm message you.

 

[Deset Gled]

6. An extremely unintentionally funny and incredibly just outright stupid space movie that thinks it's a profound philosophical statement or at least "the new 2001". It is neither.

Thank you. I was a little late in catching Interstellar, and I was really, really surprised at how underwhelming it was. IMO not quite as bad as that. But certainly not "Best Movie of the Century" level. It would definitely struggle to make "Top 10 Sci-Fi of the Century".

"Best Film of the Century" for me would be hard to pick. I'll agree Fellowship of the Ring is up there. But Spirited Away, WALL-E, Pan's Labyrinth, and Inheritance are pretty powerful challengers.

 

[Parmandur]

Thank you. I was a little late in catching Interstellar, and I was really, really surprised at how underwhelming it was. IMO not quite as bad as that. But certainly not "Best Movie of the Century" level. It would definitely struggle to make "Top 10 Sci-Fi of the Century".

"Best Film of the Century" for me would be hard to pick. I'll agree Fellowship of the Ring is up there. But Spirited Away, WALL-E, Pan's Labyrinth, and Inheritance are pretty powerful challengers.

Sci-fi film in the 21st century has been a dry well, but Wall-E is above par for that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sci-fi film in the 21st century has been a dry well, but Wall-E is above par for that.

I absolutely hate to agree because it's such a trite/cutesy movie in some ways, but genuinely Wall-E is up there (like top 10 probably), because it's just more honest about certain things and has a bit more going on intellectually (which should be a low bar, but apparently isn't!). The 21st century has not been great for movies whose primary genre is sci-fi as you say (esp. if we separate out YA, post-apocalyptic, and so on, where that's the primary genre and the SF elements are merely "there" - which I would tend to myself).

 

[Parmandur]

I absolutely hate to agree because it's such a trite/cutesy movie in some ways, but genuinely Wall-E is up there, because it's just more honest about certain things and has a bit more going on intellectually (which should be a low bar, but apparently isn't!). The 21st century has not been great for movies whose primary genre is sci-fi.

It at least has real Old School sci-fi speculation about a potential foreseeable future problem (or series of problems). Yeah, it is cutesy and falls into "Pixar-ism", but the competition isn't fierce for actual speculative fiction in film recently.

 

[MGibster]

No movie without Tom Bombadil can be the greatest.

The first time I read LotR I hated, I mean hated, Tom Bombadil. He didn't belong in the book and he didn't belong in the movie.

 

[Parmandur]

The first time I read LotR I hated, I mean hated, Tom Bombadil. He didn't belong in the book and he didn't belong in the movie.

Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-wights are some of the best parts of the first Book, and Peter Jackson not including them is symptomatic of all the problems of adaptation the 6 Tolkien films he made suffer.

A proper Fellowship of the Ring would be a musical, in a full Bollywood-inspired style.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The first time I read LotR I hated, I mean hated, Tom Bombadil. He didn't belong in the book and he didn't belong in the movie.

My reaction to him the first time I read it was identical. I probably was mad with that dude until I was like, in my 30s and re-read LotR with way more context.

Then I was like "This guy is really important to understanding what Tolkien is actually saying with these books". I still don't necessarily like him or even agree with the "kind-hearted Unabomber" sort of message, but at least I get it now and it's not just "UGH THIS WASTEMAN!".

I think it's fine he's not in the movies, and don't worry, Rings of Power is going to absolutely RUIN Tom Bombadil for everyone. I have no doubt they will destroy him with some grotesque misrepresentation of his character. Especially as they've cast Rory Kinnear, a genuinely great character actor, but one who specializes in tetchy bureaucrats and repressed jerks and isn't great in other roles - and both of those things the absolutely and total opposite of Tom Bombadil. Also, Tom Bombadil really should be kind of hot, like under the beard and tomfoolery and stuff - he should be someone magnetic (like Winston Duke - not suggesting him specifically, but he was the first large inherently-sexy man I could think of). And that ain't Rory Kinnear.

EDIT - I should say I don't loathe Rings of Power unlike some (though I do have... questions), and it made a lot of artistic decisions I respected in S1, but I really don't think S2 sounds like anything but a disaster.

 

[Deset Gled]

It at least has real Old School sci-fi speculation about a potential foreseeable future problem (or series of problems). Yeah, it is cutesy and falls into "Pixar-ism", but the competition isn't fierce for actual speculative fiction in film recently.

Besides the fact that I'm just a huge fan of sci-fi and animation, I think WALL-E is simply one the best examples of visual storytelling in the history of film. The movie accomplishes so much with so little dialogue. It's a textbook in how movies can be a unique medium. In that regard, I put it on par with Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 2001 A Space Odyssey, and Metropolis.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My reaction to him the first time I read it was identical. I probably was mad with that dude until I was like, in my 30s and re-read LotR with way more context.

Then I was like "This guy is really important to understanding what Tolkien is actually saying with these books". I still don't necessarily like him or even agree with the "kind-hearted Unabomber" sort of message, but at least I get it now and it's not just "UGH THIS WASTEMAN!".

I think it's fine he's not in the movies, and don't worry, Rings of Power is going to absolutely RUIN Tom Bombadil for everyone. I have no doubt they will destroy him with some grotesque misrepresentation of his character. Especially as they've cast Rory Kinnear, a genuinely great character actor, but one who specializes in tetchy bureaucrats and repressed jerks and isn't great in other roles - and both of those things the absolutely and total opposite of Tom Bombadil. Also, Tom Bombadil really should be kind of hot, like under the beard and tomfoolery and stuff - he should be someone magnetic. And that ain't Rory Kinnear.

I dread Rings of Power season 2, a little bit.