Entertainment Weekly calls LOTR Trilogy second best movie of the past 25 years

[Morthoron]

EW's 'supposed' Top 25 can be found here...

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,2020...442_23,00.html

The Top 25 List (I didn't bother looking at the Top 100, for reasons that will become apparent) was rather anti-intellectual and, well, juvenile in its tastes. I agreed with perhaps 9 or 10 of the inclusions, but the rest should have either been placed further down the list, or not have appeared at all. Just scanning quickly through my DVD collection for movies past '83, Amadeus (a 1984 release), Unforgiven, Se7en, The Last Emperor, Broadcast News, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Dangerous Liaisons, The Pianist, Forest Gump, Fargo, The Sixth Sense, Shawn of the Dead, Shawshank Redemption, A Beautiful Mind, Usual Suspects, and Kurosawa's Ran are not listed in the Top 25, but the Lion King, Die Hard, Edward Scissorhands, Boogie Nights, The Matrix, Toy Story and Casino Royale are so good they have reached a pinnacle of film-maker's art to warrant such an honor? How old were these subjective movie critics? Have they yet to emerge from prepubescence?

I have no qualms with such great films as Silence of the Lambs, Goodfellas, Schindler's List, LotR, or Pulp Fiction (even Spinal Tap and Shrek are phenomenal in a genre-bending sense), but EW's choices as a whole are mind-bogglingly banal, and meant for those among us who: prefer their words to be in single syllables, like lots of colorful flashing light and jerky movements, and don't want to be forced to think in increments longer than 10 minutes (with the remote's pause button obviously well-worn for numerous potty breaks).

If this is the direction of 'great films' in the future, then I suggest everyone watch a silly but obviously relevant movie titled 'Idiocracy' for a true taste of where our society is heading.

[Nerwen]

Does anyone else think they listed Spinal Tap at 11 for the sake of a gag?

[Sauron the White]

Perhaps the staff of EW has never been to this site and read all the things wrong with the films.

I wonder where they get the idea that the films were popular and well respected?

Could it have been the $3 billion dollar box office?

Could it have been the near universal positive reviews of professional film critics?

Or maybe the boatload of Academy Awards and other awards the films garnered?

ANd to add insult to injury, the prestigious American Film Institute just this week named FELOWSHIP OF THE RING as the #2 Fantasy Film of All Time, second only to the 1939 classic WIZARD OF OZ.

Makes you wonder what world they are living in.

[Quempel]

I just got through looking over the lists....

I am not sure about these people who did the rankings, I think they must have been partying with Winehouse too much.

[Nerwen]

I have to say though, that I'm not sure whether getting onto this list constitutes an achievement. I really have no idea what half the other entries are doing there.

[Lush]

Does anyone else think they listed Spinal Tap at 11 for the sake of a gag?

LOL

All lists like that are highly subjective, and usually take into account not only the quality of the actual film, but things such as hype, star-power, nostalgia etc. (which is why I think "Casino Royale" is on that list, not that's a bad film.... just... new classic? I don't know).

I can make my own top 25 list, and I'm sure plenty of people would call it idiotic as well. In fact, I know they would.

But if you're in entertainment journalism, this is the sort of thing you do. It's fun, to be sure.

[Sauron the White]

To say that anyone could make a list or somebody does not like something completely misses the point. I would assume that in both the AFI survey naming FOTR as the #2 Fantasy Film of all time, and in the EW article, there was some sort of process, using various peoples ideas and critieria employed. For anyone - regardless of who you are - to compare one individual with the AFI - is more than a bit of a stretch and minimizes the honor by reducing it to the whine "its only an opinion and mine is just as good".

In point of fact. Its not.

Or if it is, please make you list, alert the media to your results, and I will stand by an await the resulting press coverage.

I love this site because of all the knowledge that people have about Tolkiens writings.
I find it wonderful in that respect.

When it comes to the movies and knowledge in general about how they are made and what the process is, it does come through loud and clear many times, in many threads, from many people, that the opinion of the movies displayed here is far more negative and far more petty and far more mean spirited than most other Tolkien sites.

I take the rose with its thorns.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Perhaps the staff of EW has never been to this site and read all the things wrong with the films.

I wonder where they get the idea that the films were popular and well respected?

Could it have been the $3 billion dollar box office?

Could it have been the near universal positive reviews of professional film critics?

Or maybe the boatload of Academy Awards and other awards the films garnered?

ANd to add insult to injury, the prestigious American Film Institute just this week named FELOWSHIP OF THE RING as the #2 Fantasy Film of All Time, second only to the 1939 classic WIZARD OF OZ.

Makes you wonder what world they are living in.

Hmmm...Michael Jackson's Thriller is the biggest seller of all time and won boatloads of awards. It doesn't mean I have the CD in my stereo.

On a serious note, the movies only mean something here because of the subject matter. Folks take their Tolkien seriously, probably more so than nearly any other author. I have a profound dislike for the characterizations and the scripting (which in many cases are deplorable); however, the cinematography is incredible, and the sets, make-up and details (costumes, music, architecture, CGI, etc.) are astounding. The production itself (with three movies filmed synchronously) most likely will never be duplicated. It is a paradox and a supreme irony that one can love and despise a film at the same time, but there it is.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Does anyone else think they listed Spinal Tap at 11 for the sake of a gag?

Indeed. Why it's not at number one is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I hadn't looked at the 25 New Music Classics previously. Now I wish I hadn't. But I am surprised no one complained that The Lord of the Rings Soundtrack was left off!

If this is what they consider a profoundly and 'culturally-impacting' music list (as opposed to actual great music, which it aint), then Western Civilization is further down the road to exctintion than I surmised (anyone know what time it is on the D-Day clock?).

Be that as it may, I am wondering how they could even list a superb album like Paul Simon's Graceland alongside a Beyonce album, or Cat Power next to Lauryn Hill's Miseducation (to be honest, I've never even heard of Cat Power-- although I recognize everything else on the list -- so much for culturally-impacting)? Does anyone really consider any Mariah Carey album having cultural or musical importance? Perhaps I'm becoming more like my parents (ie., old) in regards to distaste for certain genres of music, but was there a necessity to have Kayne West as a top 5 choice? *shrugs*

Had a look at that one too and while I enjoy both the number one (Prince's Purple Rain) and the number two (The Miseducation Of Lauryn Hill) selections a lot I certainly wouldn't list the two as the most sublime music made in the past 25 years. I also happen to agree that Achtung Baby is U2's best work. The rest of the list is very peculiar though and it seems there's no real theme to the selections. They certainly haven't based it on artistic pedigree, as the likes of Shania Twain or Beyoncé can hardly qualify on this basis, cute as they are. Nor can it be based on cultural impact, since fex. Interpool or Cat Power hardly made any. Oh, I am familiar with Cat Power: she is a marginally talented but very much derivative indie-star, and whoever said she made one of the classic albums of the past 25 years is clearly out of his or her mind. Popularity and sales figures aren't it either. I suppose it's a purely subjective list made by people with questionable tastes. Perhaps there's a marketing twist to it that I don't get. Although I haven't seen the movie list I wouldn't give it much credence if it's anything like this one.