The Best and Worst Movies of 2003?
rufey asks: "As 2003 comes to a close, I thought it would be interesting to ask Slashdot what they thought the best and worst movie of 2003 was, and why. At the beginning of the year there was excitement about parts 2 and 3 of The Matrix triology, X-Men 2, and of course, LOTR: Return of the King. In Slashdot's opinion, what did and didn't live up to the hype and expectations, and were there any surprises?"
The second Matrix movie was just as pointless and boring as the first one, so I didn't see #3. But I did get a really good satire out of #2 for a mailing list I'm on. Honestly, why the hell are they always wearing sunglasses when they all live underground???
Talk about fucking Tolkien's corpse with a 2x4! wtf! This, imo, makes RotK the worst move EVER.
For all its cinematic glory, LOTR and the Matrix didn't have anything new to offer viewers except a nine hour fantasy-boy masturbation session.
They really highlighted the crazy lengths to which we've come using computer animation. The difference between last year's CG and this year's CG is immense and the improvements seem to be increasing at a logorythmic rate. Soon we will be able to have whole movies produced with CG and have them done faster than was ever possible before.
But the two sets of movies also show the worst of Hollywood, the deep vacancies of the writers' creativity. While the Matrix may have at least had a glimmer of originality and cleverness, LOTR just rehashed (not very well mind you, leaving out key figures like Tom Bumbledore) a years old text written by a pompous English professor who was more interested in creating new languages than in using the languages right in front of him to craft a better story. But the Matrix lapsed into a regular shoot-em-up and LOTR climaxed with a quiet shudder and the whole lot sucked up too much money for too little return to the audience.
I have been pwned because my
Don't equate your short attention span with a movie actually being bad. I thought purley on the basis of the way it was shot and edited was worth the money at the theaters.. Not to mention the hulk hands were the coolest damn toy I ever played with..
Good lord, all I remember about watching that movie was "My god, this is so f-ing retarted and BORING..." Was about the most dull, predictable, uninspiring movie i've ever seen.
~~ Please keep your arms, legs, and outright stupidity inside the ride at all times. Thank You ~~
28 days later was horrible. It started out pretty damn well and it had a good storyline. Then about halfway through it fell apart and the story disappeared. "Oh no! The men want to have sex with the women and possibly have a chance at repopulating. Can't have that! Let's escape." It turned into a standard fighting-type movie with the "good" guys trying to escape and the "bad" guys trying to hold them hostage.
Why is this a troll? Man some moderators must really be bored.
What movie that won an Oscar gives you the impression that movies that deserve Oscars actually win them?
Lets ask the Hollywood Film Academy or the Jury of the Cannes film festival what was the best software of the year.
I did not bother to read this thread, but I can almost see it: bands of nerds blabering about Lord of The RIngs and the Matrix, two overhyped projects that are only passable thanks to the lavish effects, without them they would be bare and identified by the lack of plot and general bad acting.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'd hate to see what you think is a bad movie then. Jackson couldn't direct traffic in a ghosttown. These were bad, bad, bad movies. So much for your idea that a movie needs more than eye-candy.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
that stupid ass trollkeen shit is admired only by dumb fuckers. i disagree on jlo's movie though. it sucked. i'd like to lick her ass though.