Third Lord of the Rings Film Unveiled
This Fox 411 report says that this is the year (well, technically/2004 is the year) that Lord of the Rings had dang well better get some Oscars.
One wonders if the MPAA cannot judge the three Lord of the Rings films as separate films, since they are combining to tell one story and certainly one criticism of the films is that they do not really tell a satisfying story in and of their own. (My wife feels that way, even if I don’t.)
While A Beautiful Mind was certainly a good film worthy of the Oscar, the 2003 Oscars were a ridiculous sham that bestowed far too many honors upon an unsatisfying and mildly amusing adaptation of a mediocre musical. “Oh my gosh, Richard Gere, Renee Zellwegger and Catherine Zeta-Jones aren’t singers but look! They’re SINGING! Wow!” A stupified group of Oscar judges were impressed by all this but not impressed by the tremendous artistry that went into making “The Two Towers.” Someone must have been passing around some bad acid. (That would explain “Bowling for Columbine” beating all of the legitimate documentaries.)
Yet, look at the 2001 Oscars. Gladiator? I loved Gladiator. Truly a great film, and I was glad to see an action epic win. But every Lord of the Rings film has been twenty times what that movie was in terms of technical art, stunts, SFX, acting, direction and all-around movie greatness.
So a movie that could easily trump Gladiator had it competed in 2000 can’t even win over a meager musical in 2002?
Okay, okay. The Oscars are unfair, biased and illogical. Stop the presses for this astounding scoop.
2003 has been the most mediocre year for films in memory, so let’s hope “Return of the King” blows all of the other films out of the water.
Speaking of water: by all means, Johnny Depp should be up for an Oscar for best actor in “Pirates of the Carribean”…although he should lose to Eugene Levy for his sensitive performance as Mitch in “A Mighty Wind.”
By the way, if anyone wants to buy a DVD of Chicago that’s been watched one time, e-mail me.