One ring to rule them all...
There were some technical problems with "Comment This" which were preventing the page from loading, so I had to pull them off the page. It appears to be working now.
Also I saw "Lord of the Rings" and it's one of the most perfect films I've ever seen. I'm a big admirer of Peter Jackson and his style of filmmaking. Jackson made all 3 "Rings" films on the same budget that the Wachowski brothers had for the 2 Matrix sequels, but Jackson packed more spectacle into his films despite the fact that the Wachowskis had an extra $50 million dollars worth of effects in each movie.
Although I don't know precisely how the money was spent, I expect that Jackson was able to do this because of his inspired use of practical special effects. You may not be able to tell by looking at it, but most of "The Matrix" was generated entirely within a computer, while many of the more dazzling effects shots in "Rings" were actually built in miniature. One of the most amazing shots I've ever seen in any film comes in "Fellowship," when the camera follows a moth to Gandalf, who is imprisoned on top of the tower of Isengard. Then the camera pans in a sort of free fall down the side of the tower, and into the forges below.
In most films, such a shot would be necessarily constructed completely inside of a computer, but Jackson manages to construct the shot using a combination of miniatures and computer effects, which is substantially more convincing onscreen than a completely computer generated shot, and is apparently less expensive as well. I'm not usually much of a fan of DVD extras, which are generally garbage, but the mini-documentaries about the effects on the Lord of the Rings DVDs are fascinating, because they prove that old-school Hollywood magic hasn't been rendered obsolete by computers.
It's a relief to see practical effects used with such precision, especially since, in recent years, such devices have been primarily employed to transform annoying comedians into grotesque distortions of Dr. Seuss characters (Why, God, why?).
However, with the splendor of "Rings" as well as the dazzling "Spider-Man" comes the realization that we haven't really seen the groundwork laid for a next generation of directors like Jackson and Sam Raimi. Both of these guys cut their teeth in low-budget horror films. In fact, I think the canyon where Aragorn enters the paths of the Dead in "Return of the King" might be the same canyon where they found the zombie monkey at the beginning of "Dead Alive."
These days, instead of "Evil Dead," we get goofy pseudo-art crap like "28 Days Later." For all of its pomp and pretensiousness, the closest thing to a theme that "28 Days Later" managed to have is that anger is bad. Whoop de doo. I want my 8 bucks back. Go see "Dawn of the Dead." They're zombies. In a shopping mall. It's about consumerism. Now make with the brain-eating, already. Peter Jackson's "Dead Alive" was a retelling of the timeless Oedipal themes. And it still managed to have zombie sex, a kung-fu priest, a pile of murderous undead entrails, and enough blood to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool. You can see there that this was a guy who would go on to make cinematic history.
I wish more young filmmakers would focus on how to make a convincing arterial hemmorhage out of Karo syrup, rather than trying to film sexual penetration as a form of social commentary. I am, of course, all for social commentary, and all for sexual penetration. But come on, if this film student wants to make a statement about people's "animalistic urges," she doesn't need to film sexual penetration. She needs to make a film where a bunch of zombies tear somebody apart and eat them alive. That's how you start a historically significant film career.
