Chen_Geller t1_jee679o wrote

I also think that Travis is played a little too crazy in the beginning, rather than gradually lose his mind, going from perfect sanity to madness.

Nevertheless, I think he's much more sympathetic and pitiable than Patrick Bateman, and that's really what makes the film.


Chen_Geller t1_j6hkfcf wrote

>It happened for other movies like "The lord of the ring",

The Bakshi film didn't fail at the box office: its budget figures range from $6 million to $12 (the latter is, I believe, hyperbole on the part of the director: the movie doesn't look anywhere near a $12 million movie) and it made $30.5 milion in the US alone. There were facts eating away at the profit margins for the studio, but on the whole it seems it made a decent (if a little underwhelming) profit.


Chen_Geller t1_j63t017 wrote

The end-credits of The Return of the King (and The Battle of the Five Armies, for that matter) are some of the classiest I've ever seen. Those parchment-like Alan Lee/John Howe portraits of the characters, set to that music...its like the best curtain call to the biggest play or opera ever concieved.


Chen_Geller t1_j2fcayf wrote

>without a planned ending

That's true of all Star Wars trilogies, though. The norm in Hollywood is not plan ahead: if you plan, you get "locked" into a certain direction with the plot and the characters that you can't necessarily get out of, if audiences don't like that direction.

The classic Star Wars trilogy was like that: hence out-of-left-field nonesense like Leia being Luke's sister. But even the prequel trilogy was like that: it was only planned insofar as Lucas knew "Yoda and Obi Wan must survive and go into exile, Anakin must turn into Darth Vader, Palpatine and the Stormtroopers take over."


Chen_Geller t1_j2ez137 wrote

The Star Wars sequel trilogy is the definition of unnecessary. EVERYTHING was wrapped-up in Return of the Jedi. Everything.

So I don't care how many movies George Lucas promised in 1979, the fact of the matter is the story was concluded


Chen_Geller t1_j1yhfma wrote

Books get adapted multiple times with different visuals: just look at Oliver Twist.

The only outlier is the recent The Rings of Power, which is a separate adaptation (like this film) but tries to pass for a prequel to The Lord of the Rings films.


Chen_Geller t1_j1pvw14 wrote

You remind me of something Joe Mantegna said in one of the Godfather documentary retrospectives about how the films “got nothing to do with the occupation it’s got nothing to do with the good and evil aspect of what these people did for a living.”

I used to think that was bollocks and…I still do.


Chen_Geller t1_ixpt4is wrote

Is this the version of the movie that has an intermission? Because I think this movie plays better with the intermission than without.

Its a great film of rapturous visuals, awe-inspiring scale, meticulous setpieces and memorable performances, but it moves at fits-and-stops sometimes. It needs that breather of the intermission.


Chen_Geller t1_iujzcny wrote

>I'd say the LOTR had a much bigger impact on movies in general.

As someone who prefers The Lord of the Rings, I would actually say this isn't true. I think if we talk in terms of influence, Star Wars had been incomprably more influential. Even fantasy films more often remind me of Star Wars than of The Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings was just too gigantic and sui generis.


Chen_Geller t1_iujz06j wrote

> They were made 25 years apart on vastly different budgets with different levels of technology available. Star Wars is an original story rather than an adaptation of existing work like LotR.

There's a lot of truth to this. And they were made by filmmakers with starkly different styles and predilictions.