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

[Diamond18]

In the recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, the staff indulges in a mad rank-a-thon where they deem the best 100 Movies, Books, Music, etc etc of the past 25 years. Or what they call "The New Classics." Pulp Fiction got their nod for the classicist new classic movie, and Lord of the Rings (as a whole) resides in the second spot.

Since I had nothing better to do than page through the whole magazine, I can say that many of their choices in all categories are, eeemmm... subjective at best (Amy Winehouse is in the top ten for both Music and Style, which begs the question, what kind of drugs is she buying the EW staff? But I digress) so I wouldn't exactly jump up and down and cheer at this distinction. Or put much weight behind it, really.

But it amused me. Here's what they had to say:

Originally Posted by Entertainment Weekly

Peter Jackson did the impossible. He filmed an unfilmable novel, he conjured a dark, ravishing vision all his own without desecrating J.R.R. Tolkien's, he made a nine-hour trilogy that truly lives and breathes like one movie, he got a riveting performance out of a slithery CG cave dweller with a split personality — and, what's more, he made fantasy a box office monster.

(If you click on the Photos tab you can read blurbs for all their selections.)

[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.

[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.