LOTRs wins 11 times

deservedly so :-)

Lord...

I BARELY could sit through the first one.. I just don't get it.

truth
Soserene, I enjoyed the film for the special effects. The creatures (trolls, dragons, giant eagles and spider helped me regress to childhood for a while. But it turns my adult stomach to see this special effects fantasy win over two major art works, Mystic River and Monster. It really puts the Academy Awards into perspective: its function is to reward money makers, just as the Supreme Court's function is to elect presidents.

It was awarded because it was good.

I usually don't disagree with JL but J.R.R. Tolkien wrote one incredible tale and Jackson did a superlative job bringing it to the screen. It did big business but that doesn't negate its artistic value. The award was given for the sum total of the three films which are really one film. As good as "Monster" and "Mystic River" are, they are really depressing films and I think at this time in our history, depressing isn't going to make it with the academy voters. The books were written for adults, not children. At least, something we can agree on, Blue.

truth
I understand, LW, but one must agree with Ebert's statement last night (on the Leno show?) that with respect to the artistic value of film, "there is no such thing as a depressing GOOD film." I think he added that "there is no such thing as a non-depressing BAD film." (paraphrased)

I feel Ebert and Roeper are of the school that has kept fantasy films out of Oscar's graces. They don't want to approach fantasy as an art in the first place. The two artists who won for the production design have many illustrated books published of LOTR. I disagree that there aren't films that may be depressing but are great films and "Mystic River" would not have been nominated if it weren't a great film. However, the handwriting was on the wall as LOTR was an achievement unique in the industry and the art in the sets, the costumes, the makeup and the ensemble acting is all there. CGI doesn't create itself -- someone has to creat in the computer and it begins with drawings and concepts. I've been a bit wary of Ebert of late -- I think he's handing out far too many three and four star ratings. Earlier interviews, BTW, revealed that Ebert and Roeper were resigned to the fact that LOTR was going to win. Roeper even seemed a bit sheepish about it as he gave the first film thumbs down (and given some really mediocre movies thumbs up). Critics are good guides to what films to catch but I prefer to read many reviews.

If you go to www.mrqe.com and enter "The Return of the King" or any other parts of the trilogy and you'll find over 90% of the critical reviews are favorable and many of those are rave reviews.