Chen G.

That's the JWFan way.

Not only is it set in Christmas, but the chain of events that sets the movie off is unlikely to occur at any time other than Christmas.

Absolutely. Just as an example of how thorough he is: we all know that when he works on an adapted film, he diligently reads the source material. But looking at production material from The Hobbit you'll see that he's actually reading The Annotated Hobbit, so he has the biggest possible background on the work. Now that's being involved! I've been listening to this interview. I knew the Shire theme was written early on (as was Frodo's theme, per Shore, but that doesn't quite count) but I didn't know it was - as Jackson recalls it - before shooting began. That's awesome!

I'm not sure it is. Jackson has a much clearer vision for music in his films than most. Whereas most directors are perfectly happy with letting the composer run the main themes by them, and maybe ask for an occasional chage, Jackson likes to sit through the entirety of the recording sessions and offer input throughout. So for jobs that require the Howard Shore sound - he goes with Howard. For jobs that don't - he doesn't. Do you really see Shore composing for Mortal Engines? I dunno. What little we heard of his King Kong score is markedly different to Newton Howard's score - I'm sure its the latter type of score that Jackson had more in mind with regards to that film. I should also add that Jackson is gradually gravitating more and more towards Australian and New Zealand talent, both in front of and behind the camera, so there's that going for the likes of Junkie XL, and against the likes of Shore. But not for personal reasons - rather, its for practical ones. She also wrote the tunes for several of the diegetic songs.

Nolan has actually been upfront with his inspirations taken from Malick. I believe his habit of cutting to a flashback without sound is explicitly and admittedly taken from The Thin Red Line.

The anticipation being that of the audience. Its the notion that, when the audience is in on information that's withheld from the characters, that generates suspense. Its pretty much the textbook definition of suspense (as opposed to tension) in Hollywood today. And while I would say The Shining just isn't scary, it does have atmosphere by the boatload. It should be said, however, horror is the second most subjective genre, so there's that going for the movie, too. I don't find it scary - others might.

I do really like the scoring of it, yes. It is harder for me to register to it, being that not only am I not christian, I didn't grew up with any christians around.

So don't write it that way!

Yeah, there's thematic continuity in the values upheld by Judah - but they're not christian values as such. They just correlate with christian values. The connection is circumstantial, and - when the two characters briefly meet - mechanical. Sorry, not enough for me. You could have shown word of Christ arriving at Judah's ears (and Messala's) early in the course of the film, and have Judah actively follow Christ's teachings, and make that the source of his conflict with Messala.

I understand that's the title of the source material. But as for the film, as a film, the bulk of it is simply the life story of Ben Hur - NOT Christ. It should have stayed that way. I'm not saying the crucifiction should have been cut entirely, though. I'm saying it should have been planted much more throughly into the story, and presented more quickly. Hell, you could probably present part of it before the chariot race.

It can be achieved in other ways, too.

I know I don't say this often but THANK YOU, Publicist. Had the cruxifiction been more tightly knit into Ben Hur's life, the whole retelling of it wouldn't feel so redundant. But it doesn't, and hence it does. Still one of the better of the 50s epics, though.

I wouldn't know about "betrayed" but there is something about Nolan's action filmmaking, which to me reads as a lack of confidence in his storytelling, where he feels compelled to pile multiple subplots one upon the other come the climax. It happens in the Dark Knight with Two-face, the Joker and the two ships all going down simultaneously; and it happens big-time in the Dark Knight Rises. Its the Return of the Jedi effect! 😉

Its simply not at the right time: the whole dystopian-YA fad is long-passed. Oh well...

Inception - definitely. Its just a heist film, and the characters are not only robbers, but they're one that invade other people's most inner of sancti. The film does try to form a connection with the characters, but ultimately its one I enjoy more for its spectacle than for its attempts at higher drama. Dunkirk doesn't have characters by design: they're shells into which the audience is meant to pour itself, which is certainly not unheard of as a cinematic ploy. Its a form of an audience surrogate, really, but one's milleage may vary. The Dark Knight is a tricky one, to me. Its certainly a more technically accomplished film than the other two Batman films, but its much more the superhero film. What I mean by that is that we spend the majority of the film with Batman, not with Bruce. As a result, one of my favorite dynamics of these films - that of Bruce and Alfred - kind of gets lost in the shuffle. Really, the relationship that rings most true in the film is the one between Rachel and Harvey, not Rachel and Bruce. I relate to the characters' predicament in Interstellar just fine. I'm told its all the more affecting for those with kids. It just needed to be a tad shorter, and much less wordy. Memento works because the non-linear progression of it brings the audience into the world of the character, even if he's not that good of a person.

Absolutely. Its also an unfair requirement from filmmakers, even in a documentary: they don't need three degrees in history to make a historical film. The point of making a historical film is to provide your impression - more the visceral one than the intellectual one - of the piece of history you're adapting. If you want something factual, intellectual and nuanced - than the avenue to explore isn't film - its books.

That's very often the case with film: people's expectations get in the way of their enjoyment.

It never does, and its not unfortunate. It only means that screenwriters need to do their job: they need to adapt material to the screen.

I'd imagine that's a mistake on Kelly's part. The London Symphony Orchestra never recorded these films: it was the Philharmonic. For the end-credits songs - both this and "Song of the Lonely Mountain" - I believe a freelance orchestra named "London Metropolitan Orchestra" was used.

I think I count as an informed viewer: I am applying for post-grad in History, after all. But narrative cinema just isn't the medium for an intellectual exploration of historical fact. It is the medium with which to leverage historical facts - some rearranged and some manipulated - into elliciting an emotional reaction from the audience; and if the bare bones of the plot line-up with the course of history - than it did its job well enough.

Is it a documentary? If it isn't, it can f*ck about with history all it wants, for all I care.

Random latin!

Score or film? Score-wise, they're all infused with Celtic sensibilities, so I guess you could compare (and therefore rank) them on those grounds. Film-wise, The Lord of the Rings has got to be the odd one out. Its different in its genre, its scope, its format (multiple parts versus one feature) and alot of its sensibilities. So, I just don't see a point in ranking it compared to Titanic, or even Braveheart. Between the latter two, I prefer Braveheart - film and score - to Titanic. But we already had a whole thread dedicated to that subject, so...

Thank you for that image, @publicist.😒😉

Peter Jackson actually approached Horner way, way before he did Shore: about two years prior.