Jason Calacanis is at Sundance and writes about the ridiculous crowds.#

After dinner we walked down Main street and saw a crowd of hundreds outside Harry O's, the largest club on Main street. We later found out that the chaos was, predictably, the arrival of Paris Hilton. So, there you have it, Paris Hilton is at Sundance and I've broken my rule to keep this blog focused on the films and filmmakers. This will be the first and last Paris Hilton mention on the blog.

During all the insanity last night on partygoer asked me what they should do at Sundance. I replied deadpan, "go see some films." 'Nuf said.

I imagine there is a very interesting discussion about who should really be honoured when it comes to films. When a film is great--is it because of the actors, or the makers? Are the actors like the paint and canvas of painting? How does the collaboration balance out?

John at the Movie Blog writes about Return of the King.#

I haven't tried to be ambiguous about it since I first saw it. I personally think The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is the best film ever made. It's difficult not to sound like some teenage geek fan boy when I say that (I'm 31 by the way). With all due respect to 21 Grams, Mystic River, Lost in Translation, Monster and other excellent films this year, I'll be shocked and outraged if the Academy doesn't award Rings with best picture.

John D. Rateliff, a Tolkien Scholar, reviews the Lord of the Rings.#

The first question anyone thinking about seeing this movie should ask is this: "Is it a good movie?"

[...]

The second question for most viewers, following hard on the first, is this: "Is it a good adaptation of the book?"

For many Tolkien fans, this question is even more important than the first. (We are, after all, talking about a book that has sold more than fifty million copies, created the modern fantasy genre, and held its audience for a half-century now. It's not just any book. It's a classic.)

Dowingba illustrates similarities between the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. He forgot one though: Lots of dorks like both... losers!#

Sarcasmo writes about 28 Days Later. Very funny.#

[We] thought it was a horror movie. Turns out we were not alone in this assumption, as IMDB categorizes it as a Sci-Fi Horror Thriller. I would re-categorize it as a Slow-paced vaguely science based movie with the occasional zombie. This movie couldn't seem to find it's center. In fact, I would say it suffers the same identity crisis as Night of the Hunter. It starts off as one movie, ends as another, and includes an inexplicable hour long middle section that involves a pastoral romp through the countryside complete with lovely flora and adorable fauna. Because every girl knows there's nothing about the apocalypse that some wild flowers and pretty horses can't fix.

Sigh.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I've simply had my fill of Last Man on Earth-type apocalypse movies, by which I mean [Last-Man-On-Earth Except-for-Some-Feisty-Sexy-Female With-Whom-I-Will-Have-A-Relationship As-We-Battle-Mutant-Humans-Zombies Who-Are-A-Result-Of-A-Viral-Infection] movie.

The Black Saint is an recluse academic who studies the unknown laws of movie-space.#

It's possible that Kutcher believes that The Butterfly Effect will trigger Movie Law No. 367 or The Matrix Exception, in which an otherwise goofy actor achieves a degree of credibility based on his perfect casting as the goofy hero in a sci-fi blockbuster.

However, Kutcher exemplifies Movie Law No. 49 or The Ted Danson Rule -- the TV star who never makes it on the big screen.