 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
The Lord of the Rings 3BY PETER KEOUGH (Boston Phoenix)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnest, meticulously rendered, efficiently narrated, and spectacular, the first two installments of Peter Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy also suffer from those virtues. For me, much of the magic of the books came not so much from the encyclopædic detail, the outlandish creatures and landscapes, and the hifalutin adventures as from the process of imagining them for myself. Jackson does all that work for you, and for the most part, he does it well and expensively. But the experience is passive, like watching a stunning video game without being able to play it.AND THERE YOU HAVE IT. / cj
[Snip] Ian McKellen is a great actor, but with the white robe, beard, and stallion, he looks like an escapee from a Dungeons and Dragons convention. And every time suspension of disbelief settles in, it’s dispelled by clinker lines like "The Eye of the enemy is moving!" and "All that you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given you." For the three-hours-plus of The Return of the King, what your imagination does has already been decided for you.
Follow Ups:
Nice to see some criticism for a change: the film is overstated; and many of the lines are clunkers (and the songs made me sink in my chair). As for this statement, however:Neither is any of the many rallying cries in the film as eloquent as her defiant, "I am no man!" Jackson’s empowered females (two of the film’s scriptwriters are women) are a definite improvement on Tolkien’s sexism.
For a guy writing when war was exclusively the business of men (by and large, or course, it still is), I'd say the role Tolkien gave to Eowyn was pretty bold. Her success on the field is very much in line with the unlikely-heroes theme of the books: the enemy never gave the Shire the consideration it deserved; the witch king, who can't be hurt by men, is brought down by a hobbit and a woman. And I'm not sure the tokenism of Liv Tyler's weak role in the films did much to further the cause of women.
with a light twist: “for none of woman born/ Shall harm Macbeth”, just making it "no man can kill me"... men being the ones who had power, Tolkien gave the role to a woman..., and the same situation Macbeth faces when he learns that Macduff was not born from a woman but instead: “Macduff was from his mother’s womb/Untimely ripped”, is exactly the same that ill creature meets, just before it dies, as Macbeth did, at the hands of the daughter/son of a good man he had killed...There´s another parallel, adding to this, and it comes when that wood rises in arms against Saruman, again the same as in Macbeth:“Macbeth shall never vanquished be until/ Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill/ Shall come against him”...
Yes, Tolkien drank from different springwells, and then combined what he took in some wise ways...
Regards
BF
Just tell us what YOU thought of the film, and leave it at that. Or do you feel you MUST denigrade it through someone else's opinion?Is this how you decide everything you like/ dislike?
Interesting. I guess we should use this process to figure what audio equipment will sound best too. No?
Later
D
Another cut 'n paste review from Clark, our resident "haven't seen it but I sure got an opinion on it" film expert.Dude, you call yourself an online journalist? Pathetic. You couldn't ad-lib a fart at a baked bean dinner.
If you ever have an original thought, please post it here (but I won't hold my breath waiting).
(0)
;^)
Gives me some lines to use at a coctail party.
...especially if you haevn't seen it. Not that it matters.
Having witnessed the parts of the first two films left me completely unwanting of getting any more of it.So unless you are implying the third one is done in a completely different style I see no reason to waste my time on it.
The first two I found incredibly boring... so sue me for not wanting to see the third one. But I truly believe that I can find better use for my time and money.
Somehow I find the notion that one must see every film just to know it is bad indefensible.
As you have seen enough of the first two films to conclude that they are not to your taste... a personal decision, absolutely nothing wrong with that... then you certainly shouldn't waste your time on the third. Certainly the films are not for everyone, so I would argue against Audiophilander's logic in this case.
... his assertion that the 3rd film is "bad" simply because he doesn't like the bits and pieces of the other two films he's seen isn't logical; it's an assumption. He has every right not to see the last film and to say that he doesn't THINK that he would like it based upon what he has seen of the other two, but a careful reading of his post reflects an uninformed opinion which goes MUCH beyond that, even if this wasn't his intent.I certainly agree with you that it's a personal decision, because NO film is right for everyone, but my logic is quite sound, thankyou very much!
AuPh
If you had stated that it's unnecessary to see an entire film to know you won't like it, that one thing, but to make an arrogant, preposterous, all encompassing assessment about a film's quality based solely on your own miserably narrow viewpoint is pretentiousness on a grand scale! This bears out the subjective observations I made about your doctrinaire opinions posted in another forum.AuPh
I didn't see clark say it was a bad film, so you hysterically liead about that.Then I didn't say that either - there goes your another lie. I said that based on the privious films I have no inclination of wasting my time.
Sounds like you are simply unable to think straight when someone disagrees with your choices... but that has been your traditon all along.
But now you are down to pure lies... this is intellectually insulting.
ROTFL! That's more than meager pretentiousness, that's pure unadulterated chutzpah! ;^D> > > "I didn't see Clark say it was a bad film..." < < <
No, Clark weaseled out of that by using other critic's opinions, those in the vast minority, in order to reflect his own preconceived notions. Pretty silly approach to criticizing a movie if you ask me, but that's Clark for you!
> > > "Then I didn't say that either..." < < <
But you did, Victor. The fact that you tried to weasel out of it by employing a very weak caveat (i.e., having no inclination of wasting your time based on the other two films, which BTW, is rather disingenuous since you haven't seen either of the previous films except in bits and pieces) doesn't alter the fact that you're placing a value judgment on the film without having seen it.
Heck, I even tried to sit through the Solaris (Russian), which is the most boring film this side of Robert Altman's Pret-a-Porter, before passing judgment.
> > > "But now you are down to pure lies... this is intellectually insulting." < < <
If there's any "intellectual insulting" going on around here, most folks now KNOW from whence it originates; let me give you a hint... it aint comin' from your's truly! ;^)
AuPh
!
;^)
... who happens to agree with his preconceived notions? If he hasn't seen the film, then Clark's opinion on TRotK is less than worthless!Furthermore, if you're relying on the second hand comments of a second string critic for something to say at a cocktail party then you're intellectual cache` is emptier than I thought!
AuPh
...express an opinion on TRotK? On TTT I did, indeed, express myself, but the charge against me here is as much a fabulation as the writer's stuff on Outside.Regarding "the second hand comments of a second string critic", well, we all know how the writer admires trash and now we learn that the "first string critics" -- like Ebert and SiskelII? -- evidently thrill his pants off because of their exalted status.
So amusing...
clark
Unless "cj" is the character from the fictional albeit more inspirational West Wing (i.e., the Press Secretary as portrayed by Allison Janny), then that opinion sure as shootin' looks like your's buckeroo! ;^)Of course, you'll probably say that the initialed comment merely separated the views of the critic, who's deftless prose you apparently admire greatly, from your own. However, it certainly leaves the impression that you completely agree with his viewpoint in spite of the fact that you obviously lack first hand observations about the film!
So, I ask again: How did you formulate an opinion about a movie you haven't seen?
Since some lessons bear repeating I'll re-link an excellent URL that provides a national cross section of critical opinion on TRotK. Needless to say, I'm inclined to agree with the majority opinion here, and BTW, I have seen the film!
Funny, what you call "preconceived notions" some might call experience and education.Personally, I could never understand those who insist that I must see every trashy movie out there.
I, and quite a few film critics, don't think ROTK is trash. (Not that you care to mathoms for my opinion or theirs.)Many people *don't* feel it dumbs down or appeals to the lowest common denominator. ROTK will obviously not be everyone's cinematic cup of tea. But it is NOT "trash". Au contraire, along with Weir's Master & Commander, I think it redeems commercial filmmaking for fall 2003.
If you want trash...there's plenty of it currently in theaters, including that pretentious trash disguised as an epic The Last Samurai.
Anyhoot, I got L'Atalante cued up inn the DVD player...catch y'all later.
Frodo Lives!
Find a attractive woman, approach her, and say smoothly: "Hi, I'm Vic and I'd like to kiss and lick your naked body." It's a good ice breaker. I never got laid but I never got slapped.Oh yeah, it works best if you're young and cute--hence, I retired it 25 years ago.
I saw it in the movies.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
