 
|
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 |
In Reply to: "One thing I did feel was the most manly (read homosexual) between some of the characters..." - LOL! posted by Audiophilander on January 09, 2004 at 11:16:00:
And mine must be very different.
You just pick up something you though you could fight on.
In the end the very core of the discussion is fading away.
This films are very bad, and I would not call them films at all.
And I respect the work of the director for trying to film this almost impossible story.
If he would have suceed I would have been the first to say " bravo ".
He had the power but not the brain.
He should try again in twenty years from now.
Follow Ups:
> > > "You just pick up something you though you could fight on." < < <Not at all! You started this thread by trying to find an excuse to trash the movies, which you apparently despise, through the author's works, which you've never read, and some wannabe critic's lame article you found in the Paris (Hilton) Match!
These films are fabulous and are decidedly NOT the failures which you continue to make them out. IMHO, Peter Jackson's interpretations of Tolkien's epic will stand for many years on their own merits and eventually take on the cache of other much loved film classics like The Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.!
> > > "This films are very bad, and I would not call them films at all." < < <
Like them or not, Patrick, I believe that you're in the vast minority here. The Lord of The Rings trilogy is both epic adventure and now a highly regarded cinematic treasure. You are certainly entitled to dislike these films if you so choose, either on their merit or, AFTER having read the books, as erring in their interpretion of Tolkien's vision.
> > > "And I respect the work of the director for trying to film this almost impossible story..." < < <
He not only tried, but succeeded, your debatable opinions notwithstanding. However, your "respect" is faint praise judging by the next condescending utterence:
> > > "He had the power but not the brain." < < <
Hmmm, and how is that? If the ONE ring were to come back as a key, it would probably open Peter Jackson's bank vault. I would say that he knew his subject, his audience and his own mind quite well. Care to try again? ;^)
AuPh
I do not like this movie. ( point )
I prefer to be in the minority then two wrong doesnīt make one right.
Case closed. As there is nothing more to say.
nt
The last film I saw with him in it..I must have been 12 years old.
What a strange idea and fixation on all French loving him...
Anyway it is your problem...
He look constipated all the way down.
...the unfoundeed accusations and anal retentive remarks about JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson in this thread, if you know what I mean. Now it's down to making inane comments about actor's performances; why not give it a rest guys, okay?AuPh
Anal retentive? Have you phobia against homosexuality?
But you are right..enough is enough.
;^)
What is my private behavior first? AND that is none of your buisness second!
Yes we are on a public place and everyone is here to share his mind about films.
If you do not like my critics why do you read then?
I respect you views so should you do for mine too.
Now letīs move to another film..What did you like lately..Hehe...
> > > "What is my private behavior first?" < < <You asked if I was homophobic after describing imagined homoerotic interaction between certain characters in LoTR. This suggests that you have issues with homosexuality; of course I could be mistaken. What those issues are if present, I have no idea, but I'm not asking and you aren't required to tell. I was simply trying to demonstrate sensitivity; whatever your private behavior, I won't think less of you for it since you're apparently seeking my approval.
> > > "AND that is none of your business second!" < < <
Right you are! Let's move on then.
> > > "If you do not like my critics why do you read them?" < < <
Because it's an open forum for discussing film and opinions can occasionally be swayed. Also, since both informed and uninformed opinions are present, I share knowledge based on the former to improve the latter in the hope of enriching the film experience of those who either haven't seen the films or haven't made up their minds.
> > > "I respect you views so should you do for mine to." < < <
Fine, but when you post conjecture and seek support for your opinions while casting aspersions of racism that are unfounded, correction is definitely in order.
> > > "Now let's move on to another film." < < <
Gladly!
> > > "What did you like lately ..Hehe..." < < <
Haven't seen any films since viewing LoTR/RoTK, except Cold Mountain and I didn't care for Cold Mountain, with the exception of Rene Zellwigger's performance. I also like the concert video Rush in Rio (DVD of South American concert), but I didn't catch that at the local cinema, even though there was a limited theatrical release.
AuPh
I never ask you such a thing!!! I can speak about everything, with or without affinities!
I am viewing " Venderdi Soir ".
I will comment later on.
The casting of this series was absolutely brilliant, IMO, and all three movies played better than most films I've seen in recent years. I absolutely got lost in the characters and the richness of the story and visuals. This series has become one of my all time favorites. BTW, it should be viewed separately from the books because the cinematic flow of such an epic journey requires some compromise from the broadly detailed, complex literary vision of it's original author in order to reach an audience unfamiliar with the works. Peter Jackson accomplished this and Elijah Wood's portrayal of Frodo conveyed the perfect mental image of a young man or, in this case, young Hobbit caught up in an adventure beyond his comprehension.I know that you like Tolkien's books, but perhaps you and Patrick would feel more comfortable at a Jerry Lewis revival (phlem phestival?). ;^)
AuPh
Poor actors + poor direction, + lots of money can easily make garbage gaining the appreciation of the masses.McShit and Coke can be classified as the two best known "food" to the majority of US citizens, most of which consider them as essentially American as apple pie..., but they still rank very low (sub-zero) in my personal ranking for palatial pleasures, and very close to that for their nutritional values.
These films are the filmic equivalent of a MegaBurger soaked in lukewarm Coke.
Regards
BF
You are much more descriptive than I am....But I must really laugh---The real tragedy is even we are trying hard they wonīt undertsand..must be different worlds...
Just because a film or film series makes money (i.e., has mass appeal) doesn't mean that it's the cinamatic equivalent of fast food; you're certainly entitled to dislike these films, but one would hope those contemptuous of the series wouldn't find it necessary to ridicule the taste of all who appreciate Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's epic tale. FTR, I will reiterate that I consider the acting and direction of these films both deserving of high praise.The art houses are frequently full of pretensious foreign "message" films, containing faux sophistication and meandering symbolism that I'm sure some here would find nutritionally satisfying. However, I'm of the opinion that not every acquired taste is worth acquiring, whether domestic or not. By way of example, Beluga caviar may hold a mystique for some that makes other's ralph at the thought of it! Does that mean that those who've acquired a taste for expensive imported caviar have superior taste or merely that they'ld make good Fear Factor contestants?
I make no judgments either way, but if something "tastes good" I'd personally be more inclined to find it tasteful than tasteless and not concern myself with the popularity of it; Peter Jackson's LoTR trilogy falls into this category for me.
Regards,
AuPh
When I say that these films are poorly directed, I am saying that Mr. Jackson has made them by piling scene over scene, losing any sense of continuity, and then his sense of rhythm shines just because itīs absent, and his tempo changes suddenly, from too fast to practically stopping, making these films look like the poor collage they are.As an example, just consider how boringly slow, and lacking any minimal tension, is the hobbitīs ascent to Mount Doom: itīs repetitive, and it lacks any sense of progress, with them being now here, an eternity later there, and finally there they are, in what look like the banks of a river of molten lava (which should burn anything at distances much further than where they are, while they donīt even show a single drop of sweat in their faces...). That scene, if properly directed, would have been carrying the viewer towards a climax, in the same way a good conductor would when playing a symphony..., but he doesnīt.
Telling a story well is not so easy, and requires much more than just a lot of technical equipment, which he had in spades..., but no talent to squeeze the juice that fruity story has.
If you want to have a clear idea of what Iīm saying, just find a copy of Minnelliīs "The Bad and the Beautiful", and look at what happens when Kirk Douglas asks that director to make things happen at a different pace in the film they are doing at that time, and the director tells him that "he needs to hold the pace now, so he can grow better on the final climax"...: then, Douglas fires him, takes the rheins, makes the film, and finally drops it away, because he undrstands that he has made just a piece of shit. Minnelliīs is a very good film, deserving being seen once again, if you already know it.
And actors are generally bad: Elijah Wood doesnīt fit well as the hobbit who, being full of bonhomie, finds himself entangled in a risky adventure, being shattered to the every marrow of his bones, and then finally transforming himself, through his struggles, into a mature, richer person: thatīs what happens in the books, but Mr. Wood is always like a child, always so far from the much better playing the man doing Samīs role shows every time, so much that he literally wipes him away... Mr. Mortensen is a stiff, wooden Aragorn, showing no greatness at any time; Liv Tyler is one of the worst in her blank inexpressiveness; Gandalfīs eyes show just as much intelligence as Mr. Bushīs reading one of his speechs...
Well, now I have, without entering in too many details, told you why I consider these films not to be at the height of the original work. And I donīt mind if they are acclaimed by tasteless people as the biggest thing since sliced bread (which I despise too: have you ever had a loaf of good bread, baked in the old style..., or a good baguette? there simply is no contest!), as I am dead sure that, in a couple of years, time will put things in their right place, and they will have been forgotten: Mr. Jacksonīs work is at the same height as Rowlingīs "Harry Potter" when compared to the sheer height of Tolkienīs books.
Regards
BF
I differ with almost all of your arguments, but I will admit that the pacing is improved in both of the longer cuts available. The problem you've pointed to has more to do with the weight of the works and trying to accomadate broad storylines that separate and converge in ways that don't lend themselves to cinema. Peter Jackson has performed a remarkable feat and most folks, including many long time fan of Tolkien's original books, are comfortable with the changes and the actor's performances.FYI, I had the opportunity to discuss Jackson's films with a Tolkien scholor within the past year (i.e., he knew Tolkien in his lifetime, and understood the man and his works about as well as a biblical scholor understands scripture). He saw the films and books as essentially different forms, but drew comparisons while critiquing Peter Jackson's interpretations; the consensus: the films are excellent in their own rite, taking into account the complexity of Tolkien's work and the challenge of trying to film such a complex epic in any cohesive manner that an audience would be able to grasp.
So, what is the bottom line? Well, my take and your's are almost diametrically opposed. That said, I would agree with you as far as the films being imperfect. Nevertheless, any way you look at it they're darn good entertainment and probably the best anyone could've hoped for under the circumstances! Are there pacing problems, such as the crosscuting of events during Frodo's slow ascent of Mount Doom? Yes, I'm of the opinion that the ascent isn't as oppressively slow nor as redundent as you've indicated. The "molten lava should burn everything" issue is certainly worth addressing, but it's easy to overlook the close proximity to this super heated environment since we're dealing with a fantasy realm and have gradually grown of just how unique and tough Hobbits can be when they set their minds to something.
My take on the acting: Elijah Wood was perfectly cast as Frodo, IMHO, as were the rest of the characters. How anyone could fault the casting is beyond me!
> > > "And I don't mind if they are acclaimed by tasteless people as the biggest thing since sliced bread..." < < <
That is a very subjective opinion, my friend. One also might correctly conclude that those who are unfairly critical, tactless and insulting of the tastes of others are guilty of pinching their loaves in public.
AuPh
Simply gaze over Fordīs "The Quiet Man", and there you are: each and every one of them fit into their roles as hands in gloves do!And then, thereīs something about filming to be learned, there..., especially about how to dose things, and how to keep a perfect rhythm, and... had you noticed how well that scene when Sean brings Mary Kate to her brother, is a perfect exercise in filmic rhythm, with that tune named something like "Irish launderer", or so, fitting perfectly to it?
Thatīs cinema, man! And no special effects at all, in it!
Regards
BF
is that of Oliver Stone's "Nixon". Every choice is brilliant, and the acting and direction are first rate. Get the longer version if you can. "Nixon" takes Stone's editing technique truly over the top.
And while Anthony Hopkins does not try a Rich Little-type Nixon impersonation, within a couple of minutes you totally accept him, something Hopkins also accomplished in last year's "The Human Stain", where he plays a black man.
No offense, but I was never moved by The Quiet Man; I'm not especially fond of Maureen O'Hara's acting and her faux Irish accent seems somewhat forced here (i.e., my opinion; YMMV). The supporting cast is pretty good, but from my perspective that's all that recommends this old film which, admittedly, some regard as a classic. I'll stand by my earlier post, orejones: The Lord of the Rings trilogy of films are new classics that will stand the test of time! Long after the FX work is dated people will wax poetic about these films because the cast was perfectly suited and the fictional characters are brought to life through their performances.AuPh
You are wrong!
There is an education for every sense we have be it " arts & foods & drinks & or whatever".
Only if you have reach out for, you can then appreciate an Hamburger...to his real value.
On the really top of all senses, where air is thin, very thin, you can set preferences. which may vary from individus to individus*, from taste to taste.* Sorry BUT French
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 ]
