 
|
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 |
Anyone going to see LotR:FotR tonight? I've got tix to the 12:05am showing in my area, and since I'm a big fan of the books, I can hardly wait! I'm sure I'll be a zombie at the office tomorrow morning, but hey, you gotta do what you gotta do :) Would love to hear your thoughts on this film and the rest of the series.
Follow Ups:
Saw it last night.I am very pleased with the results. Not completely, more on that later, but given the constraints of putting fantasy on film, a pleasant result.
Three hours was a bit long, but I didn't really notice the time going by, although a lady in front of me got up to go to the bathroom just before Gandalf's Balrog scene! Guess she couldn't wait any longer.
The omission of the Barrow Wrights and Tom Bombadil was sad. But I guess that would have added another half hour to an already long show.
Pete Jackson did an excellent casting job. Everyone was spot on, I even approved of Elron, although he was a bit too militant for my tastes.
The special effects were a bit over the top sometimes, especially with Galadriel as 'dark queen', but overall reasonably subdued. This is not an FX movie.
Now. The bad parts.
Adding 'comic relief' with Gandalf banging his head in hobbit holes, well, not really needed. Not even for character development.
I agree that Tolkein was a bit mysogynist, but still there were several strong female roles in the book. However, Jackson's idea to expand the love interest between Arwen and Aragorn was just too much. There was a five minute scene ripe for cutting that had them lovey-doveying in Rivendell. And this crap about her losing her immortality. Puhleez.
The 'fight' between Saruman and Gandalf, not to mention the whole re-writing of Saruman. I think were wizards to fight, it would not be throwing each other about with spells from their staffs. And they didn't fight (in the book), Gandalf was duped. No exact explanation, but something as simple as, 'Step into this room while I get us a spot of tea' and locking the door on the way out would have been better.
Rivendell, and Galadriel, was a disappointment. This was the last refuge of Elves on Middle Earth, and it looked like a gloomy forest. And Galadriel should have been drop dead gorgeous. And kind. And stern. And beautiful. And powerful. Here was one juicy female role for the movie and Jackson flubs it.
The end, where Boromir scares Frodo into running away. There was supposed to be suspense there about the fate of all, and powerful indecision on Aragorns part as to what to do. This was a cliff hanger of the strongest type in the book (which by virtue of reading them twenty years after their publication I was not victim of) and the movie has a lot of 'loose ends' neatly wrapped up.
Parts I liked:
the ring sequences. Excellent interpretation.
Bree.
Rivendell.
Moria.
The acting was somewhere between first and second rate, but the characters were strong enough to carry it.
All in all this was as good as I hoped for, and in many places even better.
Would anyone not familiar with the books want to see it? I suppose so, but it would go from four stars to two or three for them.
I plan on seeing it again this coming week, and snarfing up the DVD as soon as it's available.
r
"Would anyone not familiar with the books want to see it? I suppose so, but it would go from four stars to two or three for them"Yep, I'd give it a 2. It's not that I'm not familiar with the books though - more that I couldnt read them though I tried. Never could slog past the first 30 pages. And I find the fantasy section of the science fiction section of the book stores ( you know - where the paperback covers look like a cross between the Arthur Legend and a Danielle Steele novel) basically makes me want to puke. This one is not going to win over many to the fantasy category who had passed on it already. Watchable but not much more for me.
joe
I love pseudo-intellectuals who dismiss an entire genre of literature without having ever completed a book. I have a university degree in English Literature and have read, and studied, many of the classics from Russia, France, England, America, etc., etc. My favorite eras for literature are the late 17th to middle 18th centuries in England and early 20th century in America. I also love to read good Science-Fiction and Fantasy. Many of the themes covered in the classics are revisited in these genres effectively and innovatively.
I read Lord of the Rings about 30 years ago, so I have been waiting a long time to see it represented on film. I went two days ago with my wife, who read the books about the same time I did, and has reread them recently. It seems that, for appreciating a movie like this, context is everything. I was deeply touched by the purity, courage and indomitability of the diminutive heroes. Like the books, the movie captures these qualities and effectively juxtaposes them against profound danger and evil. Because reading the books was an emotional experience, so was watching the movie. My enjoyment, and appreciation, derived from the ability of the moviemakers to recreate, not just my visual imagination of the places, but my emotional reaction to the characters and their plight. I am going to see it again soon, so that I can share it with my friends.
I love pseudo-intellectuals who try to justify personal taste with logic. And I have tried to read fantasy on more than one occasion but my patience for good vs. evil, quests / vengance tales spiced with magical amulets and sorcerers is limited at best. Is that really so bad or hard for you to understand? And by the way I like SF and have been a voracious reader of all kinds of books over the years but Fantasy is the one thing I can't abide....I watched Lord Of the Rings two days ago and saw a simple minded drivative story as predictable as a grade school primer filled with cheap and manipulative directorial effects to advance an otherwise motionless story. I mean, how many times do we have to see directors make charcaters act like fools to advance the plot of their films without complaining? In this case I mean the painfully obvious device of having characters surrounding the hero act like fools in order to attract the attention of enemies just so another set piece battle can occur when things drag for just a bit too long. A device this film stooped to not once but twice!
I didn't like it. I'm not saying you shouldn't. But I am saying that people who don't find fantasy interesting are not going to be transformed into fantasy genre lovers by this movie.
joe
Fair enough. Pardon my presumption. My reaction to the movie was quite emotional because the books had an emotional effect on me. The director, in fact, follows the books very closely and what appear to be trite manipulations are accurate recreations of events in the story.
"The end, where Boromir scares Frodo into running away. There was supposed to be suspense there about the fate of all, and powerful indecision on Aragorns part as to what to do. This was a cliff hanger of the strongest type in the book (which by virtue of reading them twenty years after their publication I was not victim of) and the movie has a lot of 'loose ends' neatly wrapped up."This was THE key scene of the movie, and IMHO, they screwed it up. They're NOT supposed to know where Frodo's gone. And Boromir's death was much more tragic/noble in the book and even in the animated feature by Ralph Bakashi.
I just don't understand why the director felt compelled to make these changes.
> > > "Galadriel should have been drop dead gorgeous. And kind. And stern. And beautiful. And powerful. Here was one juicy female role for the movie and Jackson flubs it." < < <IMHO, Jackson didn't flub it because I found Cate Blanchet's Galadriel perfectly charming. She was "drop dead gorgeous" in a very pure and unglamorized way and effectively fightening in the transformation she resisted. Also, I thought the forest elve's kingdom was richly beautiful and imaginative as opposed to being merely a gloomy forest.
FTR, I haven't read the trilogy (i.e., I was one of the few among the group of friends going today who hadn't), but as a movie this is a fantasy which grabs hold and doesn't let go. The pacing is virtually perfect, as the three hours go by feeling only like about two and change. The tale is told in a very sophisticated manner and isn't in the least bit condescending to it's audience. I had no problem with the slightly extended romance scene between Arwen and Aragorn as it provides more audience connection (i.e., caring) with both characters and set the tone for the journey, separating them, which lay ahead.
As for the mild humor, I didn't mind Gandalf bumping his head in Hobbit holes as it did emphasize the typical Wizards size over the typical Hobbit's in a believable manner. However, I was caught off guard by the in-joke about dwarf throwing which seemed a bit out of place (i.e., too contemporary). This comment elicited a brief giggle from the audience, but the remark occured in a moment of high drama when a little comedy relief is often appreciated and easily forgiven if not overdone.
Overall, were I to rate this film purely as entertainment, I'd be compelled to give it at least 4 1/2 out of 5 stars. This well cast hansomly directed film is highly recommended for fans of Tolkein and the uninitiated alike. Everyone in our group agreed that the only downside is having to wait another year for the second movie in the trilogy. Bummer! :o(
AuPh
I was really put off by the dwarf-throwing joke, not from a civil-rights perspective (though it is reprehensible), but because it ruined the moment and was utterly unnecessary. Otherwise, I was utterly captivated by the movie. I was caught off-guard by its' emotional impact - I had wet eyes and a wrenched gut at the end.
It is interesting to read the reaction of someone who hadn't read the books.
The dwarf throwing remark was a big mistake. Still, the movie was probably better than the book on several levels.I'm now rereading the book and finding its flaws pretty obvious. Fine as a story, it's not superb as literature or fiction as we know it today.
Would have been nice to have seen Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wight in the movie. Probably too difficult to integrate them with the story. I believe they are not all that well integrated in the book, which makes it even more difficult.
Interestingly, when I saw LOTR I was surrounded by people who had *not* read the books, and they all loved the film. A couple folks were disappointed that the ending was open ended, but several around me were making comments that they'd have to go buy the books 'cause they couldn't wait a who year to find out what happens. Cool!On the whole, I LOTR is better than I'd hoped. Not dumbed down, not designed for the lowest comon denominator like so much Hollywood sci-fi & fantasy. I thought the casting was wonderful, McKellan and Wood especially. Vigo Mortensen was a happy surprise, and Orlando Bloom was perfect as Legolas. Those of us who know the trilogy have these characters fixed in our minds' eye, images of what they look like and who they are. IMO the casting and acting went a long way toward emotional involvement in the film.
I was also surprised how many scenes and places in LOTR looked as I'd imagined them - Hobbiton, Bree, Moria. The stunning New Zealand landscape was another character in itself, both familiar and exotic - the perfect Middle Earth. I agree, however, that the Elvish homelands are less successfully imagined than other locations mentioned. Possibly Jackson relied to much on the body of LOTR illustrations that tend to depict Rivendell & Lothlorien as cliched celtic airy faery.
There were some inspired touches too, like the smoking scene at Bilbo's party where the B. & Gandalf are companionably enjoying their pipes...Bilbo blows a smoke ring & Gandalf then blows a puff that looks like a masted ship which travels through Bilbo's ring...what a lovely image that both symbolizes & presages the quest.
The film isn't perfect but I've seldom felt 3 hours go by faster. I'll probably see it again.
Oh yeah, I liked the little bits of humour, even Gandalf hitting his head on the beam in Bilbo's house.
I wasn't sure how the ring really worked. The fact that it would affect Frodo much differently than Bilbo confused me. Bilbo's inclination to evil was understandable from the beginning of the movie and at the elve refuge where he showed the hideous face to Frodo. Why didn't he use the ring all of the time of his possession if he craved so much for it? I guess I just have to read the book. You can never have plot holes in a book. :)Overall, great cast. Love scene was in haste and underdeveloped. Maybe just an extra ten minutes of dialogue would do.
Saw it last night and thought it was a brilliant filming of the first book, given the time constraints of a 3 hour-long movie instead of a 4 1/2-5 hour-long one and taking into consideration that the films are being released a year between rather than a week or month between.It's by far the best fantasy film I've ever seen.
My take after seeing last night: People who are not into the books will enjoy it more, but either way, it's too long (needs an intermission, but that's not possible these days).Can't wait to get it on DVD where I can get up and stretch. Still, am glad I saw it in a theater for the "big screen experience", although I hated some of the pointless changes to the story Jackson made (especially the ending - - no reason for that change, and kills the sense of urgency the actual ending had which, would have propelled them into the second movie).
Oh, and that guy who pays Elron. . . I hated his performance. He was perfect for his role in the Matrix, but what a wooden delivery in this film. An elf shouldn't act like a computer generated charactor.
Special FX's were ok, the sets (including the CGI) were great.
I agree, they should have cast someone else as Elrond. And his east-London, arrogant accent really didn't work.
My take after seeing last night: People who were not into the books will enjoy it more, and it's too long (needs an intermission, but that's not possible these days). Can't wait to get it on DVD. Glad I saw it in a theater for the "big screen experience", and hated some of the changes to the story Jackson made (especially the ending - - kills the sense of urgency that would have propelled them into the second movie).Oh, and that guy who pays Elron, I hated him. He was perfect for the Matrix, but what a wooden delivery in this film.
Special FX's were ok, the sets (including the CGI) were great.
I haven't seen the movie yet because it hasn't opened here in Oz.However, I have been a big fan of Peter Jackson's movies from the beginning of his career when he made "Bad Taste". Although he has been labelled a "splatter movie" maker, there is far more to his early movies. There is a quirkiness and off-beat quality to all his movies, combined with a novel directorial and cinematic approach to the look and feel of his movies.
If you haven't seen any of his early movies check out "Bad Taste" which is about a group of nerds with machine guns and chain saws who have to save New Zealand from aliens from the "Kneeling Nod Fast Food Co." who want to use all the humans on the planet in their fast food products (this is a VERY low budget movie!). Another favourite is "Meet the Feebles" which is a puppet movie that's too bizarre to describe (think: Muppets on crack). I also liked "Braindead" which is set in 1950's New Zealand and is a real splatter-fest.
He then went on to make "Heavenly Creatures" which marked a change to a more polished approach to movie making. I found a lot of the humour of his earlier works missing in his later movies.
Any other Peter Jackson fans out there?
Cheers
Doug
--My favorite line from "Bad Taste."Surprised that you didn't mention "Dead Alive," the ultimate splatter comedy (was this originally named "Braindead"?). Some of it seemed like Sam Raimi's territory, but I loved it anyway. "I kick ass for the Lord!"
I thought "Heavenly Creatures" was the best film from 1994. Jackson can really take us into those dark places inside madness.
-
Yes, that's a cool scene. There is also a lot of "New Zealand Vs Australia" humour in the movie that I guarantee the rest of the world doesn't understand.The "I kick ass for the Lord" line is from Braindead, so yes that must be what you are thinking of.
I also liked Heavenly Creatures, but like I said in my earlier post it went in a different direction. I sincerely hope Peter Jackson "makes it big" as a director because he is a breath of fresh air compared to the formula-driven, lowest common denominator type of director prevalent in Hollywood.
Doug ;-)
Where the heck is a decent Region 1 release of Heavenly Creatures? If I have to suffer through the p&s canadian release one more time...I've been meaning to go through Mr. Jackson's old work but haven't been able to locate some of the releases on DVD. I know Feebles and others are available in Canada, but not yet in the US.
I'm really happy for Peter Jackson. He deserves all the success in the world for the effort that went into 16 months of filming for LotR and still countless postproduction effort. I'm not in the biz, but this is a project that I would have loved to have been involved with.
With a moral. A not to be missed movie. Not perfect, but what is in this world? Even Tolkien's books dragged a bit in spots IMO.Interestingly, I found the portrayal of some scenes like the Shire, Rivendell, Lorien, the King's statues, Isengard and the Mines of Moriah close or even better than I had imagined them. The Black Riders, Orcs and Balrog were great!
A greater emphasis on battles and big scenes is to be expected. Even then it's a three hour movie. Limit intake of liquids if you don't want to miss anything.
Not for younger kids, IMO. Pretty violent and scary I would think.
Well, as predicted, I'm certainly not as alert right now as I am usually am, but dammit, it was worth it! The film met my expectations and was thoroughly enjoyable. I have some reservations but they are minor given the big picture. Please post your thoughts when you've had the chance to experience IMO what is *the* movie experience of 2001![Actually, I'll qualify that. Make that "the 'mainstream' movie experience of 2001".]
Although I've read the books at least five times, I didn't find myself comparing the movie to them much at all. I think Peter Jackson did a fantastic job bringing his vision of the book to the screen.My main criticism concerns the editing. Many of the transitions did not seem to me very good, but were often jarring. I'm not talking about the kind of jump cutting that these days passes for skillful work but more often than not gives me a head-ache and makes me turn away from the screen (see another post here for my theory about that!), but edits that seemed as if there was a slight bit of "something" missing that would have linked the shots better. It's more of a "feeling" than a strict technical issue--or maybe it is all about technique.
Well, OK, a couple of other niggles: a few too many digital "flyovers" that call attention to themselves (But, hey, if directing is all about control, what director won't give in to the chance to make an entire shot EXACTLY as he wants it?), and I spent a lot of the beginning of the movie (and sporadically throughout) noticing how well (or not--when the digital stitching was obvious) Jackson integrated the actors at their appropriate sizes (but that's my problem).
All in all that won't stop me from going back for another showing!
John K.
Do you think someone who hasn't read the books will enjoy it?
Simple answer: yes. The filmmakers have added a prologue to help explain everything, and there is additional "explanations" to clarify throughout.John K.
will now wait for video after negative comments on that film. Instead, I will probably view "Lord Of The Rings on the giant
screen. Tried to read "The Hobbit" many years ago, but couldn't
get interested enough to read much. Hopefully the film will
succeed where the "The Hobbit" failed. - AH
I'd suggest seeing "Open Your Eyes" instead of "Vanilla Sky", the original Spanish film also starring Penelope Cruz in the same role. It's available on DVD now.I agree with you about the Hobbit. I read it after I had finished the trilogy and the quality of the writing is night and day. I guess the Hobbit was meant to be a children's book and boy does it ever seem trite in comparison. Skip it and go to Fellowship, which I place in the "can't put down" category!
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 ]
