 
|
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: Lord of the Rings! posted by anson on December 18, 2001 at 14:18:28:
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
Follow Ups:
"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.
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 ]
