 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
Okay, f*ckin' wow.  Better than I expected, and I had high hopes. Anyone who hasn't read the books but wants to see the movie, DON'T READ THIS!
The casting is excellent (okay, maybe not Liv Taylor as Arwen, but she still does a good job). Cate Blanchett makes a perfect Galadriel, I didn't think she was beautiful enough to pull it off (Galadriel is supposed to be the beautiful woman in Middle Earth), but she was incredible. Her moment of temptation when Frodo offers her the ring captures the scene better than Tolkien's words. She is definately the fairy-queene of old.
In fact, what struck me over and over was that Peter Jackson described Tolkien's world better than did Tolkien. Granted, Tolkien provided a greater depth than the movie does, but the history lessons of the book (which are absent in the film) would have truely slowed things down. Unnecessary characters are gone from the film, so I hope you weren't expecting Gil-Galad or Gloifindel. We all know Tom Bombadil and the Barrow WIghts are gone, and the movie suffers none for their loss.
Christopher Lee as Sauruman.  Who else could be your wise and powerful friend and so smoothly reveal himself your enemy. He has all the charm of a cobra.
Could anyone but John Rhys-Davis play Gimli? Okay, Brian Breathed, but aren't they the same person, really?  He is over the top, as all dwarves should be. His dislike for the elves is palpable and his pride is almost pompous. Watch for some great one-liners.
Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith from The Matrix) is nearly perfect as Elrond, except his face is to pock-marked for the perfect skin of an elf. Still, it's is petty quibble, except that every other elf looks as if they were bathed in Oil of Olay their entire lives. Other than that, he looks and acts as I always expected of Elrond. Okay, maybe his deilvery could use a little work, but it was good.
Boromir plays well the tormented youth from Gondor and you can see the conflict building within him as the ring weaves its spell upon him. His death scene is moving and believable, and as he dies you can see the anguish in his face is not because he dies, but because he cannot save Merry and Pippin. Like Gandalf's death, you know this is coming, and it still hits you hard. Well played, Sean Bean. Especailly enjoyable is his flip comment, "Oh, they have a cave troll," as if it wasn't bad enough having a zillion goblins coming for you.
Despite knowing the story, and everything that is coming, Galdalf's death hits you hard. When Frodo is run through in Moria and he collapses, we know he's not dead, but the look on his face as he is pierced, and the anguish on all of the rest of the characters makes you believe that he is killed, when you knowhe isn't. We know Boromir must die, and it is still a shock when it happens. These are great actors and the dircetor really outdid himself.
Then there's the scenery. The architecture of the elves is straight from the latice artwork of Alphone Mucha, both in Rivendell and Lothlorien. Everywhere are the little touches, the detail that went into making everything seem like it was in its place. The Shire seemed like the perfect English countryside. The landscapes were fantastic. Who knew Middle Earth was in New Zealand. Caligastia, why'd you ever leave!?!
And the villains. The Ringwraiths are terrifying. When Frodo puts on the ring on top of Amun Sul, you can see them at once as death and then as the majestic kings they once were, tragic and monstrous. When they chase Frodo and the elven rider towards the Fords of Bruinen, you know he's going to get away. You've read the books, you know how it ends. Yet it is one of the most tense scenes I've seen. You are on the edge of your seat, you have stopped breathing, you are scared.
The orcs are far more disgusting creatures than I ever imagined, and the effect of their swarming in Moria is like the scarab scenes in The Mummy. Not very scary, except when the company is surrounded by thousands of them. But then comes the Balrog.
Oh my god! The Balrog is awesome. Jackson gets the tension perfect. He only hints at the Balrog. Gandalf is terrified long before the rest of the company knows what they face. Only distant footsteps and the glow of flame announce the terrifying creature that hunts them. And when it appears, oh my god, it's a ****ing BALROG!
I'm gonna see this several times!
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 20-12-2001 at 02:18
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Thank you for the reporting comrade! I might for once do the yuppie thing and book tickets in advance if it is THAT good! (no way I'm gonna get in a theater today or the next days without pre-booking)
quote:
[SIZE=1] Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Despite knowing the story, and everything that is coming, Galdalf's death hits you hard. When Frodo is run through in Moria and he collapses, we know he's not dead, but the look on his face as he is pierced, and the anguish on all of the rest of the characters makes you believe that he is killed, when you knowhe isn't.
|
But IIRC Galdalf isn't pierced, he just falls in the chasm, no?
And what is balrog? Is he the one who had the ring before and turned into a little monster? (I don't thing I remember anyone with that name in the greek translation of LOTR)
Last edited by Bereta_Eder on 20-12-2001 at 02:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
Great movie, follows the book's plot nicely. Incredible battle shots as well.
One of the best of the year, IMO.
Last edited by Wiglaf on 20-12-2001 at 02:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
devilmuchkin - I would have thought that watching the movie without having read the book must make the movie pretty lame, since all the quick changes of locations and actions etc etc really make it very complicated, and without a map in mind, you're lost...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
German afficionado,
ooops, correct. He said Frodo, I thought it was Gandalf!
No, the greek version has translated very few names if any. (for example, frodo, bilbo, sam and most others are the same).
So what was the name of the monster ex-hobbit who carried the ring before Bilbo?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by November Adam
Gollum... or Smeagol.
Now did Gollum find the ring in Gladden Fields or was it his friend? |
Well, depends... in the book, Deagol finds it and Smeagol kills him.... in the movie, it is just found... and then the creature Gollum gets its hands on it and takes it to the Misty Mountains, so the whole episode about the relevant hobbit fishers is not mentioend but not denied either, the story is just cut down to the most important stuff
what I find nice is the tiny statements concerning the predecessing story, The Hobbit... Bilbo's boo, Gandalf being involved in "the story about the dragon" and all that... I can't remember either of those details from the book, but the idea of The Hobbit is presented nice in this movie...
looking forward to the second movie,it is supposed to be a lot of fun!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DarkCloud
|
 |
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
Generic Review of The Fellowship of the Ring
-DarkCloud
(For FFZ, CGN, Apolyton, IMD)
The movie began better than I had expected.
Since I read the book, I knew the prestory, but one of the people I went with did not... Thus, while I found the introduction easy to understand, my friend needed some explination about the names and the relationship between characters.
The beginning was well-filled with action, and when Gandalf came to Hobbiton, it went fairly well...
However, Bilbo Baggins, although acting well when he first met Gandalf, sort of fell flat as the movie went on.
They did a good job of making hobbits seem smaller than the humans by casting tall humans, but the hobbits did not really look like "hobbits", however the Dwarves looked well... The Goblins and Orcs looked Reasonable, but the Balrog looked too much like a reject Magog from the Heroes of Might and Magic computer game.
The elves did not look sufficiently different from humans, or from each other. Arwen looked much like Galadriel and each of their names were only mentioned once, thus it was hard to tell whether Galadriel was Arwen at one time...
*.*
The only main thing they cut out was Tom Bombadil. And the only minor thing they cut out that was not a major "change" was that Gandalf did not battle at Candlekeep.
However their little "addition" and "change" with Arwen, truly made the movie fairly annoying.
Instead of Gandalf saving Frodo from the Nazgul, Arwen appears, with little or no explanation. She then saves Frodo by crossing the river and sends the river down on the Nazgul...
Then Gandalf appears and Arwen disappears after talking to Aragorn (Strider)?
I understand the need for "romance", but please, don't mess with Tolkien.
Other than that, the only other confusing parts of the movie was when the Party reached Lothorioen and met Galadriel and her husband. The trouble here was Galadriel looked much like Arwen and her husband looked MUCH like Elrond... Thus, the idea was given that Elrond and Arwen rode ahead of the party somehow???? It made no sense- eventually I figured out it was not Arwen, but Galadriel and thus Elrond couln't have come...
However, Galadriel only mentions her name once!
The other problem with Galadriel was her temptation by the ring which was confusing, unnecessary and unexplained.
It could have been cut.
And, one annoying detail was the misty "ring" sequences when Frodo puts on the ring and is transported into the mist. Those sequences were merely annoying.
Overall the story was quick, execept for a few 'dramatic' moments such as the drawing out of Boromir's death and Samwise under the water.
The acting was so-so...
Frodo, Gandalf, and Saruman did extremely well, whereas I believe Boromir could have looked a bit more haunted. Bilbo could have been improved.
The story was kept to better than most adaptations which I have seen, and the additions of the back story at the beginning of the tale was necessary.
Also, they did a good job of setting up the Ents for book two with Saruman burning trees.
Overall, I would rate the movie about a B+ or A-.
However, when I left the movie, I heard someone behind me remark (I doubt he had ever read the books) "That was crap." referring to the ending... Now of course, we could not expect the producers of the movie to make the ending better, but, this lead me to think that perhaps they should release one movie every 6 months, just so that people will remember what happened in the last movie and the movies won't have to be summed up.
Also, it would allow people to feel 'fullfilled' sooner. For, the person making the remark seemed unfulfilled. (I also noticed at least 2 people walk out of the movie and not return)
However, some, such as my friend who had never read the books, rate it higher than the Harry Potter movie, and have pledged to read the books due to how interesting the movie was.
I look forward to the sequel and a possible prequel (the Hobbit)
-DarkCloud
PS: The movie seemed like only 1:45 hours long... It went quickly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
i liked it. but someone mentioned things about casting:
i disagree on two counts.
first is liv tyler as arwen-- i actually think she did a good job, and i liked her in the part. i did, however, find it a little bit strange that they changed her character to be more action-y, but i don't mind too much.
as for elrond, i think hugo weaving looks a bit too sinister. i mean, elrond's maybe not the happiest guy in the world, but weaving makes him look too shaded, too suspicious, too unhappy. too sinister, really. perhaps i can't get agent smith out of my head, but that's really what he looks like. he looks too dark for the role-- and by dark, i mean not on the side of good.
overall, though, i think it was a splendid adaptation. the changes will be visible in many cases, but they're done so in a manner that isn't too distracting or too detrimental to the story; the landscapes and graphics are positively stunning.
the script is strong, but there are time when it almost sounds forced, but not really.
and the soundtrack is also strong, but there are some instances where it comes perilously close to being too predictable...
worth usd7.50, i suppose. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hans2
|
|
Mondovi, WI USA
May 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Yes, everyone who has read the books misses Bombadil and the Wrights. But let me ask you this, the movie was already three hours long, three hours fifteen minutes with the trailers and ads all theatres run. How long would it have been with the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs added? three hours forty five minutes? Four hours? A movie that is more than three and a half hours long is an economic disaster waiting to happen for a film company. Fifteen minutes, even half an hour, is not enough time to do justice to Bombadil and the Wrights. I'm glad they cut that, for if it had been included, what else would have been cut? The council at Rivendel? The Mines of Moria?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-12-2001 02:11
I linked to a review of the movie too. 
) and not for those who want t oread official ones either.
|