 |
| |
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by devilmunchkin People who hadn't read the book (of which there were most likely none last night. all us nerds vied for the snak preview seats. heehee) might be perplexed by the cut off. |
followed by...
quote:
Originally posted by Ecthelion
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... |
Well, I haven't read the books except for the Hobbit (so I knew the backstory) and I think that the movie was relatively clear in the characters progression through Middle Earth. They did go to an awful lot of locations though, and while I wasn't concerned with plotting the movements of the party, I would've liked to have seen how the various lands/races interconnected with each other. Perhaps a couple of cut shots to a map with a line showing the characters movements ala Raiders of the Lost Ark would have helped here.
I liked it a lot, gave it a 9 out of 10. Definitely a movie you want to see in a first class theater as it will lose a lot when it gets translated to TV.
But there are some quibbles...
The orcs/goblins/whatevers are afflicted with Stormtrooper syndrome: the complete inability for any number of enemy troops to hit any target, no matter how undefended. The party member to kill ratio got to be so bad that I wondered why is Middle Earth worried about these clowns - for every 50 of the enemy, send just one of your fighters. If they send an army of 100,000 all you'd have to do is round up 2,000 fighters - 3,000 if you really want to kick their ass.
While it makes for great shots, doesn't it make better sense for a party on foot to try to stay as low in the mountains as possible. It seemed like they approached a mountain range, looked at the mountains, and said "there's our path - right over the peak of the tallest mountain." 
There are a few scenes where the characters are near death, freezing on some mountain top or other and then, cut!, the next scene shows them at a door, entering mines, or whatever, with no mention of how they are getting their falling-down frozen mates to the mines.
You are standing on a piece of rock that weighs, oh, 20,000 pounds and has broken off from its support. This rock is now somehow "waving" back and forth, trying to find a direction to fall. You and your companion weigh, maybe, 300 pounds soaking wet and the rock is currently going in the opposite direction from where you want it. Is it possible to get the 20,000 pound rock to swing to the other side just by standing on the edge?
Regardless, it was a great looking, fast paced movie, and well worth the $6.50 ticket. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I have seen it last night and the movie is brilliant.
It is a classic, I just hope that the next parts will be as well made as this one. And Peter Jackson is a genius too  . I haven't read the book, but I have seen the animated film, so I am somewhat familiar with the story (but not in detail) therefore the Liv part doesn't annoy me the least bit, and it made perfect sense to me. (she is a better rider :naughty The elves might be similar, but you could easily conclude from the story that these are not Elrond and Arwen. And Cate Blanchett (was that her :eek as Galadriel wow,  , wow. She was better than I could imagine ,and her test, brilliant, everyone has a dark side, and you have to chose against it And as Chegitz said, even though you know that Gandalf doesn't die, and Borimir does, it leaves a true impact. I'd say this is the best film I have seen in quite a long time. 9/10 (noone gets 10/10) is fair. I have to see it again, +it will probably lose some of if "epic" feeling on a tv, so a must see in the cinema.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
 |
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:16
|
|
In the book Bilbo found the ring... the riddle contest was so Gollum wouldn't kill and eat the Bagginsess.
So I just saw the movie last night and it was spectacular. The casting was very well done. The fellow who played Bilbo did a great job. He played the difficulty in giving up the ring perfectly, not to over the top, yet not flat either. So was I the only one who had a bit of a jump when Bilbo's face did that wierd switch-a-roo in Rivendell?
I didn't mind the Arwen thingy... it fit in well. And about Arwen and Galadriel looking alike... I'm sure to elves all humans look alike too!
Kate, Kate... she was definetly Galadriel. She has an ethereal beauty about her, and is such a good actor that she showed Galadriel's strength.
The hobbits were good in their imagery, as they were supposed to be very quiet, and good at hiding when they wanted to be. I liked the scene with Merry and Pip talking about the different meals.
One thing that kinda erked me, and may prove troublesome, is the lack of an explanation for the leaf brooches that "magically" appear on everyone. Unless of course Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas, have no problem tracking the orcs without finding it in the field. Granted PJ may always just use a flashback. At least they show Galadriel giving Frodo the starlight vial.
This is a movie I'm going to have to see again. Plus I'm lucky.. when this comes out on DVD I'll be able to watch it on the in-laws big screen TV.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
I jumped when Bilbo's face did that thing, cuz I wasn't expecting it. My GF screamed, and even other people in the audience jumped.
Remember, these are heroes. They kick butt. Orcs are generally worse warriors, but there are so many of them and they breed so quickly that they overwhelm their enemies. The Uruk-Hai, i.e., the half orcs, were quite abit tougher.
I don't mind Arwen taking over Glorifindel's role. No point introducing several incidental characters, though it should have been Gandalf who sent the floods down at the Nazgûl.
I don't mind the inconsistences, because they help the story move along. I don't mind at all Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights missing from the story. It was a digretion. I think that the Nazgûl invading Bree was brilliant. It added a wonderful element of terror, and the look on Butterburr's face as they glided through his inn was perfect. Here was a man terrified beyond reason, and he acted it perfectly.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
in a word wow... I was lucky enough to get to go to the premier on tuesday night at 12:01 and I was stunned! The movie in its own right is amazing. The effects and scenery are incredible. The story line never lags, and it is an overall great film.
I do have a couple of qualms tho. Having read the books (and just rereading them), I am a little disappointed in some of the characterization of the film. There was no reason for the prelude to the entrance to Moria to be rewritten. In the books, Gandalf was the one whom anticipated the need to go into the mines before attempting caradhas, and aragorn was the one whom insisted on trying the pass first. This kind of portrays gandalf as week, scared, and shortsighted, when he is supposed to be the one of the wisest in middle earth. Also, I did not like the council of elrond scene at all. The big arguement and yelling match breaking out was a little rediculous. All those there had enough respect for gandalf and elrond that such would have never transpired. (Boromir travelled half of the known world to seek the coucil of elrond...)
oh! and :quote:
And why did he (elrond) have brunette hair when all the other elves are blonde? |
His full name is Elrond Halfelven  He is only half elf, and therefore can look a little different, no?
Arwen (liv) is WAY hot in the movie.
fordo was good, as was sam (but both were a little whiney)
aragorn was great, but I don't like how they changed his characterization either. It portrayed him as running from his past, not even carrying the sword that was broken (AND IT DIDN'T SHOW IT BEING REFORGED!!!!!!!:eek, and scared of the future. This is definately quite anti-tolkien aragorn. The movie kind of belittled the signifigance of the characters and their honor, and that was its only short coming in my opinion.
OH! and i almost forgot! it doesn't show the friendship develop between gimli and legolas
Overall, the casting was good, and i loved the movie.
ps: as for aragorn walking calmly into a party of uruk hai, he faced and defeated 5 nazgul with a sword and a stick'o'fire. If he can even stand to face the nazgul, i can see him strolling into a party of orcs....
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
Just saw it tonight, opening night in Ankara. Wow.
The favorable reviews have said most of what needs saying. But in the post-film dissection with the wife, we hit on a few things that really made it for us:
1) The film has weight. Unlike the Spielberg/Lucas chain ("Mythologies R Us") this film not only presents myth but presents it in a way that reminds you of why myth exists (note to Steve and George: the answer is NOT, "to make a cool story"). The debt here is to the source material, I'm sure (though I gave up on it in high school, bored, halfway through book 2, and never looked back). But there are damned few films that are true to the spirit of their source material.
2) The total absence of irony made this one of the most refreshing film experiences in years, and certainly the most refreshing entertainment outing in a decade (I mean, Von Triers' Breaking the Waves, one of my favorite films of recent years, is largely free of irony -- but it's not exactly a fun film, you know?). A return to Casablanca-style earnestness in entertainment would be a very welcome indeed.
3) I can't remember a film since The Wizard of Oz in which the heroes seemed so clearly vulnerable. There seems to me a sense, in current popular film, that the heroes are never really in danger, and so there's never really very much at stake. It was delightful to again be honestly concerned about their fate, and honest horrified when tragedy befalls them.
Obviously the kudos belong largely to Peter Jackson. I've been following his career ever since I first saw Dead Alive (which I thing was originally called Braindead but retitled for US audiences) and then Meet the Feebles. When he did Heavenly Creatures, it was interesting to see him move from a trashy genre on to more "serious" topics, while retaining the verve of his earlier films (to make the best comparisons I can think of with American directors, this is something at which Wes Craven has had no success, while Sam Raimi has fared only slightly better). Even Forgotten Silver (which no review I've seen has mentioned) managed to reinvigorate the "mockumentary" at a moment when it was being done to death, making it charming instead of smug and suggesting that the weight of history matters. He is the perfect director for this film, and I'm glad people with money thought so, too. I just hope he can stay out of Hollywood's clutches after its success, and continue making his own wonderful stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frodo
|
|
of Asteroid B-612
May 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
After seeing it three times on three consecutive days (and standing for 10 hours on the line for the midnight showing), I'm ready to review it.
Obviously I'm a huge LOTR fan, I've read the books countless times, and I could hardly sleep waiting for this movie. I'm not a snob who thinks that a movie could never capture Tolkien's essence, but I also have a lot of respect for the story. All in all, I was very happy with the film.
In short, here's what I think: rather than twist the plot around too much, Jackson simply condensed it. He retained the spirit of the story, kept the narrative in the proper order (most of the time), and was faithful to the atmosphere, setting, and the nature of the characters. What limited the film the most was time. I have no doubt that if Jackson could make a movie just for rabid LOTR fans to watch, and if money was not a factor, we would have Tom Bombadil. We would have Glorfindel. We would have Gimli really be Gimli, Elf-friend, instead of a one-dimensional stereotypical Dwarf serving as comic relief. I think that Jackson did the best he could, and that few, if any, could have done a better job. In fact, I'm grateful that he got away with making it as long as he did. I would love to see more.
Then again, even when cutting the filmmakers plenty of slack, the job they did wasn't perfect.
The first 30 minutes of the movie were perfect, up until the point where Gandalf left the first time. Sure, many of those scenes weren't in the book, but they could have been, and they fit perfectly with Tolkien's vision. Ian Holm played a wonderful Bilbo, and the interaction between Gandalf and Bilbo could not have been better. I felt like I was watching the book.
Elijah Wood as Frodo is a bit too young and innocent, at least compared to the books. In the movie he's 33, where he's 50 in the book, so that makes a difference, but he doesn't show the same maturity that he possess in the books. However, I did not find it a major problem. Sean Astin as Sam captures only half of Sam's character. Sam is described as "slow but shrewd"; here he's just slow, and I felt embarrased for him on several occasions ("if I take one more step...." Give me a break!).
Merry and Pippin are also "regressed", in a way; no longer semi-mature hobbits aiding Frodo's departure from his Shire, they encounter him via a chance meeting and simply get caught up in his adventures. However, all these quibbles about the hobbits were relatively unimportant while I was watching the movie. Their characters are thinner, but they can't really develop in the little screen time given to them. So I can't complain.
The Ringwraiths are appropriately scary, but they've been Hollywoodized; rather than be subtly, discreetly frightening, they come charging after Frodo and ride screeching into Bree, making a huge commotion, something Sauron probably wouldn't be too happy about. The scene on Weathertop, though, is where the really shine; silently, through the mist, they approach the watchtower, and when Frodo puts on the ring to escape them, what he sees is incredibly terrifying and enchanting at the same time.
Let me make a point about slow motion here. Frodo's stabbing, Frodo's second stabbing, Frodo's reunion with the hobbits at Rivendell, Sam's drowning scene, Boromir's death: all these scenes slow the otherwise fast-paced action down and leave me itching for the movie to move on! Hopefully this is toned down in the next movie.
The Gandalf/Saruman battle was perhaps the dumbest scene in the movie. My first qualm is that it's not even in the book. Couldn't those few minutes have been used to stretch out the painfully short Lorien scene? Here we have two guys of the same race as Sauron and they're using their staffs to throw each other into walls. What creative genius thought this up? If we HAVE to have a wizard's duel, why is it going to be the WWF with staffs? Oh well...
The way the Council of Elrond was handled bothered me, but I'm willing to let it go because it would have taken way too long to do it right, and there wasn't really any way to trim it without altering the reasons why everyone was there. Elrond himself wasn't badly done, although he was more of the grim type than the healer type.
Legolas and Boromir rocked. In many cases I found Boromir even more vivid and multi-dimensional than in the book; here is one case where Jackson improves on Tolkien. The ambiguity of his character is clearly apparent, and it is far easier to identify with this man who in one scene is playing with the hobbits and laughing, and in another trying to tear the ring from Frodo's neck. I was satisfied with Aragorn, although he is shown less as a wise ranger/diplomat and more as a warrior prince. He seems to have less self-awareness than he does in the book.
I was disappointed with Gimli. Gimli is shown as being fairly stupid, easily able to fly off the handle, and more of a joke than a realy fighter. His dislike for the elves does not become redressed in Lorien, because two very important Lorien scenes were cut out: Gimli's love of Galadriel and the giving of the gifts to the fellowship. Unlike Bombadil, these scenes are very important and and I don't see how the future movies are going to get by without them. Sam needs the earth of Galadriel for the scouring of the shire scene. Or are they going to cut that out too?
Moria was great, although the Balrog was more frightening when you had to guess at what he might look like. Lorien got shortchanged, and the decision to make the Uruk-Hai an army of Rastafarians was questionable. I approved of the change to the ending; I thought that the Aragorn/Frodo scene was very powerful, and I liked how Aragorn got that Isildur-ish gleam in his eyes when looking at the ring. The important thing is that we ended up where we belonged.
I could go on and on. But whatever problems I may have had, there were so many scenes that were just utterly breathtaking: the desperate Elrond screaming Isildur's name at the cracks of doom; the eerily silent red light steadily approaching at Dwarrowdelf, followed by Gandalf closing his eyes in despair; the grief of the company as they depart from the fire and darkness of Moria into the sunlight; Saruman calling the lightning down on Caradhras; Boromir throwing down his load of wood in a gesture of powerless, futile fury; Frodo standing alone at the river Anduin, with the ring in his hand and tears in his eyes. I can't wait for next December.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
I saw it tonight and think it rocks.
I have a long littany of nitpicks, many of which are mentioned above. In fact, I think the first half of the movie is pretty non-engrossing--especially the House of Elrong--although having ultra-cool elements. I couldn't suspend my disbelief, even though I was trying.  Once we got into Moria, though, it was really amazing, even though there were some scenes--even in Moria--that were plain cheesy.
Among the nitpicks is that there isn't enough Gondor. The next two movies are basically about Frodo/Sam and Gondor. Frodo/Sam was done well, but Aragorn's link with Gondor was done a little ham-handedly (i.e., Do men live a long time? What have Aragorn's ancestors been doing in the meantime--smoking dope with the elves? Why isn't Aragorn in Gondor right now?)
Despite the quite high number of nitpicks, there were some things that the movie did better than did Tolkien--or at least the medium necessitated being more explicit on some points. This surprised me a lot. The passing of the elves to the West and the rise of man, for instance, were handled very explicitly without a lot exposition. Arwen's choice to become mortal, etc.
I went with someone who is a sci-fi fan but who isn't a fantasy fan and has never read the books. She adored the movie and I'm sure will now read the books. She was hooked once the Arwen/Aragorn story came to the fore.
What I came away with was that there was at least 10 scenes that could stand on their own as anchors for their own movies. The material that Tolkien gave us is incredibly rich. It just blows my mind when I think about the next two movies. Scene after scene of memorable and meaty stuff. Ents (the groundwork was laid very well in this movie, don't you think?). Eowyn. The Steward of Gondor. Mordor. Minas Tirith and Minas Ungol. Wow!!! I'm giddy!
My money's on reforging the sword in one of the other movies.
This is the kind of movie that you can see over and over.
Last edited by DanS on 22-12-2001 at 11:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
just an affirmation...I saw it again tonight. It REALLY IS GOOD...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
I saw it for the second time last night... it is still a good movie, evry impressing are the camera tours into the forges of Isengard, but after seeing it for the second time, I agree that Elrond looks sh!t in the 3rd age... when in armor, he looks cool, but especially in that mystical scene of healing Frodo, he looks like.... *insert never-implemented puking smiley here*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr.Oogkloot
|
|
[off-topic]
By the way, Ecthelion: just got your Christmas card. Thanks!
[/off-topic]
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-12-2001 11:08
. And they couldn't sit still or keep quiet the entire movie 
.
I suppose they could've pretended that the movie was done in the Tarrentino style.
|