Lord of the Rings
- Thread starter trapped_soul
- Start date
BOB
poruno sutâ
that really is peter jackson!
to everyone else:
When the hobbits walk up the street to the "dancing pony" tavern they almost get run over by a carrige and right after that you see Peter Jackson on the right side of the screen belching.
I'm absolutely sure (i got the movie in decent quality)
to everyone else:
When the hobbits walk up the street to the "dancing pony" tavern they almost get run over by a carrige and right after that you see Peter Jackson on the right side of the screen belching.
I'm absolutely sure (i got the movie in decent quality)
The movie and the books ...
Saw this twice. Have a couple of things ...
Really excellent action scenes, even though they're shot all herky-jerky so you can't really see a whole lot. In this case it gives a sense of the "velocity" of the fighting; it's heavy-duty and confusing, just like a real fight. That being said, the rock troll really was too stupid. Why not just crush people? The Balrog too ... why use a whip? Why not just slap Gandalf down? But that's in the book, so ...
An excellent movie, a real fantasy classic. I do like how they've toned down some of Tolkien's more Fascistic moments, though these may be coming in the next two installments; hopefully not.
Really liked Orlando Bloom as Legolas, Sean Bean as Boromir, whatshisname as Frodo, and definitely Ian McKellen as Gandalf. The guys who play Merry and Pippin do their job very well, also.
As for the cliches ... this is true, but Tolkien pretty much invented all those fantasy cliches himself. Tough to avoid them, although it would have been a better film if Jackson had.
Seeing this movie spurred me to re-read the books. Unfortunately I now like Tolkien much less than before. His Old World mentality really shows through. Aragorn turns into a complete and arrogant asshole once he gets his magic sword back, but he's supposed to be the King (I guess this is a taste of what real royalty was like ... no wonder they got their heads chopped so often). Legolas and Gimli are cardboard cutouts. The forces of Good are "the West," although the on-high Numenoreans have been contaminated by mingling their blood with "lesser men." They're opposed by the orcs, yes, but also by the "dark-skinned Haradrim", I guess Muslim stand-ins, and in one scene by "hideous black men." Typical British racism. Being a minority myself, this kind of spoiled Tolkien a bit. I think these are the reasons The National Review gave this film a good review.
On the other hand, I liked how the Rohirrim and the Steward of Gondor are portrayed; they're complex. Eowyn and her unrequited love for Aragorn (uh ... why?) are great, but then she's tucked away with the boring Faramir and they fall in love in about three paragraphs. Annoying. The hobbits are definitely the best-drawn characters of the whole trilogy, and I love how Frodo, at the end, cannot do what he came to do. The best part of Tolkien is how he illustrates the corrupting effect of power, epitomized by the Ring, and how only the "weak" can be entrusted with it; even Aragorn doesn't trust himself with it. This is brought out well in the movie, as well.
Overall, I actually liked the movie better than the books. Jackson modernizes the story somewhat and dumps a lot of the pretentious, high-flown dialogue (hopefully this trend will continue). Excellent action scenes combined with excellent acting make this film for me.
Saw this twice. Have a couple of things ...
Really excellent action scenes, even though they're shot all herky-jerky so you can't really see a whole lot. In this case it gives a sense of the "velocity" of the fighting; it's heavy-duty and confusing, just like a real fight. That being said, the rock troll really was too stupid. Why not just crush people? The Balrog too ... why use a whip? Why not just slap Gandalf down? But that's in the book, so ...
An excellent movie, a real fantasy classic. I do like how they've toned down some of Tolkien's more Fascistic moments, though these may be coming in the next two installments; hopefully not.
Really liked Orlando Bloom as Legolas, Sean Bean as Boromir, whatshisname as Frodo, and definitely Ian McKellen as Gandalf. The guys who play Merry and Pippin do their job very well, also.
As for the cliches ... this is true, but Tolkien pretty much invented all those fantasy cliches himself. Tough to avoid them, although it would have been a better film if Jackson had.
Seeing this movie spurred me to re-read the books. Unfortunately I now like Tolkien much less than before. His Old World mentality really shows through. Aragorn turns into a complete and arrogant asshole once he gets his magic sword back, but he's supposed to be the King (I guess this is a taste of what real royalty was like ... no wonder they got their heads chopped so often). Legolas and Gimli are cardboard cutouts. The forces of Good are "the West," although the on-high Numenoreans have been contaminated by mingling their blood with "lesser men." They're opposed by the orcs, yes, but also by the "dark-skinned Haradrim", I guess Muslim stand-ins, and in one scene by "hideous black men." Typical British racism. Being a minority myself, this kind of spoiled Tolkien a bit. I think these are the reasons The National Review gave this film a good review.
On the other hand, I liked how the Rohirrim and the Steward of Gondor are portrayed; they're complex. Eowyn and her unrequited love for Aragorn (uh ... why?) are great, but then she's tucked away with the boring Faramir and they fall in love in about three paragraphs. Annoying. The hobbits are definitely the best-drawn characters of the whole trilogy, and I love how Frodo, at the end, cannot do what he came to do. The best part of Tolkien is how he illustrates the corrupting effect of power, epitomized by the Ring, and how only the "weak" can be entrusted with it; even Aragorn doesn't trust himself with it. This is brought out well in the movie, as well.
Overall, I actually liked the movie better than the books. Jackson modernizes the story somewhat and dumps a lot of the pretentious, high-flown dialogue (hopefully this trend will continue). Excellent action scenes combined with excellent acting make this film for me.
Lliugusamui
around the corner
I liked the movie
But some things are disappointing : Glorfindel rescued Frodon ( he searched in Rhudaur several days ) and Glorfindel is Noldo with Vanyar's blood ( from what he got his flaxen hair ).In fact, in the first age, during the Fall of Gondolin, he confronts a Balrog for Tuor to escape ( Tuor is the grand-grand father of Elrond, from Human side ).Glorfindel died with the Balrog, but when Curunir ( Saruman ) came in Middle Earth with Alatar and Pallanda ( the Ithruin Luin ) Mandos made Glorfindel go with'em. Incredible, hm?
On the great river ( woe to me i dont remember the name ) Aragorn normally says to Frodon that Gollum still fallow them
In approach to Lothlorien, they are eyes-banded, and each of the characters recieve a gift from Gladriel ( no one talks of the Nenya, one of the Three rings of Elves that Galadriel took to make the Lorien a safe place. In fact Celeborn and her lived before in Eregion_west to the Moria, south of Rhudaur_in Ost-in-Edhil when Celebrimbor had to face Sauron hidden in Anatar's form )
I'm kinda blabling of things ...
I enjoyed to see the film as a fantasy film, but not as a representation of Tolkien's chef d'oeuvre ( which was made originally in order to place the quenya, the sindarin, and the others tongues tolkien created )
But some things are disappointing : Glorfindel rescued Frodon ( he searched in Rhudaur several days ) and Glorfindel is Noldo with Vanyar's blood ( from what he got his flaxen hair ).In fact, in the first age, during the Fall of Gondolin, he confronts a Balrog for Tuor to escape ( Tuor is the grand-grand father of Elrond, from Human side ).Glorfindel died with the Balrog, but when Curunir ( Saruman ) came in Middle Earth with Alatar and Pallanda ( the Ithruin Luin ) Mandos made Glorfindel go with'em. Incredible, hm?
On the great river ( woe to me i dont remember the name ) Aragorn normally says to Frodon that Gollum still fallow them
In approach to Lothlorien, they are eyes-banded, and each of the characters recieve a gift from Gladriel ( no one talks of the Nenya, one of the Three rings of Elves that Galadriel took to make the Lorien a safe place. In fact Celeborn and her lived before in Eregion_west to the Moria, south of Rhudaur_in Ost-in-Edhil when Celebrimbor had to face Sauron hidden in Anatar's form )
I'm kinda blabling of things ...
I enjoyed to see the film as a fantasy film, but not as a representation of Tolkien's chef d'oeuvre ( which was made originally in order to place the quenya, the sindarin, and the others tongues tolkien created )
nidorngo-thesungod
I'm just to cool to hang out with nerds like you
I was looking forward to seeing Tom Bombadil! those bastards! also, i thought the guy who played elrond was an ugly jerkoff, how bout you? the fight between gandalf and saruman looked more like some kind of futuristic "e-com-i-cyber-wrestling" with cats! i would've expected him to grow a dark shadow barrier bubble and such. but no! they must SPIN! also, the hobbits were freakish. i think the 70s animated movie got it perfectly. and since when was there a troll in moria? i don't remember one, just a big orc (that should've speared frodo, bastardized again!) well, gotta go!
trapped_soul
"This is it. It's over."
--part1--
i saw it a second time. now i feel ready to react on your post, fishbomb.
i liked gandalf, frodo, sam, strider, legolas... just as much as i liked boromir. their acting was outstanding! my imagination of galadriel was something else, although her acting was excellent.
damn right. besides there's plenty of detail. it really makes you feel like you are in middle-earth instead of new zealand.
basic? interesting. i beg to differ. think about the shot they when gandalf wants to pick up the one ring. weird. or the motion from the top of isengard's tower (where gandalf is being imprisoned) to the underground layer, although this is animation and no camera work.
frodo senses a nâzgul. they do a POV of frodo move forward and zoom out. another nice effect. there are plenty of other examples i can summon in my mind.
you're halfway right. but what other choice did they have. the movie lasts for about 2h45 althought they left out a whole lot of things.
it's almost impossible to transmit the emotions that are triggered while you read the book into a movie. it's another medium. most movies that are based upon a novel do not meet one's expactations if you've read the novel. the task of conciliating the same thing is doomed to fail almost all of the time.
i disagree. i think he's a talented man. why is frighteners a better film (assuming that you still refer to directing)
what parts exactly? they say what is written in the book.
besides this goes hand in hand with acting, so what is it you don't like about it?
i totally agree. both picture and music tell you how to feel for the entire movie. there's no uncertainty of what might happen? that's different when you read the book.
furthermore they weren't capable of doing one piece of music that may instantly remind you of LoTR.
trapped_soul
"This is it. It's over."
--part2--
it's a pleasure for me to have a talk with you over and over again, swedish girl.
good call. i've nothing to add at this point.
for me it worked for almost the entire movie. i felt it was real. i'd say it's a level above braveheart and gladiatior. but perhaps that's just because i like the plot & character that much.
they don't do this all the time do they?
the "big guy" in moria is bit weightier, and therefore he must be more slow than other. i think that's consistent. besides he _did_ hit frodo.
when does this happen?
how do aliens fight?
i hope i wasn't insulting at any point. ;)
it's a pleasure for me to have a talk with you over and over again, swedish girl.
btw, there's a 4cd SVCD DVDrip of Lotr out now (from a screener dvd) which should work as a good substitute until the real dvd (directors cut!) becomes available after the summer. Just thought you should know, so you don't have to sit and watch the lousy vhs screeners out there or pay for more visits at the movies to analyze it :)
wow, you guys sure tore this movie a new hole. If it was a direct translation of the book..why see the movie? It is an interpretation. Also, I read the books and while they are excellent I can see why certain parts were omitted. Personally, my ass feel asleep during the movie but I was entralled the entire time...something that has not happened for me at a film in a looong time.
I did not see anyone dissapointed leaving the film..the only complaint was they wanted more. I have a feeling that like Star Wars it will become cool to bash FOTR. Especially if it wins Academy Awards. The only movies this year really worth winning would be Royal tenebaums and maybe Momento...Beautiful Mind was good but not as good as all the hype it is getting. It seems that nowadays if a actor acts retarded or eccentric they automatically get a best actor nod...Must be the Forrest Gump syndrome.
Anyway, I really enjoyed LOTR as the best event movie since Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
I did not see anyone dissapointed leaving the film..the only complaint was they wanted more. I have a feeling that like Star Wars it will become cool to bash FOTR. Especially if it wins Academy Awards. The only movies this year really worth winning would be Royal tenebaums and maybe Momento...Beautiful Mind was good but not as good as all the hype it is getting. It seems that nowadays if a actor acts retarded or eccentric they automatically get a best actor nod...Must be the Forrest Gump syndrome.
Anyway, I really enjoyed LOTR as the best event movie since Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
roberto999
The Black Chick of Darkness
Tom Bombadill?
roberto999
The Black Chick of Darkness
It is too much faithfully adapted,and, since books are different media than movies, it lacks the spirit
Good pictures of the book, nothing more, nothing less.
Good pictures of the book, nothing more, nothing less.
Lliugusamui
around the corner
Too much faithfully adapted ? there are a lot of differences, omissions ( the galgals, Bill's story, Glorfindel ... ) and additions ( specially the beginning talking of 2d age's end ) ...
It lacks of spirit... in a sense ... but i can say i was astonished by it ( a good surprise ) . The hobbits are almost as spiritful as in the book, however it's true some characters like Galadriel are lacking it; but ...
it's an adaptation : therefore it's not only good pictures of LotR