Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1

    Lord of the Rings

    I finally saw it yesterday. Hey, I've been busy.

    I have to say that I was disappointed. It just wasn't that great as a stand alone movie.

    Story: It's alright I suppose. I haven't read any of the books so I'm going into this series "fresh." Most of the story is so cut and dried black and white that it gets boring. You know who is good, who is bad and there's no drama built around that. When the end came, I inadvertently blurted out "that was it?" in the middle of the theater. Not too many people were there, thankfully. I don't have any "need" or "urge" to see the next films because I already know that the good guys will succeed. There's no doubt whatsoever.

    So the fun is in watching "how" the good guys win, you say?

    Characters: I didn't care about any of them. Peter Jackson had the story laid out for him, but he failed to make me "care" about any of the people. I watched them move from one scene to another, but there was no concern for any of them. The wizard died (but didn't have to) but I didn't find myself caring. Jackson didn't set up the little Hobbit's "need" for the old man to be around. It was too bad, but "oh well", they managed to get along just fine without him. Besides the fact that he used his "magic" at convenient times and didn't use it when it would have been quite helpful, like when the swarms of bad guys come at them....

    Bad guys: Which leads to the bad guy hordes. I haven't seen an army so ineffective since Stormtroopers. One guy (the one that got shot with the arrows) could have dispatched the entire invasion himself if it wasn't for the "supreme" bad guy with the archery practice.

    I suppose I could go on if I could actually remember specifics of the story, but nothing about it was that memorable.

    Basically, just a very unemotional telling of a story with very little real drama. Pretty much what we saw in The Phantom Menace. Maybe these stories are only for little kids.

  2. #2
    Different strokes for different folks I guess.

    Aside from disagreeing with you on every single comment you made I really have nothing more to say, except:

    Great film!

  3. #3
    Why didn't the wizard use his magic to fling that big ugly creature up against a wall in the mines?

    I'll try to think of more questions that occurred to me.

  4. #4
    The lord of the rings trilogy needs to be watched as one really long movie. None of them, I don't think, would be very good without the others.

    You really should read the book. It's much better than the movie.

  5. #5
    Originally posted by stillakid
    Why didn't the wizard use his magic to fling that big ugly creature up against a wall in the mines?

    I'll try to think of more questions that occurred to me.
    It sounds like you have more of a problem with the source material than with the movie itself. I also recommend reading the books they will give much more insight into the characters and their motivations.

    And believe me, the clear boundaries between good and evil will get blurred very quickly in the next two films.

    As for your question, there is a thing called magic resistance and any sorceror building an army would be smart to give his minions a certain level of magic resistance. Notice how Gandalf never actually used his magic to attack the orcs and troll? When he used his magic on the fire balrog he only used it to defend himself from the swordblow and crumble the bridge to drop the demon into the pit. Plus, in the books, Gandalf expressed pity on the creatures drafted into slavery by Saruman and Sauron. This is probably why he stays his hand when it comes to mass slaughtering orcs.

    In any case, I think you are way off on criticizing the performances of the characters. I thought each character was realized brilliantly and each one of those actors deserves some recognition for the incredible work they did.

  6. #6
    I'm trying to be careful in separating out the different elements as I discuss them, but some crossover might occur.

    Maybe "magic resistance" is explained fully in the books or something, but onscreen it just appears as though the guy chooses quite arbitrarily when to use his magic or not. If there is a "real" reason that he stays his hand, it should be included in the film itself. That blame belongs to the screenwriter or the editor.

    I think that the actors did an adequate job portraying the characters, but I never felt any particular sympathy or empathy for any of them. Does that blame go to the actors themselves or to the director for failing to shoot and edit the sequences in such a way that would make me "feel" something for them? I don't know. Maybe both. It's a very plot driven "road movie," and as such there is a lot going on all the time. Something was missing...I'm not sure what it was exactly right now...but something that would have made me "want to" become emotionally attached to the characters. Maybe it was because there was so much plot to squeeze into 2+ hours Jackson didn't have time to linger. As it was, I didn't really care who died or when because the rest of the group would manage fine without the lost entity.

    My general impression was that we were supposed to be wowed and amazed at the settings and the various creatures (elves, dwarves, fairies, etc.) and those things would sustain our interest to the end.

    BB, you said that you disagreed with everything that I mentioned in post #1. What about the part when I said that we already know that they'll succeed? You disagree with that? And the ineffectiveness of the orcs? I just wrote off their poor fighting skills because they're "sub-humans" or something.

    Clearly I'm missing the boat or something because so many people enjoy this story so much. Maybe they enjoy the books and transfer that to the screen. In any case, it bugs me when I don't know exactly "why" I'm not pleased with a film. Just tryin' to figure it out.

  7. #7
    You know for a fact they succeed? The Lord of the Rings refers to the bad guy,you know. I'm saying anything more than that because I don't want to ruin the trilogy for anyone else...

    I completely agree with bigbarada to disagree with everything you said and add this to his "great film."


  8. #8
    Agreed, this trilogy unlike the Star Wars trilogy really needs to be viewed as a whole. The plotlines and everything will make much more sense when viewed as one 9-10 hour film, instead of three films running over 3 hours a piece.

    Also, while the movies are quite long, they still don't explain and capture on film every aspect of the original novels. You would probably need each movie to run around 5 hours a piece to get that. The director gave us what we needed to understand the world of Middle Earth, and the next two films will flesh everything out.

    Definatly read the books, they are great and help fill some stuff the movies just didnt have proper time to cover. Like the fact that Saruman wanted the ring for himself, even though he was working for Sauron. Since movies don't do well at portraying internal thinking, this and other aspects of the charecters was lost.

    Fear not though LOTR's fans, DVD news is coming out slowly about this fine film. Expect the theatrical version to hit in August, and then in October/November a full blown special edition with 30 minutes more footage. I can't wait for these. Atleast at home I can stop the movie to run to the restroom.

    MTFBWY and HH!!

    Jar Jar Binks

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  9. #9
    There's a whole other thread, but it's getting to the point where I'm just not going to see movies in the theater anymore if DVD's will have the "real" version that has all the necessary plot elements left in. No, I don't want to sit in a theater for more than 3 hours, but I want to see films on a big screen. That makes it the filmmakers responsibility to craft the story onscreen within 2 hours or so. Apparently, that task has become increasingly impossible so we're left with having to wait for the DVD down the road, but if that's what it takes to fully appreciate a story, then so be it.

  10. #10
    I think in order for the films to include everything from the books they would have had to make it into a weekly TV series with 60 minute episodes and one season (24 episodes???) devoted to each book. That would be nice, but no studio would ever agree to it.

    I thought the film set up quite clearly that the Fellowship was hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned. I'm pretty sure that you will never guess at this point how Frodo's quest comes to an end, stillakid. It's not as obvious and straightforward as you seem to think.

    Didn't LOTR win 2001 Best Picture for the Empire awards, Rollo? I think Elijah Wood got Best Actor for his flawless portrayal of Frodo also.

    I know not all critics loved the film. Roeper, Ebert's lackey, called the movie a waste of time and recommended that people stay away from it. He also said Shallow Hal was one of the best movies of 2001.

    My last bit of advise would be to simply wait until all three are out so you can view the complete movie.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO