[John Moschella]

Well I got to see LOTR the other day and I was surprised it was not a better film. I mean 13 Academy Award nominations. I was surprised that the screenplay was not better and aside from Gandalf (Ian McKellen) there isn't much in the way of acting either. Its not a bad movie, just not that good. To tell you the truth I gave up after they got out of the cave. I felt like I was watching an extended version of a sci-fi channel made for TV show with better special effects. Every review I've read praises this film and with the 13 nominations I was starting to wonder if I am the only one.


And another thing, I can't stand the stupid short people gig. Willow, Star Wars and now this.


John

 

[Salmoneous]

I think it highly enjoyable and of high quality. One of my all time favorites. But my wife! Whoo boy did she dislike it. So I'll give her answer.


See first they fight a battle. Then they fight another battle. Then they fight again. Then - and here's the change - they fight in a cave! Twice! Then they get out of the cave and fight another battle. Maybe it could work as a 42-minute TV episode, but as a 3-hour movie? Boooooooring.

 

[DFletcher]

I liked it OK. It's vaguely incoherent. The effects are ho-hum. The best stuff is the set dressing, and the way the hobbits look tiny compared to humans and elves.


The beauty of the book is in its comprehensiveness -- an entire world sprung from Tolkien's mind, with a complete history, language, poetry, music, sociology. George Lucas is trying for the same thing (and tell me he wasn't influenced by these books!) but falls far short.


But the movie is the plot of the book, and that is the least interesting part.

 

[pheroy]

Well, the reviewer for The Perfect Vision hated it. Though from his comments on most of the other sf/fantasy films he reviewed, he dislikes the genre in general. I got a good giggle out of one of his comments on LOTR: "it's just one damn thing after another". (Wish I could remember more, but my copy of the mag is on loan and the review isn't on their website.)

 

[chris5977]

I enjoyed the movie, but I thought it was a very weak script. The slavish devotion to the book prevented the neccessary amount of character development.


Harry Potter was a much better movie as far as character development is concerned.

 

[mintakaX]

I'll be really curious as to whether you "dislikers" like the next movie, Two Towers. I found that book more interesting than Fellowship. The movie trailers look awesome as well. Make sure to let us know !

Dan

 

[Defiler]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Moschella And another thing, I can't stand the stupid short people gig. Willow, Star Wars and now this.

You had me going up until this point, but now I know you're joking. Right?

Right?

 

[Tom Bley]

It's a good movie.....not bad, not great....just in between for me.

 

[Mouw]

LOTR starts OK, interesting plot building

but then as Moschella says it turns into a 3hr/Made/4/TV/SiFi

with as Salmoneous's Wife puts it 1 Battle after another Battle

going ON&ON for 3 hours .... Booooorrring Booooorrring

unless you're my 11 yr old Nephew

My GF always says to me..."the Book was Better"


PS--these are Kid's Movies.....U know?

 

[watchformore]

It always seems to be difficult to critic a movie apart from it's genre. So for those who don't particularly like the Lord of the Rings movie, what are some examples of 'good' movies in the fantasy (i.e. sword & sorcery) genre?


In others words, is it the movie itself that is lacking, or is it the genre that you don't care for so much?


Personally, I can't think of hardly any movies in the fantasy genre that I would say equal, much less exceed, Lord of the Rings on practically any level.


-- Greg

 

[jdmcdonald]

Any LOTR movie is guaranteed to be disliked by lots of people.


I liked it a lot. In **my** opinion the EE DVD is better than the

original, except for the Bilbo voiceover right at the first, which is

unnecessary.


I should add that I love the book, having read it dozens of times.


I thought that it was a well done proper adaptation of the book,

given the proviso that it was a Hollywood-style movie.


If you put in lots of battles you have to leave out lots of the

talk and motivation in the book. If you reduce the battles

to put in more dialog that expresses the more complicated

aspects of plot and motivation and background that exist in the

book, you will upset the lovers of cation and it will be called

"static". If you reverse, you will get complaints that it is

boring from people for whom dialog is boring.


In either case, most of the "character development" applies to

the hobbits and Faramir, whom you have not seen yet. And it is glacially

slow, so that you won't see it until you've seen all three movies.


Doug McDonald

 

[CV63]

Quote:

you won't see it until you've seen all three movies

I think you hit it on the head there. I would suggest that in the case of this trilogy you have to view all three as one big movie more so than other trilogies. The character development takes place across all three.


This is not like the typical trilogy such as in Star Wars. Those movies have the same characters but there are breaks in the time line along the way. This movie is one continuous epic tale. Basically one movie with really long intermissions for which to go get popcorn.


While the books go into great detail depicting middle earth and the races, it wouldnt work in a movie format like that. You would only appeal to a small audience if you were to mimic the flow of the book.


As it is the movies will span 9 hours. Imagine how long they would have to be if they slowed the pace down to explore the characters in depth even further.

Actually 9 hours is the theatrical release time. If each comes with the extra 30 min like the first on dvd then its 10.5 hours.


I bet you can figure out the characters after spending 10.5 hours with them.

 

[John Moschella]

Quote:

Originally posted by watchformore It always seems to be difficult to critic a movie apart from it's genre. So for those who don't particularly like the Lord of the Rings movie, what are some examples of 'good' movies in the fantasy (i.e. sword & sorcery) genre? In others words, is it the movie itself that is lacking, or is it the genre that you don't care for so much? -- Greg

While I am not a big fan of the genere I would say EXCALIBUR is a far superior fantasy type film. In fact, as I was watching LOTR I thought of EXCALIBUR becasue it is so much more convincing and they didn't use computers.


John

 

[John Moschella]

Quote:

Originally posted by chris5977 I enjoyed the movie, but I thought it was a very weak script. The slavish devotion to the book prevented the neccessary amount of character development. Harry Potter was a much better movie as far as character development is concerned.

I was going to mention in my original post that I think Harry Potter is a much better movie that is clearly aimed at a younger audience. It is not the assault on the senses that LOTR is.


You make a great point about the slavish devotion to book details. In fact, I think the second HP movie suffers from this. It creates boredom in a film. Its a different medium and should be handled differently.


John

 

[Wireless]

I didn't enjoy this film at the theater but changed my mind when I saw it at home. The only part that drove me up the wall is Frodo falling down 9 times. You would think with all of the years of practice, the hobbits would have learned to walk with those big feet!

 

[hob]

I don't care for it!

 

[moore]

You can put me on the list of dislikers. I too am amazed at the salivating critics and academy award nominations. But then we've had Gladiator and Braveheart win best picture, so there's the standard. Still, I was glad that it didn't win. It looked like it was directed by an ex-MTV producer. All the CGI and zoom shots - amateur hour. The actors also were trapped by the weight of their characters. Blah. And I knew what was going to happen, so it was just watching it play out. Yawn.


Will I go see the rest? Sure. But my expectations will be low.


M

 

[Dean Roddey]

I guess there's no accounting for lack of taste I'm a huge fan of the books, and I think it's an amazing attempt at recreating this massive epic, that I would have never believed anyone would attempt. Is it perfect? No, it's a bit weak in points. And despite being quite uncompromising relative to most book adaptations, they still watered it down a bit in places in order to make it more palatable to a general audience. But it's so far above anything else that's happened recently, that I'm not complaining.

 

[Matt_Stevens]

Opinions are subjective. Always. I look at BRAVEHEART and see one of the most moving films in years. One that I will love for all time. It deserved every Oscar it got.


I look at FELLOWSHIP and see on hell of a good film. The extended is even better,


But these threads are really nothing more than a platform for people to shout out there opinions. They usually end up as shouting matches. Hope that doesn't happen here.


I HATE the overrated THE CRYING GAME!! HATE IT!!!!!


There. I said it.

 

[FredProgGH]

I would only interject this:


Many Tolkien fans would argue the idea that the movie "slavishly follows the book". Just say one word lke "Arwen" or "Bombadil" and get ready for an earful Most fans seem to agree that one of the strengths of LOTR vs. HP was Peter Jackson's willingness to bend the story to fit the film medium.

Of course, if ya don't like it, ya don't!


Fred