Movie comments - don't read if you haven't seen the movie yet! [Archive]

Telchar

12-19-2001, 07:54 AM

Greyistar said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Id proabably find it very boring if they put every single little thing in the book in the movie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont have a problem with PJ leaving out thing - not at all -he has to! Its where he has changed the story I think he fails - and on the points where he do not understand the caracters - his interpretation of especially Elrond, Galadriel and the two younger hobbits are downright awful! Pippin for instance is represented as courageous but as a teenager with an IQ of 65 - I mean if he wants to make a Forrest Gump movie let him - but keep ME out of it.On the other hand I must also say that Gandalf, Strider/Aragorn, Frodo and Sam - and to some degree Gimli, Legolas and Boromir is outstanding in their interpretation and preformance. The latter 3 are however very cartoonlike - I mean do you have to spell everything out in 5 foot neon??? Have some faith in the audience, please...Cheers TPS Do you really need to put new scenes into the movie - just to get some action??? Gandalf and Saruman in 2 minutes staffcombat??? New scenes of Saruman breeding fullgrown orcs out of mudd???

GreyIstar

12-19-2001, 08:22 AM

The wizards duel is something that drives home, to none Tolkien fans, that Saruman is the best and most powerful. It sets up the two towers when Gandalf comes back and takes Sarumans staff and breaks it. It shows how much more powerful Gandalf becomes.

Telchar

12-19-2001, 08:35 AM

Well it's seems Im very intollerant and that you are very tollerant - or perhaps on the production team

GreyIstar

12-19-2001, 08:43 AM

It is a moive. I already know it won't be as good as the book.But as a movie it may be a work of art in its own right.

Eol

12-19-2001, 10:59 AM

I have not seen the movie yet..will see it at an afternoon matinee in about a week. I am already bias since I realized that detail does matter to me. If it were six hours and had everything in it...I would do it. Of course in the end...I am not a fan for books to movies...they are never the same...and when money is involved...you can never have faith that it will be good. I just hope that it will not do more harm than good.

The Barrow-Wight

12-19-2001, 02:40 PM

Well, I've read the books a kazillion times and spend way too much time working on this site, but I loved the film. If I could change just one thing, I think I'd swap the actors playing Aragorn and Boromir. Viggo is great, but Bean was just awesome.

Gilthalion

12-19-2001, 03:53 PM

I would not even change the casting.I've promised myself to enjoy the film for what it is, and it is great!Departures from the text were expected, and it is incredible to me that anyone at this point would even try to hold the movie up to the standard of Tolkien's masterwork.As we are discussing on the Chat, as I write, Red has given the movie a 7 (out of 10). Compared to the books, I would agree.But compared to everything else that is out there, I'd have to give it a 10!

Oliphaunt

12-19-2001, 04:08 PM

I thought it was an excellent movie, even though I was extremely disappointed at the length that PJ "interpreted" the story. Some characters were dead on in my opinion, like Gandalf, Galadriel, and Boromir. But I have to disagree with Telchar. In ROTK, Pippin speaks to Beregond and Bergil that he is still in his "irresponsible tweens" I think it says. I thought Frodo was way too young and pretty.

Joe Harrison

12-19-2001, 04:42 PM

I just saw the movie not more than ten minutes ago. I did not enjoy most of the movie. I also recently saw the Harry Potter movie with my children and I must say, the director did a much better job of staying true to the book. Here is what I did not like: 1.) The portrayal of Merry and Pippin, 2.)The entire ending scene, 3.) The duel between Gandalf and Sauraman, 4.) The portrayal of Galadriel, 5.) The almost non-existance of Gollum, 6.) The entrance to Lothlorien, 7.) the portrayal of Butterbur. There were scenes I did like. The scene with the Balrog. I liked Legolas. Most of Gandalf. Most of the fight scenes, with the noted exception of the duel between the wizards. I just do not understand the most of the changes.

Suldal

12-19-2001, 04:47 PM

Hello again everyone! I figured for such an important topic I can very well make an appearance. And yes, as my quote does say, I am Suldal (or Sud if you so prefer). Well I personally thought the movies to be very good, alot better than I had expected! Considering all the realities of making such a movie (time, costs and the like) I found it very well made. Perhaps a little too "jerky" at times, and a little too underdeveloped, but overall well done. Of course I personally would have changed the first two scenes with Arwen (I think it makes her appear much too "magickally inclined") but the rest was superb in my mind. The scenery was fantastic, and the music and sound effects were surreal! But anyway thats just my personal opinion at the moment.

Mhoram

12-19-2001, 04:56 PM

I was one who was very excited and positive about things...until I saw the "Making of the Lord of the Rings" That put some worries in me...but still I went into the theater hoping for a good movie.First the good: The scenery was perfect in everyway, the Shire, Rivendell, Caladras, Moria, Lorien...all fabulous, just as I imagined. Characters...most were very good, excellent even.The bad: My main problem was that the movie was very very choppy....jerking from one place to the other. 10 minutes in moria, 10 in Lorien, 1 minute inbetween....*sigh* In my opinion it was more a cinematic illustration of the major scenes of the books than a good movie. I'm hearing that the opinion is good among those who havn't read the books...but I cannot see how. I'm happy about that, don't get me wrong...but there was no character development, no explaination of things, or people, or places...*sigh*There just wasn't enough time. It should really be 6 movies, instead of 3. That would never happen, but that's what it would take to do it well.I dunno. I feel bad about not liking it...but I can't deny. I personally kinda wish I hadn't seen it at all and hope I will be able to go back to my book imaginations of people and things...I will surely be reading them tonight, trying to regain that love and get over this dissapointment. Oh well. To all those who enjoyed the movie, i'm very happy for you.

red

12-19-2001, 05:08 PM

Wow. Well. I guess I don't really need to post now since Mhoram already pretty much summed up my thoughts! I'll just add something that Telchar said to round it out a bit... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"I dont have a problem with PJ leaving out thing - not at all -he has to! Its where he has changed the story I think he fails - and on the points where he do not understand the caracters - his interpretation of especially Elrond, Galadriel and the two younger hobbits..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> PJ loves visuals. It was a treat for the eyes, but the storyline and character development were lacking. Don't get me wrong! Unlike Mhoram, I did like it. Just didn't love it. 7 out of 10 from me.-red

Thenamir

12-19-2001, 05:28 PM

I'm sorry folks. I've gotta vent here. According to a souce I read today, the anal-retentive Tolkien purist-snobs represent less than 10% of the expected audience. I am glad not to be in that cult.Now that I've earned the flames of everyone here, let me go on to say that I enjoyed the movie immensely -- as cinema. How many of you complained about the fact that the original Jurassic Park little resembled the Michael Crighton book upon which it was "based"? Cinema is a different animal than a book. It requires different pacing, and necessary compression of Tolkien's beautifully languid storyline. FOTR the Movie works as a movie on a different level than FOTR the book.I was able without any difficulty at all to handle the differences from the text by mentally noting them and then continuing to concentrate on the story as presented on screen. While I can make the comparisons, it did not detract from the overall beautifully-produced, brilliantly-acted, cinematically-near-flawless presentation. I have no sympathy for those unable to detach themselves from considering Tolkien's exact words as a sacrosanct canon which can not be altered one iota in order to make a good flick.And another thing I don't understand is why so many people are ragging on the money-making aspects of the film as a *bad* thing. If it were not for the money making potential of the movies, they would not have been made at all, and tweaking them for the masses (which, heaven forbid, might actually make them want to go read the BOOKS!!) is not necessarily a bad thing.I had my complaints about the movie. I like the travel-transition sequences in the book as much as anyone, and would have liked to preserve some of them in the movie, but in the grand scheme of things, 3 hours is a lot to ask of the public butts to sit thru. I didn't like the fact that Merry and Pippin just sort of "fall-in" with Frodo and Sam and start following, no questions asked and no explanations given. I would rather have seen the info in the prologue given, even in flashback, in the council of Elrond. But all that is secondary to why I go to movies. I go to see a good yarn well-presented. FOTR was the embodiment of all that I have looked for in other modern so-called blockbusters, which are usually 10 minutes of glory surrounded by 100 minutes of sewage. It was transporting, involving, soaring cinema on a scale not seen by me since I-don't-know-when.Those perfectionists complaining about plot changes, go sit in your dark corners and get back to re-reading your dog-eared, manually-footnoted and cross-referenced copies of the LOTR and HOME, and let the rest of us (most of the movie-going public) enjoy ourselves. But you really should get out more -- you're beginning to look sort of thin, stretched and bony. And you might want to think twice before referring to your books as "my preciousssses"...

Zippo

12-19-2001, 07:34 PM

Well I Hust go Back.. And i was disipointed some wat.. No Glorfindel or Tombombadil...or BARROW-DOWNS! Ha Well. There were a few aspects i liked, I liked the Balrog. Well... I liked a lot of other stuff also... And Lurtz What an idiot. He was made to be destroyed. HOW STUPID! ANNND The way Boromir Dies...It sure did take long enough! But all and all i liked the movie.. It was quite a good preseption..not mine...but it was.

Pirotess

12-19-2001, 08:02 PM

hey there TelcharI gotta admit, that when i woke up today, i was freaked like hell 'bout going to see the FOTR, cuz i was too worried about being disapointed. N i have to say: all in all, i liked it.sure, i hated some things: - the ending - Arwen - Arwen saving them ('specially when she called on the tides) - Butterbur n the meeting with Strider - some very childish/cartoonish interpretations of the Council.But c'mon let's be honest: the good points of the movie are waaaayyyyy more numerous. stellar acting. great interpretation of nearly all the characters. costumes, n settings were great too. nice fighting sequences. the war scene in the beginning gave me goosebumps, it was amazing. i luved the balrog. The movie managed to capture the feel of the story for me. I think Pippin was well interpreted. According to tolkien, he's suposed to be irresponsible n he does some immature things in the course of the books, doesn't he?No. i'm not 100% satisfied. But there was no chance for the movie to be EXACTLY like the book. And i don't think it's fair to bash it, because of all the things that were so wonderfully accurate. Why do we always Want it All? Can't we just enjoy what we're getting? Humans are so ridiculously greedy.I think 1 of the probs with us, crazy hardcore Tolkien fans, is that we don't want people who have never read the books, n don't understand their massive splendor, to walk outta some movie theatre, thinking that "that's" what the whole books were about, if the adaptation is inaccurate.well i gotta say: I don't care about those people. I've read the books, n i'll always be in love with them. If you want complete accuracy, then just read them. the movie is simply a mere adaptation. that's all. we can't expect it to be the same as Tolkien's written version O_oPersonnaly i enjoyed some the Extra stuff that PJ added to the story. it added some intrigue to certain scenes, that i know by heart, and knew exactly what was gonna happen..And yeah, they did skip lots of the more "in-between moments", jumping from 1 place to the next, n i hope the DVD will come with plenty of cut scenes that will make up for it a bit take care. ^_^

lindil

12-19-2001, 08:18 PM

Well, I am off to see the movie in just a bit, i will do my best to take the wise Hobbit Emeritus' tack . I imagine it will take all of the discipline and skill I posses [and intervention by Eru !] to remain calm and in a mode of enjoyment when Gandalf starts to do a jedi fight scene w/ S. but hey .... Forewarned is forearmed. cheerslindil

Durin's Bane

12-19-2001, 08:44 PM

I LOVED it! Lord of the Rings is the best book I have ever read, and now the movie is the best movie I've seen. First I compared the movie to the book and if you do that sure it stinks. But I believe if you go into the theatre repeating to yourself this is not the book this is a movie that is BASED on the book and it PJ's view of the books and its just there for a jolly fun time not to be a actual journey with the fellowship like it is in the books. I compared it to the other movies I've seen and its the best simply because it feels like Tolkien and was based on my favorite story. For the most part I thought the characters were down tight I especially loved Gandalf and Gimli. Legolas was the only one I was disapointed with, he just seems to be there to "sense evil" and shoot orcs. Overall I think PJ did an superb job except for two things that really irked me. I think Liv Tyler did a very good job and I didn't mind her replacing Glorfindel and defying the Nazgul, until she called the ford against them. I think it could of easily been done by Gandalf and Elrond in the movie. The second was the mural of Sauron in Rivendell that Boromir looks at. NO ONE ON MIDDLE-EARTH WOULD EVER DRAW HIM EVEN LESS FOR DECORATION!!! I MEAN THEY DON'T EVEN SAY HIS NAME!!! (which they do in movie quite frequently) Those were the only 2 things I detested. One person here complained about Gollum being non-existant in the movie. If you remember your Fellowship book though, he appears alot more in the movie than he does in THAT book. And also the guy who said Boromir took too long to die. I gotta say in my opinion that was one of the movies best scenes. You can almost feel the arrows pounding into your own chest along with him and in the books I pictured Boromir getting shot with quite a few more arrows than three and still lopping of those Uruk-Hai heads. Overall I think the movie was EXCELLENT, sure the books is sooooo much better, but books have and alway will be extremely superior to movies. Personally I can't wait till Two Towers. Treebeard here I come![ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Durin'sBane ]

Orald

12-19-2001, 10:26 PM

Has anyone read Ebert's review? I agree almost completely.The cinematograghy was surreal.Bean was amazing, Christopher Lee and Ian Mckellan were also amazing, but not as much as Bean.The branches, or whatever they were(definately not wings) coming out of the Balrog were weird, but it was very very neat(no better word to describe it)Bilbo nearly biting off Frodo's head in Rivendell was very good, well not good, but I thought it really let the viewer see the power of the ring, even better than that fancy CGI scene with Galadriel that I thought was overdone.The pace was to fast. The shire even went fast, I was amazed at that. Then it kinda snowballed from there, not allowing much detail.But I think better and better of the movie every moment.Definately some Oscar nominations, maybe a best supporting role to Sean Bean.

Rose, the youngest

12-19-2001, 10:53 PM

I am very very new to the wide world of film interpretations of Tolkien, but it would make since to say that even a newbie to Middle Earth would find the film a graphic learning tool to understanding the sequence of events the lead up to the separation of the Fellowship. Despite the controversy surrounding the editing of the plot, with some explanation even the most inexperienced Tolkien fan finds the story line true to Tolkien’s original meaning? I, personally have a question though. Was the theme of the story changed when PJ enlarged the part of Arwen, played by Liv Tyler?[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Rose, the youngest ]

mordor136

12-19-2001, 11:10 PM

All together a great movie. Great actors and awsome special effects. I have only two complaints WHAT THE HECK WAS UP WITH GALADRIEL WHEN SHE DID THAT WIERD BIG EYED THING.I took my friend orc999 to see it with me. I thought he was going to claw me to death when Bilbo did that fangs with big eyes thing in Rivendell. They really overexaggerated there. I know its only a movie interpretation but wheres Bombidail? People acctually laughed at the end. Those wannabe Tolkien fans were expecting an ending. I nearly killed a guy who called tolkien a raving lunatic. Well, as sam says,"Thats an eye opener and no mistake."

Rose, the youngest

12-19-2001, 11:29 PM

I hope none of you made rude comments about the film as the credits started to roll! I got chose to a cat fight with a man stilling behind me who stood up and said, "Well, that sucked." Keep it to yourselves people![ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Rose, the youngest ]

Prefect

12-19-2001, 11:32 PM

I saw it right after school today. . .I truthfully don't mind the adaptations they made for screen. If they'd made an exact retelling, nobody would want to watch it but hardcore fans, it was the director's job to get it out into the mainstream really. . .(which is good and bad). . .I think, though, as a 9 hour movie it'll all be great together. . .I actually liked it without Tom and all the songs and stuff. . .though the changed area surrounding Gandalf and Saruman was interesting, and having the stone in really early. . .I guess it helps people understand whats going on (if they haven't read it)I did enjoy seeing Saruman and Gandalf fight. . .but I'd have liked to see Radagast (as he's my favorite minor minor character)all in all though, a thoroughly likeable movie!I can't get over it when they just say "weed" too. . . I guess its the stupid American teenager in me

Ionia Luffs Reindeer

12-19-2001, 11:39 PM

Let's throw in Ionia's two cents. And you know it's bad when she slips into third person.What does Ionia know? She knows that it takes one helluva movie to make her cry, especially considering she knows what's going to happen (or should).I went to the movie to see a movie. I forced myself not to acknowledge that I'd ever been a huge fan of the book (albeit that I AM a newcomer). And I adored it. I'd see it again and the fact that the second is a year in coming is gnawing at me even as we speak.Jackson could not, I repeat, NOT, under any circumstances, make a movie geared just towards the Tolkien crowd. If he'd tried, and stayed true to the storyline, there would be complaints about bad acting and worse special effects... Why? Because he'd never make the money to PRODUCE such a stellar, major piece of work. Yes, some things seemed strictly unnecessary. I won't touch the Arwen deal. We all have our issues with that.The wizard duel? As mentioned, necessary to demonstrate Gandalf's lesser power. The actors? I think that Jackson cast Tolkien's characters with a set goal in his mind: To capture the aura, the atmosphere, that Tolkien fans have grown to love. Does Elijah Wood look like a fifty year old Hobbit? No, admittedly, but doesn't he capture some of the martyred, downtrodden (yet courageous) innocence that Frodo represents? Doesn't Sean Astin seem like a loyal stand-by who'd never leave your side? And doesn't (the guy who plays Pippin), despite being rather overdone, seem like an irresponsible teenager? Jackson even took pains to express that in the "is that a pint" scene... Which, by the way, I found hilariously tasteful, despite being somewhat off the Tolkien-true path.I'm avoiding the chatroom for the next few days. I won't be able to tolerate the criticism real-time. I know it's beyond justified, but I don't want my new favourite (yes, favourite, you read that correctly) movie ruined. Yes, I'm a newbie to Middle-Earth who needed the movie to drag my eyelids open, as I have mentioned before, but I appreciate the richness of the novels, hopefully that counts for quite a bit.Maybe we all question it too hard? Just think, if you'd never read Tolkien, would you have enjoyed the movie? The acting was superb, the locations breathtaking, the costume and makeup, while not accurate, beautiful.It was stunning.

Gilthalion

12-19-2001, 11:41 PM

I took the Mrs for a second viewing.I take back nothing! Really a great motion picture and a fine interpretation.A six hour movie, or six movies to cover the epic, would be commercially impossible.Peter Jackson is to be commended for a spectacular job. Over all, it is truer to the books than I thought it would be, at least in spirit.And for those reading so far down a spoiler thread:Balrogs got wings.

Ionia Luffs Reindeer

12-20-2001, 12:06 AM

NUOOOO STUPID WINGS.

Meriadoc1961

12-20-2001, 12:08 AM

Rose, I will answer your question first, since I saw you post the same question elsewhere. No, the theme did not change even though changes were made with the character of Arwen. It is still Good vs. Evil. The point of undertaking the journey is still intact: to destroy the ring of power and bring about the end of the domain of Sauron, thereby saving the Free Peoples of Middle-earth.I have read LotR and the Hobbit every February since 1974. I look forward to reading them again. I, therefore, had some misgivings about seeing this movie, but I can say I really did enjoy it. I was left wanting more, and can hardly wait for the next installments. I actually had tears in my eyes throughout the entire movie.I was very pleased that there were no swearing words in the movie, and no nudity. Too many times these are put in movies when they are absolutley unnecessary. The movie was actually frightening at points with real terror, as can be found in the books. This was also pleasing to me.I was much impressed with how many times the script was word for word taken from the book, such as when Gandalf was fighting the Balrog in Moria. The scenes with the Black Riders were excellent in capturing their essence, whether seen by normal sight, or by altered sight while wearing the ring.I would have liked to have seen the Old Forest with Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil, and the barrow downs. In addition, I would have preferred to have seen the presentation of gifts by the Lady Galadriel to the members of the fellowship at their parting from Caras Galadon.I was not too disappointed with the character changes made to Arwen. I would agree that the river scene could just as easily been accomplished using Elrond and Gandalf, as is in the book.I was disappointed that the Hobbits and Strider did not stop and see the trolls frozen in stone forever after arguing over which was the best way to cook 13 Dwarves and one Hobbit. I wish I could have seen Frodo dancing on a table, jumping in the air, and disappear into a pile of broken crockery while singing "The cow jumped over the Moon," instead of seeing him trip over a foot and have the ring fly up in the air for all to see, and then slip onto his finger on its own.I actually did not mind the Saruman and Gandalf battle scene. To me, this seems a logical extension of what we learned from the books, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that such a battle could have occurred. Gandalf only relates the tale of his caprure; we are never given a "real time" account in the book by Tolkien. What we did learn was that Gandalf was trapped and put atop a pinnacle of Orthanc. He had to have gotten there somehow, and no one had everm caught him before. Remember, he had wandered in the realm of Dol Guldur in search of Thrain years previously, and had not been captured. This fighting scene seems to be a logical inference of possible events to me. I find this much more plausible than having Arwen call up the waters to create a flood to unhorse the Nine, when Tolkien explained this process in detail: Elrond had the power to control the flood, and Gandalf added his magical touches here and there.For those of you who are disappointed, I hope you can reconsider. It was much better than what we were presented with back in 1978.

Ionia Luffs Reindeer

12-20-2001, 12:37 AM

Remarkably well-said. I wish I could be as concise.

lindil

12-20-2001, 02:24 AM

As I like to consider my self as much of an ultra-conservative Tolkien purist, and one who argued strongly for a pure rendition, I was impressed, really impressed. Yeah PJ's crative lic, should be on probation, but so much of the spirit of the work did show thru and indeed inspired it, that I came away pleased. Coyuld I post a 1,000 word critique w/ no effort ? yep Will I [tonight at least ] nope - it was just too cool to spend time slamming it. the cheesiest thing i will mention was the evil, Evil EVIL being chanted during the weathertop scene [I think] . They tried I think to be discrete about it, but finally it came into the foreground strongly enough that there was no mistsaking it - I'm afraid. Someone said above they thought bean and mortensonm should have switched roles , i say no way. I will save further praise and critique for their own threads.- thanks Gilthalion for the attitude adjustment prior to the movie. I suggest you go to see it [for those who havn't] w/ the idea that all copies are gone except one that is about as well presereved as the booknext Balin's tomb, and alot of gaps werre missing and had to be filled in.Someone complained I think about Sam being made goofy - in the book, he is a total bumpkin. I still hope someone' does it 'by the book' one day, but until then this is a 10,000% improvement over the Rankin/Bass and cartoon version. lindil's Osanwe page @ <A HREF="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" TARGET=_blank>http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe</A>

Lostgaeriel

12-20-2001, 02:34 AM

All I can say is WOW! OK, I can say a lot more. I LOVED it. I had high but realistic expectations...I didn't expect it to be like the book. Because...It is a movie - a MOTION PICTURE. The story has to be told in moving images, not in pages of narrative. The "historical" or "background" information must be SHOWN. For example, Saruman's treachery had to be shown - thus the amount of screen time. Although my two movie-going friends found the cuts to and from Orthanc disjointed, I didn’t.And my friends were concerned about a lack of character development. But first the characters must be established for those unfamiliar with the story. And there are a lot of characters. So the focus was on the more important characters of the trilogy: Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn and Saruman. (Boromir's character also had to be dealt with of course. I liked how the relationship between Aragorn and Boromir was developed - it revealed as much about Aragorn's character as Boromir's.) The other characters will be developed in the next movies as the action follows them. I concede that by giving Arwen’s character more substance and power, the movie diluted Frodo’s strength of character somewhat. But I am hopeful that Frodo’s sterner stuff will show up in the next instalment. The battle/fight scenes were truly terrifying. The costumes and set designs were breathtaking. The special effects were amazing. (I don't know enough about Balrogs to know if it was well done or not. But it scared me.)I'm kind of embarrassed, but I cried through most of the film. First the Hobbiton scenes choked me up - I felt that I was there. Bree was exactly how I pictured it. Rivendell and Lothlorien were more beautiful than I had imagined. And knowing the storyline didn't stop me from bawling when Frodo was wounded, when Gandalf fell, when Boromir died. And the slight changes made it more surprising and exciting. (And stopped me from lip-synching the dialogue!) The 3 hours flew by like no movie I can remember.I have to see it again and again and again and…

obloquy

12-20-2001, 03:25 AM

So many things have been said, good and bad, that I'll pare my own comments down to the bare emotion: Beautiful, all in all. It lacked Tolkien's dignified subtlety in places, but necessarily considering the medium. The acting was phenomenal. The battles were incredible in their originality. No "superhero" stuff here, just what it takes to stay alive. I thought there were some minor moments of cliche drama. And finally, most gushingly... Boromir. He was this movie. As I said, the acting was phenomenal, but Boromir! This was one of the most powerfully emotive performances I have ever seen. Perfect in every aspect. Flawless. Bean gets the Oscar, no question.

Mister Underhill

12-20-2001, 04:29 AM

I'll keep my comments short and sweet, too -- between Thenamir's rant, Gilthalion's praise, and lindil's positive (*shock!*) review, I'm fairly well-covered. I loved it! <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>WINGS!<LI>The acting was OUTSTANDING! McKellan for Best Actor -- he owned Gandalf!<LI>Swap Viggo for Bean? I echo the NO WAY! sentiment. I thought they were both great in their parts.<LI>I thought we saw the perfect amount of Gollum -- and he looked and sounded perfect.<LI>Jackson did a great job of compressing a very dense and challenging book into three hours. I hope New Line has the sense to put out a Director's Cut DVD with the four hour version I'd bet Jackson could have made.<LI>I loved watching Legolas work that bow! C'mon!</UL>I could go on and on, but it's late and I want to sleep with images of FotR dancing in my head.[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

Taimar

12-20-2001, 08:51 AM

I`m just back from seeing the movie. Thought I`d add my twopenny worth.As pure entertainment, I thought it was excellent (my 11 year old daughter loved it). It looked as good as I had hoped it would and the fight sequences were superb. There were also some excellent performances, especially from Elijah Wood and Sean Bean. Now onto the bad points. I thought the script was very poor. Galadriel was awful ("even the smallest of people can change the future" - Ugh!) and the less said about Arwen the better. Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler were dire.I think that the film is good when viewed as mere entertainment, but as an interpretation of JRRT`s masterpiece, it leaves a lot to be desired. I have no problems with the omitted scenes, but the changes made, especially Arwen`s role, were totally unnecessary, IMHO. Why was LUrtz added when Ugluk was already well fleshed out in the books?I`d give PJ 10/10 for artistic impression, but 2/10 for his contribution to Tolkien`s legacy. Overall, I guess that comes to a 6.

Valaraukar

12-20-2001, 09:27 AM

Well, I can hardly say much that haven't been seen. But I enjoyed it very much as a movie and smiled happily afterwards.So I decide to let film be film and book be book

red

12-20-2001, 09:30 AM

I didn't mention this before but it sure deserves mentioning... Sean Bean was amazing!! Quite a nice surprise when everyone kept raving about McKellan and Lee (who were also great!). Three cheers for Bean. Hip hip Hoorah!!(x3) -red

GreyIstar

12-20-2001, 12:22 PM

I have a question. Why did noone like the ending? The book drops you off right in the middle and I thought it was good.I loved the movie. The spirit and feel of Tolkien really came through. Forget the minor details omissions and such. 3 hours is a long time for a movie, but too short to make the FOTR perfect. You can't walk away like you can with a book and pick up again later.I loved it. I thought Viggo was the perfect Aragorn and Gandalf was superb as well as Boromir. I thought Merry and Pippin were kinda lost. I kept trying to figure out which was which but they get more prominent in the the next 2.A great film, stop trying to make it live up to the books. It won't and I knew that from the beginning. It is based on JRR Tolkien, not by him.

Earnur

12-20-2001, 02:12 PM

The more I think about what I saw yesterday the more I like it. A great interpretation of the story and true to the story in theme and characterization if not in specifics. I felt some of the "choppiness" mentioned in other posts, but I think this is due to our in-depth knowledge of the full story. I was always aware of a missing scene or even a missing line. I hope to see it a second time soon and will try to just take it in without noting the variations from the book. I think it will flow well if you just accept the story being told in the film.I do wish we had seen more of Lothlorian. Galadrial is, to my mind, the character least well presented; it seems that Gimli's preconception of her is justified! We need to see the "other side" of Galadrial.I also have to second comments on the incredible performance of McKellen; he really lifts the movie into another level. Also Sean Bean; earlier reviewers seem to have missed him, but he did great things with a difficult role.

Ereinion

12-20-2001, 03:11 PM

Loved the movie. I wish they hadnt left out Glorfindel. Sure, I knew before hand, but I was always hoping they would slip him in there. I also thought they messed up the Last Alliance a little. The armies were spectacular (how cool was that long line of Elven longswords?), but they pretty much ignored Gil-galad and Elendil. We never see Gil-galad at all, unfortunately, and all we see of Elendil is him getting tossed like a pebble against a wall. And then Isildur hacks off the fingers of a still very powerful Sauron. In the books, Elendil and Gil-galad were supposed to defeat Sauron and die in the process. And then Isildur cut off the ring after Sauron was "unconscious" or what not. At least that's how I intepreted it. I sorely missed Gil-galad and also all the songs. I wanted to hear some Elvish singing! All well, on the whole a great movie and I'll probably see it four more times lol.

Radagast

12-20-2001, 05:45 PM

Wow. Greatest movie I've ever seen. Some of the changes were annoying but the whole thing was spectacular. Durin's bane pretty much summed up everything I'd like to say, so I won't talk long. The only thing that really, truly irked me was that ARWEN the magical elf princess that goes down to save the Hobbits and Aragorn, was the one who called the flood. It would have been much better if PJ had just kept Elrond and Gandalf doing it. The opening battle was jaw dropping. I wish it were longer though. And later the flashback of Elrond and Isuldur in Odruidin was well done.Great movie

Arwin_elven_chick

12-20-2001, 07:02 PM

I don't know what's wrong with you people. I love the books, And I thought the movie was awsome. I missed Tom Bobambadil, though. It was exciting, and scarry, and just great. I hate to say it, but It was so good it beat Harry. And that says a lot.

Zippo

12-20-2001, 07:40 PM

I missed tom too...

Man-of-the-Wold

12-21-2001, 12:39 AM

My concurrence with Thenamir. Well put.Lets face it. Super strong movie. It is a testament to Mr. Tolkien's work that should have been done years ago. (9 out of 10) Sometime I'll relate some of what I remember from the whole thing with Bashki and all that in the 1970s. Yes, I was alive then.One has to do different things and focus on certain characters and things to make a film work. Over time, the Harry Potter movie will be seen as a disaster for its dogmatic adherence to the book, as the critics said. I could get into a lot of film intellectualism that I may or may not understand, concerning visuals, character recognition, and so forth.But the basic point. A book is a personal investment. Time must be created and manipulated in both the author's text and the reader's mind. A movie is locked into real event time. Even for a very long one such as this, IT'S ONLY THREE HOURS. But it is not about the length of time available. But the emotional and rational attachments of the viewer, if too many key characters or places come and go rapidly in that time, you won't care for them. Film has enormous strengths of letting you see facial expressions, physical perspectives and so forth, which are to be treasured for being potrayed like these were on the big screen.Because I read LOTR and Co. several times years ago, I don't even know how many times in total.BUT IN TERMS OF LOOK, FEEL AND POINTS THAT RESONATE, THE MOVIE REMINDS OF HOW READING THE FELLOWSHIP THE FIRST TIME HIT ME.And the filmmakers found balance. You have to think of the folks who haven't read the books (poor souls) but many may do so now. Hell, book displays are everywhere.This should be a very successful film, which is as it should be. This film will get around in our real world.Now to get some of my minor quibbles off my chest:I found the Council of Elrond to Moria a little mixed. (1) Council to much wham-bam-thank..., (2) We could have done with more elves in the background at Rivendell, they haven't all left yet, (3)Between Gandalf and Gimli there should have been more clarification on their perspectives for entering Moria. Clearly, in the film Gimli assumed all was well. At least Gandalf could have expressed an argument about no word from Moria in some years, instead of only having Saruman imply that Gandalf and he knew of the Balrog. Still, you are free to think in terms of the book story, or if uninitiated you'd assume that Moria (but why the name?) was a long-standing kingdom with no previous abandonment and recolonization.And the thing with Arwen, again, you can believe that Elrond and Gandalf caused the flood, if you like, and that she was simply tripping the trigger. I think PJ is to be congratulated for leaving things vague enough that book-enthusiasts can fall back on that explanation in places, while those not so graced can just take it at face value. Don't be surprised if Liv Tyler ends up a composite character in for her book-bound brethren too, as part of the Grey Company. And ya know what, Man-of-the-Wold don't mind.********"the Riders of Rohan look almost as boys beside them" -- Gimli

Marileangorifurnimaluim

12-21-2001, 03:53 AM

Ah. Well, I'm back. Just saw it. The movie was like seeing the story of the LotR through a different set of eyes. The essence of the story is captured, but it's like when two people describe the same events, their perspectives are different, they emphasize different things, one person leaves out this, and adds that, another stresses the other thing or gets a detail wrong. Yet it's definately the LotR. Wow.It enriches my experience of the books immensely, gives a new perspective, like particularly good ME artwork does. In a word: I loved it. I want to see it again. Tomorrow.I think it's greatest strength is how the movie is carried by the characters. Its second greatest strength is cinematography. And I expected it to be the other way around. Frodo's face is emblazened on my mind's eye, as is the compassionate twinkle of Gandalf. Bilbo is delightfully complex, eccentric and fun. Galadriel is amazing. Cate Blanchet is both bewitching, mysterious, distant but very present and real. She turns in a very subtle performance. With a performance like that I don't think they needed as many special effects in the scene of the mirror. (She also seems like she's really ejoying herself as Galadriel.) Ian Holm did not need special effects either, what an actor. You know who really is the character? Sam. That's not an actor, that IS Sam. Though the man who played Elrond surpasses my expectations by far. That's a tough role to make real, and he's a force to be reckoned with. Elijah Wood was the right choice, not for acting subtlety but because he just glows. In every scene. He has that right combination of charisma, innocence and intelligent purposefulness. I couldn't take my eyes off of him, there's so much personal magnetism.Next to Sam-that's-not-an-actor, who's as ordinary as a potato, they play off eachother perfectly. The coming scenes in Mordor are going to be very, very good.I think in the long run the critics will wish to banish the CGI just to enjoy the characterization more fully.I saw it with a non-believer, a Tolkien infidel. It was Elrond and Gandalf that most impressed him, and he was blown away by Rivendell, as well by as the statues of Elendil and Isildur, and the scenery in general, whether it was ruins or Caradhras. What didn't carry for him was the compression of time - because there was so little indication of time elapse between Moria and Amon Hen, it didn't seem right that Frodo would wander off while the hordes were still fresh in our minds (and should be in his). I had to explain how long they were in Lorien, the distance between Moria and the Anduin, and the fact they'd had two months to relax their guard. Lorien is so mysterious that for a neophyte it's not a break in the action.I envy him a little though, my neophyte friend, because he hadn't read the books. He could sink deeper into the story, was without that darn voice in the back of my head that kept comparing the books to the movie. I want to see it again, with that voice Silent.Oh Man-of-the-Wold, you are not alone, I too saw Bakshi's version in the theatres. It struck me as being all interpretation by someone who liked but didn't "get" the LotR. Peter Jackson on the other hand understands it. This is a great movie, and any complaints are petty ungracious nit-picking. (99.5% of Peter's changes work, so leave the few that didn't alone.)I'm so happy. My only complaint is I don't get to watch it five times, end to end.[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

Tarlondeion Of Gondolin

12-21-2001, 04:40 AM

I just got back from the cinema and I must say thet was probably the best film I've ever seen - truly superb.I thought it was a great film all in all. I think that Merry and Pippin were portrayed as comedy characters. The Last Alliance was great as was the Balrog. The film may have missed out bits but it still inspired as the book had, it put across the great wonderment of middle Earth and the love and passion that Tolkien put into the book. It rekindled an already brightly burning that is the worldwide love for the Lord Of The Rings. The General public (A.K.A. non TOLKIEN readers) will now go out and read the next two. No film can portray a book exactly, take Harry Potter for example I loved the books (not as much as I love Tolkien's books ofcourse) but the film was crap and didn't show how good the books were, it missed out loads of the important bits, however the LOTR film managed to keep on the basic story line, added a few bits of their own and still managed to keep the magic of Tolkiens world alive. All the things they showed were as I imagined and the acting was great. I think that The actors for Aragorn and Boromir should have been swapped. Hobbits were good. I wish we had fireworks like that in our world because that would be really cool. We must remember 1 thing, whatever the director, Producer, Actors. ect. say they were not out to recreate the Land Of Middle Earth because they loved Tolkiens works. They were out for profit (which is why they left out some of the less exiting bits). So considering they were out for profit they did pretty well I thought. Sorry I dragged on a bit! PS. Victory for the Pro Wingers (Balrog Wise)

GreyIstar

12-21-2001, 08:12 AM

The film is powerful because the heart and soul of Tolkien comes through in it. The scene in Moria when Gandalf falls had tears in my eyes. I know alot of other people in the theater did as well. The faces of Frodo and Aragorn there are just heartbreaking and I had tears even though I know Gandalf will return. It was that powerful. You care so much for these characters. When Aragorn is talking to Boromir as he dies is another powerful scene. You really see how sorry Boromir is. Sean Bean was AWESOME in this movie. He had a very difficult role to master and he did it with perfection.When does the Two Towers come out again?? [ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: GreyIstar ]

Aeglaer

12-21-2001, 09:38 AM

As many of you have said everything has it´s ups and downs, though this movie has some mayor twist if compared with The Book, it is none the less an amazing feat, it´s a great movie for those who are not totally enclosed in Tolkien´s art (i do love him, but i´m not "in love" with him as many are), PJ did what many others couldn´t have done, a great movie out of an excellent book, many would have done something awful and not have been praised by critics as much as he has, anyway, i will see it again, and enjoy it thoroughly, escentially for the good movie it is, not for my presumptuos interpretation of Middle-Earth, wich i reserve only to myself, where the secrets are best kept.

rhudladion

12-21-2001, 09:39 AM

Listen up everybody: I keep hearing people say something like,"Well, you can't compare the movie to the books because, etc., etc., etc." So fine, let's just talk about the movie. I would rate it about a 1.5 out of 10! I thought the acting was sub-par, their was no character development, the Elves were basically a group of mean-spirited jerks (Legolas was alright), Frodo was weak, and Aragorn was an unconvincing gimp. Frankly, I wonder what many of you consider to be a good movie??? Remember, we're just talking movie; I haven't even begun to rip it to shreds in respect to the gross inadequacies, embellishments, and false depictions it suffered in relation to the REAL story. Of course I cannot think it possible to critique the movie in an unbias form. However, I tried hard, and I believe that if I had not read the book I would not rate it well (though I may have enjoyed it more). It lacked in full the element of great story that any great movie has. I walked out of the theater feeling like I could really care less about any of the characters, save Boromir (who I thought did the best acting job of the nine).So, no folks, it can't be like the book; but for goodness sake, it could have been something interesting![ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

GreyIstar

12-21-2001, 10:29 AM

I take it you didn't like it then?? heheheSheesh do you like any movies?

rhudladion

12-21-2001, 10:41 AM

Yes. I like movies with an accessible plot. I also like movies that don't make me feel as though I'm watching a trailer the whole time. I guess I'm a little hot about it, because I think it made the story look stupid; and as we all know, it's the best story ever written.

Eol

12-21-2001, 11:00 AM

I have been reading through the reviews on this movie, and it has not removed my balking any less. It cannot be a terrible movie because of a few elements( and not just because its Tolkien...) I might see the movie if I want to split with a few dollars for an afternoon matinee, and not an evening show, it would be suicide. I did not freak out at Star Wars and I have not freaked out on this. Mostly I will be viewing this film out of curiousity and to say I had seen it.

obloquy

12-21-2001, 12:43 PM

If Bean and Mortensen had switched roles we wouldn't have Bean in the role that he mastered to absolute heart-wrenching perfection, and vice versa. Their casting was perfect.

Joe Harrison

12-21-2001, 12:51 PM

Alright then, I have now seen the movie again. The first time I went with some of my friends who also had read the books many times. Now I took my kids to see it. My brother, his wife and child, my brother-in-law and some more friends ,none of who have read the books, went with us. I enjoyed the movie much more the second time simply because I watched the movie without having a desire to compare it to the books. I still have three major gripes: 1.) Arwen, 2.) wizard duel, 3.) the ending. I will tell GreyIstar about why I did not like the end. It is because of the simple fact that Frodo left without telling anyone he was going. This coupled with the abduction of Merry and Pippin left Strider with a decision to make that he did not have to make in the movie. He wasn't 100% positive that Frodo and Sam went together but he was pretty dang sure. He knew that Merry and Pippin were taken. He had to decide, do I go after the Bearer and continue the quest or do I go for the friends that are in danger. Another reason I did not like Merry and Pippin in the movie is that their characters are left out so much that you have to wonder why Strider would even go after them. I think that the Elves at the beginning of the movie are awesome. I loved the way Elrond's hair flies up when the Elves fire their bows into the oncoming enemy. So I will give the second viewing of the movie a much higher rating than the first time.

rhudladion

12-21-2001, 04:25 PM

Who thought the Hobbit waitress in the Shire in the movie was hot???

Erulasto

12-21-2001, 04:44 PM

I haven't seen the movie yet... for some odd reason, our local movie distributor decided NOT to premiere LOTR on december 19th along with the rest of the world... probably because it would have clashed with Harry Potter, which was released here a week ago. (a country of 1.4 million doesn't have that many moviegoers to go around, so they often juggle release dates to make more money)....Okay, even though i haven't seen the movie yet, i feel i have to get this off my chest... to all the naysayers who've been *****ing about the omission of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs... What the hell is wrong with you? as much as i love Tolkien and LOTR, I've always had a problem with Bombadil. What the hell is a character too wacky for something like Narnia doing in LOTR? I was 11 when i first read LOTR, and it was quite an achievement on my part, as my native language is not english, and reading a 1000-page novel in a foreign language was something that i thought i might not be able to do... my father certainly thought so, and i had to fight him hard, so he'd buy the book. Eventually he did, and I found it to be the best book ever, and i still stick to that opinion. And what i found most refreshing was the serious manner in which the story was presented... I had read the Hobbit before, translated, and it was translated as a kid's book. Dwarf was translated using a word that had about much credibility as using the word 'leprechaun' for the Eldar. And when i had to do a book report on my favourite book, i felt quite embarrased, as i'm sure all of you would, at age 11, desperately trying to get that girl sitting behind you to like you, having to tell everyone how your favourite book was about 'leprechauns'. Okay, back to my point... What I liked about LOTR was the way it took a serious angle to what was, in all honesty, a fairy tale. And the only thing I had a problem with in the book, was Tom Bombadil. And I am glad he's not in the movie. I seriously doubt I'd enjoy a film with someone singing 'hey dol, merry dol'. I don't care if it's LOTR or not, that's a bit too much. My girlfriend already thinks it's a kids' book, I'd rather not have her misguided notions justified in the movie theater, thank you very much.As for the barrow-downs, I sort of think that some of the people here are putting a bit too much weight on that chapter... Anything can be made of any line in the book, but I seriously doubt Tolkien created that scene for any other reason than arming the hobbits, and giving them (and the reader) an idea about the general inhospitability of Middle-Earth. To denounce a movie on the omission of Bombadil and the barrow-downs is, in my belief total idiocy. I for one am VERY grateful the movie got made, and I was very pleasantly surprised to hear of Enya's collaboration on the soundtrack. I'm hoping i'll hear the melody she created for Lothlórien when the fellowship first enters it.And I am pretty damn certain this movie will be the greatest I have ever seen, thank you, Peter Jackson. And as for those who would call me a newbie who should keep his mouth shut, i think that reading the books annually for 11 years now makes me a fan. And if I don't know the lineage of Glorfindel by heart, that does not take anything away from my 'fanhood', so to speak. And if anyone thinks it does, they should invest in a life. It's pretty fun once you try it.

Erulasto

12-21-2001, 04:58 PM

To Rhudadlion:Character development can hardly be blamed on actors. Character development is measured by the character's reactions to the events that they encounter. Given a good enough script, even Ed Wood Jr. can direct Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pamela Anderson, while keeping the CHARACTERS very well developed.So, by saying that there was no character development, you are actually dissing the writer. And... *drum roll* ...by a totally unforeseen, completely random event of pure chance, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien happended to write this particular story... Ergo - you are blaming Tolkien for lack of depth in his characters. Are you quite sure you want to do that on a Tolkien fan site? :P

obloquy

12-21-2001, 05:46 PM

Incredibly, I actually agree with unigolyn in his second post. The reason Merry and Pippin -- and even Legolas and Gimli, to an extent -- seemed undeveloped is because they really didn't have much of a role in the first book. There were some aspects that could've been better (for instance, I always pictured Merry a good bit more mature than Pippin rather than a partner-in-crime), naturally. We all know that Merry and Pippin and Legolas and Gimli have much larger parts in The Two Towers. You're really criticizing the roles of characters who have not yet even had the focus of the story. Why was Bean so spectacular as Boromir? He was one of the primary focuses of the Fellowship of the Ring. His character developed (in the book) within the space of the first third of the story. All the other characters have much more to do. Don't condemn the characters (or the actors!) based on the first third of the film! And unigolyn, welcome to the Downs. Your opinions are welcome here, but so are everyone else's!

Meriadoc1961

12-21-2001, 06:49 PM

Actually, I believe the character of Merry was very developed by Tolkien in the first book, and here are the reasons why:It was Merry who was the head of the conspiracy to watch over Frodo's actions in anticipation of his leaving the Shire. While still a teenager, Merry witnessed Bilbo disappear as the Sackville-Bagginses approached. He saw Bilbo put the ring back into his pocket, and Merry kept that information to himself until the conspiracy was formed because he perceived that Bilbo wished for it to remain secret. It was also Merry who read Bilbo's book, and kept its contents to himself, learning how Bilbo had said he found the ring in the process.It was Merry who left with the wagon load of furniture from Hobbiton to have it prepared for Frodo's arrival for his "retirement" in Crickhollow. Merry went out in the fog by himself to look for the other three missing Hobbits, finding them with Farmer Maggot, and it was Merry who went on ahead by himself knowing they were being pursued by the Black Riders to prepare the Hobbits a second supper.Merry had all things ready in advance for their immediate departure, and it was Merry who lead the companions through the Old Forest. In addition, he spent his time in Rivendell poring over maps of the countries into which the Fellowship was headed. All of this shows a very organized, efficient, and mature Hobbit. Most of Merry's depth was developed even before they met Bombadil. Pippin is somewhat less mature than the others, and if I remember correctly Merry is never scolded for his behavior by Gandalf, as was Pippin. Gandalf even commends Merry for his ability to have discerned the message on the doors of Moria best, leading Gandalf to his ultimately figuring out the riddle to open the enchanted doors.I really did enjoy the movie, and I believe that due to time constraints the character of Merry and Pippin may not have been able to be developed to the extent it is in the book. Merry is portrayed as more of a prankster and an immature juvenile in the movie, along with Pippin, his cousin and friend. I am not finding fault, just clarifying that I do think Tolkien was able to develop the characters of Merry and Pippin much better than could have been accomplished in a three hour movie.

Bers

12-21-2001, 07:56 PM

The things I did not like about the movie:1. Arwen. LOTR was NEVER a love story, and Arwen's part in the story was almost non-existent until the end of ROTK. 2. The fight scene with Gandalf and Saruman. It was just dumb. 3. The scene at Bree. That place looked like a scary, disgusting mess! Not the warm and welcoming scene that put the hobbits more at ease than they should have been on such a dangerous journey. 4. Lorien was dissappointing to me, and Galadriel did not inspire the kind of love and admiration that I think she deserves, though I really liked the way she looked.There were more things I didn't like, but those were the main ones. That said, I think it was the best movie I have seen in a very long time, it's the only movie I would bother going to the theatre to see, I will go and see the next two films, and I will probably go see FOTR again also. I didn't expect the movie to be as magical and wonderful as the books, but I was led to believe that PJ was very serious about sticking to the story line, so I was dissappointed. I was not upset at all at the parts of the book that were missing, I expected a lot of the detail to be left out because you just couldn't put it all in a 3 hour movie. However, like others have said, I was not impressed at all with the parts that were added. PJ could have left in some things from the book and skipped the stupid Matrix/Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon fight scene with G and S, and also the scenes with Arwen. I would have rather seen Glorfindel. I never gave a crap about Arwen anyway. And I don't think that I put more expectation into the movie than I should have. I think anyone making a movie out of a story as beloved as LOTR should keep in mind the kind of fanatics and armchair critics he is going to face. I can seperate the movie from the books, but I could not help being dissappointed. Just my opinion.

RyAN the Pure Heart

12-21-2001, 11:09 PM

It was better than i expected. and as far as book-to-movie movies go i'd say it does it more justice than most. here are my complaints though :-DMerry & Pippen: these characters are reduced to nothing more than comic reliefElrond: i just dont like the guy who played him. Every time he spoke i remembered him in the matrix. I think the guy who played "grant" in the jurasic park movies would've been greatGandalf: He looked TOO old and frail, can you say sean connory? he would of been great.NO TOM enough saidcave troll it looked like a bug eyed rhino.sauron he was alright, but lets face it. they couldnt do him justice.I do however have some positive things to say...balrog it was awesome, unbelieveable. (and winged)actors good casting for the most part i thoughtparallel to book no it isnt perfect, but it did a fairly good job. and the history lesson in the beggining was good for my brother (who read LotR but not silm)

Man-of-the-Wold

12-22-2001, 02:42 AM

The thing I'd just ramble on about with respect to the Bashki effort is that that arose because he convinced the heirs that it could not be done except by animation. It was not so much a question of technology necessarily, although that now helps a lot, because much of the special effects in LOTR:FOTR are relatively longstanding. What's different now is the money for the time and labor to get them right.This was just before Star Wars, and big bucks just weren't thrown at movies, and for three whole blockbusters films, $270m is going to be an pretty good bargain, to say the least.And the reason it waited this long to be done, as it must be, was that the rights got all tangled up. But finally.The last part of the Bashki film is just a diaster, but it has its good points. And seeing the current film -- which will be the first one ever that I see twice during the same release, when I go back tomorrow -- I could see where PJ couldn't help but make some of the same good decisions as were made the by Bashki.But seeing it then in the theaters (picked up the video about four years ago) I knew it was O.K. in some ways but would fade into obscurity.And in fact it can't be done rightly with animation. Middle-earth is a real-like world for the most part, with very real characters, and needs to be acted out.The original material is too intense and too brilliantly integrated and rich to be fully equaled through any dramatic or cinematic rendering, but this is as great a movie project as could be hoped for, and anyone who does not give that cast the highest possible marks does not know what they are talking about.To ask them to be any of those characters in the way that you would be is impossible and churlish. I don't know who could have done as well.To have seen Boromir so beautifully potrayed is in and of itself worth 20 evening-time tickets. Now for Eomer, Eowyn and Faramir, who along with Aragorn was Tolkien's greatest testament to the potential of true men.

Marileangorifurnimaluim

12-22-2001, 02:47 AM

It was magic, guys, just magic. I haven't walked out of the theatre with that rosy glow of wonder since the first Star Wars came out. Trying to describe it I find myself overcautious, defensive, not wanting to seem as though I'm blind to this or that fault but... really it's like walking into Camelot and then trying to explain the experience after by telling the details, buildings.. people. You can't nail this butterfly to a board and think you have it. Go see it. Then go see it again.[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

FatherKeeL

12-22-2001, 06:11 AM

sorry to say that, but the movie was just another episode1..... i was looking forward to it and then this........ sad sad sad...´my favorit charekters were the orcs..... they had a funny habbit of dying before being attacked;-)....right befor legolas and gimli join aragorn when the kamara mooves and legolas enters the picture a orc runs up to aragorn, and then before he comes anywhere neer beeing in danger falls over dead.....did anybody else notice this??? just curius....

FatherKeeL

12-22-2001, 06:18 AM

rhudiadlon...your opinion is about 100% the same as mine.... well maby not.... i would have given it 4 out of ten.....

Tar Palantir

12-22-2001, 06:44 AM

The best part of the movie was the battle with the Balrog and Gandalf. It is one of the most spectacular movie moment of all time.

Nenya

12-22-2001, 11:06 AM

Wow.I belive that I said "wow" about ten times the night I saw the movie, (wich was yesterday, so I'm still in kinda zombie-state)and that was only after the movie. watcing it was a constant wow... I think it's clear to you all that I loved it, though I don't think it was perfect. You all have said loads of stuff I also wanted to say about FOTR, so I won't repeat it. But I'll have to say some things though!-When I read the book, I didn't really love Gandalf. Of course I liked him, but didn't love. But Ian McKellan...Well, he changed that! I don't think that anyone could have presented Gandalf in such a way, with all that warmth and wisdome. He WAS Gandalf, and only now I can really enjoy the character.I think that's bacause now he really seems like a person to me, with faults and everything. -Now don't get me wrong, Ireally think that Elijah Wood was great , but there was one thing that bugged me. He used this "oh-my-god-they're-gonna-kill-us" look a bit more than I think he should have. Or maybe it was the fact that the other hobbits weren't looking scared enough in places where they should have been been terrified.Dunno. Or maybe it was just me... -Arwen didn't bug me at all! My closing argument: I'm gonna see it again, and soon!

KayQy

12-22-2001, 11:37 AM

I saw the movie last night. I was going to wait until I got to London so I wouldn't have to deal with subtitles, but I caught sight of a new trailer with exciting-looking stuff and, well... the subtitles were only a problem when they spoke Elven.As a movie, it ruled! I love it! I was a little irritated at first, but I was quickly swept along in the excitement. The wizards' duel was annoying, not so much the fact that there was one as how they made it; and Lothlorien was way too short (director's cut! director's cut!). Other than that, it was spectacular. Although there were times when I wanted to say, "Wait! Go back! Press Pause!" there were also times to make people laugh, and cry, and applaud. I thought it was a good idea to move Boromir's death forward a bit; gives us a bit of completion to tide us over and keep us going until next Christmas (can we really wait that long?). People applauded at the end (and laughed when Aragorn sliced off that orc's head), and I didn't hear any complaints, but then most people were speaking French, so...Sum up: as a movie, I loved it. As an interpretation of Tolkien's work? It certainly surpassed my Lost World criteria. To be more specific than that, I'll have to wait until I've seen it a few dozen more times. Wheeheee!!!!![ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: KayQy ]

Aeglaer

12-22-2001, 11:37 AM

I´ve seen the movie two times now, so i can finally make an objective critic, the movie was good, in fact really good (at least for me), the problem is that it is being compared to a masterpiece, i believe that no director could have made a good movie out of the FOTR without chopping pieces and adding a new life to the book, because it is a book translated to a movie you can´t expect it to be a replica of the book, it would be a weird piece of work, writing isn´t acting and visuals aren´t poetry, at least not at an equal level. For me it is a must see movie even if you´re an "anal-retentive" Tolkien fan, or if you just love him, or even if you don´t even know who he was, it´s way better than many others and it´s probably the best that could have been done, we have to be thankfull because someone finnally made us see the greatness of JRR Tolkien´s work with our own eyes, in a tangible way, not the ephimeral matter that has tormented humanity for centuries but the kindness of heart that has made us go further and further.

Erulasto

12-22-2001, 03:21 PM

thanks for the welcome, good to be here and sorry for the general obnoxiousness of my posts... friday night, bit too much beer, and feeling generally preachy. won't happen again, at least not often still stick with not being a huge fan of Bombadil, and most of what I said. I'll just keep it a notch less self-righteous next time.

Valeria, Witch of Angmar

12-23-2001, 02:56 PM

*pushes up sleeves and cracks knuckles* Okay, now it's time for the witch to add her two cents. I LOVED the movie. Say what you want, I think it was masterfully done. The scenery, as has been said before, was gorgeous (unlike my spelling abilities...). I'll admit, I went in to the movie more than a little scared. The whole Arwen thing was my biggest worry (Xena, Warrior Elf-Princess came to mind with some of the trailers...). Instead I was pleased with how they handled her and the change was almost appropriate. After all, there can't be an index to the movie, so a little backstory and intro of Arwen would be nice. Otherwise, in RotK, when Aragorn gets married, half the audience will be going, "Hey! Who's the elf chick??" On the retraction of Tom Bombadill...I'm gonna come out and say it: That guy drove me crazy! He wasn't a bad character, but frankly, I think the hobbits could have left his house a little sooner than they did. Pulling him from the movie didn't exactly break my heart. The special effects were unbelievable. The Lidless Eye was as creepy as ever, as was the wraith world where Frodo ended up when he put on the Ring. Yeah, so there wasn't much Gollum; there wasn't much Gollum in the book either. What else...Agent Smith...er...Elrond was better than I expected. There were only a couple times I was waiting for him to end a sentence with "Mr. Anderson." Aragorn (my man! ) was great; all the actors were. Who ever did casting was really on the ball. (The test will really come for Wood, however in RotK, when all the stuff lands on Frodo and he has his little manic depressive stage. I'll be watching.) One final thing: my gripe. The little morality thing at the end. (This is more my friend Erin's than mine, but I agree with her so here it is.) You remember, right? When Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are standing on the bank and Gimli says something about how the fellowship has failed, Aragorn (They made my man say it! ) says something about how the Fellowship hasn't failed as long as they remain true to it. I'm sorry! That line just grated on my nerves! Oh, well. Still wasn't enough to ruin the movie for me. Hehehe...as soon as possible, I'm gonna go see it again...and again...and again... Hey, gotta get my fix somehow until Two Towers... Now it's someone else's turn to argue over the movie. See ya!

rhudladion

12-31-2001, 09:31 AM

To Unigolyn:In response to your comments about my comments on character development...you are certainly right...about one thing: Character development does mostly depend on the writer. But you are wrong about this: the writer of THIS script was NOT JRRT. I was not critiquing the book; I was critiquing the movie. And if you haven't noticed, they are quite different. It would be nearly impossible to compare the character development in the book to that of the movie. When I said that the character development was lacking, I was speaking strictly about the movie. I thought that ws plainly clear. It would be a HUGE stretch to take a comment about the characters in a movie and generalize that comment to apply to the book--in fact, it would be falacious!P.S. I never blamed the lack of character development on the actors.[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]