Lord of the Rings

[Scott]

Seen LORD OF THE RINGS  friday night. The film is good, but somehow I couldn't connect with Frodo and his large and hairy footed friends. The movie centered around this ring which was interesting along with some of the different places and characters/monsters in the film. The action was ok and we will definately watch the next episode (when dos it come out?) The film was shot in New Zealand by this pages/sites favorite director Peter Jackson. The film is about 3 hours long and suddenly stops to flashes the credits at the end. Its worth viewing.

I still like CONAN THE BARBARIAN,  EXCALIBER,  ARMY OF DARKNESS better, and maybe even 13th WARRIOR.

[BlackAngel]

I saw Lord of the Rings yesterday, and I loved it.  The fight scenes were good and the special effects looked realistic.  I am really liking that Strider guy (not an original name but, eh, what else is), either he is the greatest swordman in the world or those soldiers are just standing there.  And, especially Legoles the bowman.  This man has got skills!  He's got eye of a hawk and uses a medieval bow and arrow like a modern day uzi.  If anything, The character I least like is that dwarf, always b***hing and bellyaching of nothing.  And the rest of the Hobbits, I don't see anything from them either.  And just when you thought the movie was really going to jump, it ends at that ridge with the credits scrolling up, which had me highly p**sed off that I have to wait for the second installment (don't worry, "highly p**sed" is just the first level of p**stivity.  I wasn't really angry, just very dismayed).  Either way, I can't wait for the second Lord of the Rings, I think it's coming in may.  May it be as good as the first ( it better be)

P.S. :Two movies to avoid at all cost:

The Scooby Doo movie (it has Freddy Prinze Jr., 'nuff said)

That Britany Spears movie (also, 'nuff said)

[Andrew]

"Excalibur" is definitely my favorite fantasy film, with "Conan the Barbarian" close behind.

I went to see "Fellowship of the Ring" on Wednesday.  The one thing that had me really worried was the running time.  A film that might be otherwise "middle grade" can quickly annoy me if it is long.  

"Godzilla" (1998) fell into this trap.  I was watching a remake of "The Beast from 20,000" fathoms and wanted to see more of it stomping around.  Who cares about Nick and his stupid doe-eyed girlfriend?  The section with the hungry babies, obviously inspired by the raptors from "Jurassic Park," also did nothing.

Back to the subject at hand.

The fact that cuts (from the book) were going to happen was pretty obvious and I'd already made some predictions, most of which turned out right.  I loved the ringwraiths; the attack at Weathertop worked pretty well for me, as did Arwen's enhanced role, but I seriously disliked the battle in Balin's crypt.  Didn't like the cave troll, nor it replacing the orc chief in attacking Frodo, nor the jarring feel the fight had.

The Balrog was pretty darn awesome as was Legolas (and Aragorn I think) letting arrows fly at the goblin archers as they crossed the chasm.

Next it was off to Lothlorien and, though I agree with many of the things edited out to make the film work, the cuts here were deep to me.

The end was a grand fight.  Watching Legolas nail those three orcs in quick succession as they charged him almost made me cheer and Aragorn and Boromir were deadly swordsman.  Good stuff.

In the end, I liked the film.  It does not displace "Excalibur" or "Conan the Barbarian," but joins the host of "good" fantasy films for me.

Andrew

[Drezzy]

I'm seeing the Scooby Doo movie JUST because I love Scooby Doo and Shaggy. I have a talking Shaggy doll, a Shaggy shirt, and I get called Shaggy by my friends now and then.

I'm not really interested in Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. I never really liked the sword & sorcerey flicks, aside from the Conan series and Red Sonja.

[Jay O'Connor]

The ending (of LOTR) is a bit akward for a movie.  However; it ends almost exactly where the book does so it's hard to fault that.

I was impressed that the kept some of the dialogue verbatim from the book (Bilbo's "I know half of you half as well..." as well as Frodo's and Gandalf's exchange about "It's a pity...", "Pity?" concerning Bilbo and Gollum)

As far as Characters, I don't remember Elrond being quite that negative, but I'm re-reading the book now so I'll see when they get to Rivendell.  Also, I wish they hadn't made Mary and Pippin out to be quite the comic relief.  That fits Pippin, but Mary was quite a bit more mature, and clever (he first figured out that Bilbo had a ring and organized the conspiracy to kepp Frodo from going off alone).  Also, I don't recall Aragorn being the reluctant king in self-imposed exile; in the book he seemed to know his destiny and be simply bidding his time

I was rather impressed with the changes they made.  Some changes had to be made in going from book pacing to movie pacing.  The time in Shire was considerably shorter, but did so without losing important details.  In the books, you don't know what's going on between Gandalf and Saruman until much later.  I think the cut aways to their battle was to give the movies more sustained tension.  Also, there is some expositional dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf early in the book that takes place later in the movie.  I thought this was a good choice because then you don't have one long scene with a lot of dialogue.  They sprinkled the same dialogue throughout the movie.  The Frodo/Gandalf interchange above is one example.  As is Sam talking about promising not to leave Frodo (which actually happened in th ebook in an early scene not included in the movie)  This keeps the movie moving, without leaving out important information.

Going from book format to movie format, they had to make some changes; I think they did a good job in knowing what to cut and what to include and still get the important information in there while keeping the movie moving along (a lot of ground to cover).  Caveat being that they should've made more of Gimli's distrust of Legolas and Legolas offering to go into Lothlorien blindfolded.  That forms the start of their friendship which reaches a climax in the ballte at Helms Deep later on.  That, if anything, illustrates the biggest weak point in the movie.  In the need to move the story along quickly to try to get it all in, there is a sacrifice of character development, especially intercharacter relationships

[TREVOR THE RAT]

man you're setting yourself up again! quit it!

[BoyScoutKevin]

My comments on the film. Disappointing. Extremely disappointing. Probably the most disappointing film of the year. Why? I judge my fantasy films on five criteria: music, empathy, emotion, cast, and action. It had a good cast. Not good acting, which was only so-so, but, the cast was good. Alot of familiar faces. Otherwise . . .
The music failed to set the proper mood. Failed to create empathy for any of the characters. Emotionally uninvolving. And the action was terrible. (More about that tomorrow.) What else was wrong with the film? The comedy was flat. And the romance made me gag. Since others have named their favorite fantasy films, here are some of mine, that exceed this one in two or more of the above categories.. Of course, the animated version of the film. For the music. For the empathy it creates for the characters. For it be emotionally involving. For the comedy. And for the action. "Babes in Toyland" (1934): For the music. For the comedy. And for the action. "Dungeons and Dragons" For its emotional appeal. And for the action. "Krull" For the empathy it creates for its characters. And for the action. "Seven Faces of Doctor Lao" For the comedy. And for the cast.  "tom thumb" For the music. For the cast. And for the action. "Willow" For its emotional appeal. And for the action. And "Wizards" For its comedy. And for its action. Until tomorrow . . . And my comments on the previous comments.

[BoyScoutKevin]

When will the next two parts be released? Dates change, but the last I heard, "The Two Towers" will be released Christmas, 2002, and "The Return of the King" will be released Christmas, 2003.                                                                                                      
Legolas' bow? Does anybody know what type of bow Legolas' used in the book and the film? I thought it was a longbow, but I may be wrong. Here follows a report from a novice on medieval archery. You can get a precise shot with a longbow, but you could do as well with a crossbow. And the crossbow had a farther range.  Could be fired from more positions. And requred less training to use it. What gave the longbow its edge, was its rapid fire or Uzi effect. It is said, that at one battle, 25,000 arrows a minute were being fired at the enemy. 2500 longbowmen. 10 shots a minute from each, or one every 6 seconds. Sounds plausible. But, if Legolas was using a longbow, then he was using it wrong in the film. A longbow was usually fired at a high trajectory, or into the air, with gravity doing the rest,  He could have been using a composite bow like the Asiatic horsemen used, but it didn't look like a composite bow. Of course, he could have been using a short bow.                                                                                                                                                      
Were the fight scenes any good? With all due respect:  Ah, no. Nyet. Non. Nein. If one has ever been in a fight, one knows how confusing they can be sometimes. But, a filmed fight should not be confusing, like the last one in the film. It doesn't help that Aragon and Borormir look so much alike. "Is that Aragon? No, it's Boromir. Wait. It's Aragon." Neither should they be as ill-conceived as the fight with the cave troll. Neither should the be as ridiculous as the wizard's duel, unless it plays for laughs. I have seen some ridiculous filmed bar brawls, but they were played for laughs.  Nor should they be as fake looking as the first fight in the film. There is not a fight in this film that was not done better  in the animated version. Probably, because the fights in the animated version more closely followed what was in the book. Which brings up my next subject.                                    
I have no objections with the cuts. They were judicious, and unless you knew what was missing from the book, you didn't missed them. Neither do I have any objection to something being added to a film that is not in the book. The Midsomer mystery series on television comes to mind. I do object to something being added if it does not add to the film. And there is nothing added to this film that makes the film better then the book. Actually, everything that is added, distracts from the film.                                                                                                                      
Will the next two films be better then this film. Hopefully, but I have little hope that they will be. As so far, all Philip Jackson has shown me, is that he has little idea what life was like in "those days" in Middle Earth.

[Darkstar]

"Philip Jackson" ???? "Willow For its emotional appeal" ????

ate a lot of lead paint as a kid then ???

[Jay O'Connor]

That's *gotta* be a troll from Ralph Bakshi

It doesn't help that Aragon and Borormir look so much alike

Umm...I guess so do Han and Luke

Does anybody know what type of bow Legolas' used in the book and the film?

In the book, he uses a slightly magical Elven made bow (provided by Galdriel, I believe) which makes the whole discussion of "longbow, composite bow" etc..rather useless.  Incidentally, he also fired at a much greater rate he once every six seconds.