View Full Version : Lord Of The Rings - WOW
craig@rewind
11-12-2001, 07:55
I have just seen The Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring at the world premiere last night and all I can say is WOW!! :eek: It is an amazing film. I haven't seen Harry Potter so cannot comment on it but I don't think it could be as good as Lord Of The Rings. It will be blown out of the water!
I haven't read any of the Lord of the Rings books so didn't know what to expect but was pleasantly surprised. The 3 hour running time just flies by! :D
The special effects are amazing and you can easily see where the £90 million went! The action scenes are superb and it is the best film I have seen since Gladiator (of this type).
Definitely recommended. :clap:
EDIT - Sorry I have just seen the other post about LOTR. Didn't think it was going to be shown anywhere until last night to prevent stories being leaked out. I must have been wrong. :confused:
craig@rewind
11-12-2001, 13:03
Feel free to close this thread.
tj_director
11-12-2001, 16:07
another lucky git! :D
how was the world premiere?? who did you see? did the audience all get up and cheer the end or what -- details!! :nuts:
craig@rewind
11-12-2001, 16:12
Who did I see? Met Elijah (sic) Wood. Small fella who seemed friendly enough. Shook his hand and spoke to him briefly. Then at the after show party, B and C list celebrity central:
Graham Norton
Hear'Say
Richard and Judy
Liberty
Brian May
Dominic Mohan :rolleyes:
No big celebs though.
Everyone was impressed with the film. Very good atmosphere.
tj_director
11-12-2001, 16:24
well it certainly beats what i did last night!! :D
FyreWall
11-12-2001, 17:24
Craig - how the hell did you get an invite?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by craig@rewind
[B]I have just seen The Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring at the world premiere last night and all I can say is WOW!! :eek: It is an amazing film. I haven't seen Harry Potter so cannot comment on it but I don't think it could be as good as Lord Of The Rings. It will be blown out of the water!
Why make the comparision in the first place. Harry Potter was a good film and so is (I hope) also a good film. Its not a case of either or after all.
:argue:
TimJBart
11-12-2001, 21:38
graham norton is higher than B list celebrity isn't he? he's got his own chat show that he's had for years...cmon, take that into consideration!:p and richard and judy cant be B list, surely!
Sorry to go completely off topic but what does (sic) mean when on the forums ? I've seen it a few times now and it's bugging me.
I'm really looking forward to the film and my wife even bboked us tickets (i think my subtle nagging worked :D). I'll have to wait for the official opening though :(
Alegol1983
11-12-2001, 21:51
Total Film have dished the dirt on the flick.
They rather liked it...
http://www.totalfilm.co.uk/ReviewsStory.asp?ReviewId=887
The Dude
11-12-2001, 23:34
Empire have also reviewed it at http://www.empireonline.co.uk/features/thelordoftherings/review.shtm :)
craig@rewind
12-12-2001, 08:24
How did I get a ticket? Work in advertising.
FlangeMonkey
12-12-2001, 12:16
Originally posted by SIB
Sorry to go completely off topic but what does (sic) mean when on the forums ? I've seen it a few times now and it's bugging me.
I'm really looking forward to the film and my wife even bboked us tickets (i think my subtle nagging worked :D). I'll have to wait for the official opening though :(
sic1 (sk)
adv.
Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.
Originally posted by craig@rewind
How did I get a ticket? Work in advertising.
Jammy git..:D....Ps...any spare tickets for future events..Ill go..:) :D
I should watch this Monday....when we get our prints in....need to test them of course before we show them to the public..:p
craig@rewind
12-12-2001, 13:02
Future tickets? Err........I will try! ;)
Do you work at a cinema then mate?
Originally posted by craig@rewind
Future tickets? Err........I will try! ;)
Do you work at a cinema then mate?
Yeah I work for a leading cinema operator....as a manager..
We were the European Cinema Exhibitor of the year 2001...
Cineworld....:)
This must be a first in cinema history. Not a single bad review. I hope the film meets my expectations, then it will be the best film ever!
SithLordSi
13-12-2001, 00:54
For those who haven't been keeping up with the dozens of reviews pouring daily onto the web, the general word on the movie is good. Very good. However, it must be pointed out that there HAVE been some bad/average reviews, and while I cannot remember the exact URLs, they have made some interesting points. Having read the book, I'm not trying to avoid plot spoilers too much, so I watched some clips of the movie online last night (don't worry, not pirated...they were shown on TV somewhere). Most were OK, some brilliant (mostly those featuring Lee, McKellen, Bean and Wood), but there was a brief clip with Cate Blanchett that made me cringe. Although watching it in context may improve it dramatically, I got the sense that her Galladriel was a little too 'kitsch' and overly-dramatic. Some of the reviews (even the good ones) have hinted at this also. It's a shame if it turns out to be true, because I'm very fond of this actress and it might hurt her career (unlikely, though).
So, overall it seems: script=fantastic; directing=top notch; casting=spot on (mostly); acting=fair to excellent; cinematography=breathtaking; editing=mixed bag (quite a subjective one, I think - one person used the term "more Matrix than medieval")'; pacing=fair to good; makeup/prosthetics=incredible; CGI=OK to superb; music=underwhelming to groundbreaking.
I have NOT seen the movie - all of the above predictions of mine are made based on practically every review available (I have a lot of spare time at the moment, as always :D). It is fair to say, I think, that the 'flaws' spotted in the movie have varied from one review to another. The BBC thought that the pacing in the first hour was great, and the rest was off slightly. I've also read a review that said exactly the opposite.
One thing seems for sure, though - if your expectations are TOO high (think Phantom Menace, for some of you), you are setting yourself up to be disappointed. It's inevitable. Movies rarely are as good in reality as your brain builds them up to be from the trailers. Personally, I wish that Fellowship of the Ring turns out to be the greatest movie ever. I really do, because I thoroughly enjoyed the book and it's one of those amazing stories that just deserves to be treated right. But even the 'greatest movie ever made' can never be perfect, because greatness and perfection are such personal things. What I guess I'm trying to say is (and this applies most to fans of the book)...go in expecting to enjoy it, but leave your preconceptions at the door. It WILL be good - have no doubt about that (and forget The Phantom Menace) - and that should be good enough for everyone.
there was a review in the Mirror yesterday in which the reviewer said the film was better than the book. LOTR is one of the greatest fictional works of the 20th century, a very silly comment to make and bound to lead to disappointment for many fans.
Arch Stanton
13-12-2001, 08:33
Just for a bit of balance. Frank Skinner was asked what he thought when he was coming out of the Premier....
'It's like Monty Python and the holy grail but with no jokes and Enya on the soundtrack'.
:rolleyes:
if your expectations are TOO high (think Phantom Menace, for some of you)
Totally wrong! I think most people in UK had extremely LOW expectations of TPM as most people had completely rubbished it.
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Just for a bit of balance. Frank Skinner was asked what he thought when he was coming out of the Premier....
'It's like Monty Python and the holy grail but with no jokes and Enya on the soundtrack'.
:rolleyes:
Oh well that's it then it's obviously crap:p
Originally posted by SithLordSi
One thing seems for sure, though - if your expectations are TOO high (think Phantom Menace, for some of you), you are setting yourself up to be disappointed. It's inevitable. Movies rarely are as good in reality as your brain builds them up to be from the trailers. Personally, I wish that Fellowship of the Ring turns out to be the greatest movie ever. I really do, because I thoroughly enjoyed the book and it's one of those amazing stories that just deserves to be treated right. But even the 'greatest movie ever made' can never be perfect, because greatness and perfection are such personal things. What I guess I'm trying to say is (and this applies most to fans of the book)...go in expecting to enjoy it, but leave your preconceptions at the door. It WILL be good - have no doubt about that (and forget The Phantom Menace) - and that should be good enough for everyone.
I have very high expectations for this. Everything I've read and seen about this film has been overwhelmingly positive besides I've dismissed all the negative comments. This film better be as good as all the hype I couldn't stand another TPM disappointment:(
tj_director
13-12-2001, 16:58
what SithLord says is very true, especially if you've got an over active imagination like myself, then no way could any film meet those expectations.
And we've got to remember about TPM -- at this point of time, there were some startlingly poor reviews. So we shall see... :)
SithLordSi's comment (and others) about Galadriel may be true (I've not seen the film yet).
However, if I recall correctly, everyone who meets her or that has heard of her or meets someone that has met her, are in total awe of her. They hold her in total reverence.
I suppose that would be difficult to convey on film without wandering into kitsch.
Still, the general view is a positive one and I suspect many of the negative reviews are simply knee-jerk reactions to "fantasy" or to stand out among all the positive reviews.
LOTR the film has a tough act to follow...LOTR the book. It's one of those books that many, many people love and read several times. Everyone has their own idea about what each character should look like which may be spoiled by the film (although there have been several depictions of the characters years before the film thanks to calendars etc. Also, some of us are going to be disappointed at those parts of the film that differ from the book but with a book as long and descriptive as LOTR, it would be difficult to do a "full interpretation".
Again, I've not seen the film yet, but I suspect that the only people who will not like it will be either those who don't like fantasy or those fans who have a fake fur trim on the hoods of their elven cloaks ;) but they even ******-off Tolkien himself.
Arch Stanton
14-12-2001, 09:31
Me thinks i'm the only persons going to see this film because i'm a massive fan of the Director Peter Jackson.
If he made Rancid Alliminium 2 i'd go see it.
Got my tickets for next friday.I'm really looking forward to seeing this.
Arch Stanton
14-12-2001, 12:45
Check out this review from Dark Horizions
"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" - A Review by 'Aceman' (Negative, No Spoilers)
In a nutshell: dark, depressive, unfunny, over 1 hour too long.Bring on the yummies! While watching the Lord of the Rings I was daydreaming that it was TV screening and that I switched the channel and started watching some entertaining popcorn flick such as The Mummy(s), Indy or even the wiz boy movie, anything that would`ve put me in the good mood. I didn`t want to leave because it was a chance of a lifetime to see the most anticipated movie of the year in advance. But it made me wish to have seen some silly yet entertaining stuff instead.
My beef with the Lord of the Rings is that it denies its popcorn nature. The plot is silly like any good vs evil fantasy but the movie keeps pretending it`s the Schindler`s List. And this attitude makes it so unfunny. I enjoyed straight popcorn flicks like The Mummy and The Mummy Returns much more because these movies are not affraid to be over the top, they are pleasure to watch especially after hard day at work. There are so many rewindable moments like the sexy girlfight between bikini-clad gold-sprayed hotties Rachel Weisz and Patricia Velasquez which I call The Yummies Return. The Lord of the Rings doesn`t have such wanna-see-billion-times memorable scenes, I can`t single out any. Even the babes are nothing to write home about, very anaemic like they`re dying of tuberculosis, dressed from their heads down to their toes, totally unorgasmic.
The characters aren`t nearly as likable as popular characters from other popular fantasy movies while action scenes are very good but because the movie is over an hour too long I became too tired and depressed to enjoy them without wondering when the movie would be over.
I appologize for comparing the Lord of the Rings with other flicks, it`s lame I know, but that was the only way to explain why it fell flat with me. It`s just a matter of taste. If you`re into dark stuff you`ll love this one.
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Check out this review from Dark Horizions
"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" - A Review by 'Aceman' (Negative, No Spoilers)
In a nutshell: dark, depressive, unfunny, over 1 hour too long.- snip-
Unfunny? When was LOTR supposed to be funny?
tj_director
14-12-2001, 13:06
clearly a review from someone who has never read the books.
If anything i'm glad Lord Of The Rings isn't a popcorn movie -- as much as i enjoy those kind of films (yes even Mummy Returns), i've been waiting for a serious fantasy big budget affair -- and it's high time filmmakers started making use of the resources on offer, and give us truly amazing experiences, not just stuff to turn our heads off to.
Don't you get tired of every other big budget film being a "leave your brain at the door" ???
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Me thinks i'm the only persons going to see this film because i'm a massive fan of the Director Peter Jackson.
If he made Rancid Alliminium 2 i'd go see it.
You can count me in as well. I have never read the books before so my main reason for seeing this is Peter Jackson. Ever since seeing Bad Taste and the making of Documentary a few years a go Jackson has a bit of a role model. The amount of effort he puts in to his films is unbelievable. He has yet to disappoint me.
Can't wait now. Got the tickets booked already.
Mister Chalk
15-12-2001, 10:12
I've just seen the first "proper" bad review (2/5) in Friday's Grauniad (http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,618203,00.html). It seemed to boil down to the reviewer not particularly liking fantasy and not being happy with the lack of your traditional plot structure and good guy/bad guy setup.
tj_director
15-12-2001, 13:38
did you watch that review programme last night on BBC2, i forgot the name, but Germaine Greer was on -- and the things she said just completely dumfounded me and made her look like a right fool!, even the host had some spectacularaly stupid remarks to make as well. Clearly not fans of fantasy or popular big budget films it would seem. The other two seemed to be the only rational people there, and gave constructive critism (they both loved it).
But the things that came out of Greer's mouth simply had to be heard to be believed. If she had children she wouldn't let them watch it, because it depicts a morally bankrupt way of living where people who look different must be evil, and Tolkein's way of looking at life is jeuvenille. And hobbits are lazy beings who nothing all day except smoke pipes and go on adventures. :mad:
Jesus Christ!! what a load of bull**** if i ever i heard it.!!! :mad:
personally i'd love to live in Bag End and lead the life of Bilbo Baggins et al :)
Yeah, and you've already got hairy feet. ;)
boink!:cool:
WiggyWog
15-12-2001, 20:39
It was Newsnight Review and yes, Germaine Greer and the presenter, Mark Lawson I think, were very annoying. They basically criticized Tolkien and didnt get into the film so thought they`d mock it. To prove she didn`t even pay attention the film she thought the Dwarves were the evil creatures :confused:
At least the other women gave a review of the film, and gave decent criticisms, God I hate greer.
Oh, and Mark Kemode really liked it, saying it was much better than star wars and Harr Potter and saying Peter Jackson did a great job. But I dont know if thats a good thing or not as Kemode`s reputation isnt great on these forums. :)
There is a Southbank show special on it on Sunday I think.
When I saw the main trailer at the cinema i was blown away, very excited about this - I really hope it is as epic as it looks.
neverland
16-12-2001, 08:48
Originally posted by Hood
You can count me in as well. I have never read the books before so my main reason for seeing this is Peter Jackson. Ever since seeing Bad Taste and the making of Documentary a few years a go Jackson has a bit of a role model. The amount of effort he puts in to his films is unbelievable. He has yet to disappoint me.
Almost in agreement. I'm definitely off to see this film because it's directed by the tubby beardy one. But he has disappointed me in the past. Meet the Feebles - what the hell was that all about?
But yeah, I'd go see a remake of King Kong if it was directed by Jackson. :)
ProgressiveScan
17-12-2001, 06:25
Originally posted by rst
Jammy git..:D....Ps...any spare tickets for future events..Ill go..:) :D
I should watch this Monday....when we get our prints in....need to test them of course before we show them to the public..:p
Oi you - still haven't heard about our interview - perhaps I can do it after you've seen the print????
I'll mail you...
I got all the marketing bumpf through on Friday, the clips sound good!!
The Grauniad reviewer also was disappointed because it wasn't funny.
If that really is the case, I think I'll give it a miss...I mean, when ever I read the book I'm in stitches :rolleyes:
SOUNDSTYLE
17-12-2001, 12:45
I haven't heard a bad review yet, well except for Germaine Greer, and she doen't really count.
I'm off to see it on Wednesday. Can't wait.:clap:
Arch Stanton
17-12-2001, 13:32
The Gaurdian review claiming it wasn't funny was by one of the writers of Sky 'sit com' Baddiels syndrome.
So he should know about things that arn't funny.
Tristan H
17-12-2001, 20:29
The Sunday Times reviewer gave it a glowing review and he's usually extremely tough on most films. I'm tempted to watch the first showing on Wedensday morning, but I'd have to go alone to that one and look rather sad! Still, I don't care, this looks astounding.
garliadr
19-12-2001, 15:29
Just this minute got back from seeing it - IMHO it was absolutely stunning. The story, acting and scenery were all suberb.
Film Of The Year.
Plus, I won a keyring as well.
A good day overall, fingers crossed for the lottery tonight.
:clap:
Cap'n Al
19-12-2001, 17:29
'Is that it?' said a friend of mine when the film finished, and I'm inclined to agree with them. Perhaps an even bigger anti-climax than <i>Harry Potter</i> IMO, the film is superbly shot, has a fantastic score, great performances, and a narrative that is virtually incomprehensible if you've never read the books, as well as taking far too long to get going. I'm keen to see the next films in the series, but I can't honestly say that I especially enjoyed it, as it simply didn't stand up as a film on its own.
Of course, I'm very, very aware this is going to be a minority view, although most of the people leaving the cinema this afternoon weren't exactly jumping up and down with excitement...
Chief Brody
19-12-2001, 18:59
I was nowhere near as impressed as i expected to be given the glowing advance notices. Mckellen, Wood and Mortensen were all fine, but John Rhys-Davies' Scottish burr soon began to grate, Hugo Weaving, Blanchett and Tyler were rather underused, and since when does Bilbo Baggins shop at Habitat???!! Maybe i'm being too harsh - the CGI was excellent and the scenery breathtaking, it's just that the movie never really seemed to me to build up a big head of steam. I hope that Two Towers and Return of the King will be better, but considering New Line have sunk over $300 million into all the movies, they would have been slightly concerned at the two-thirds empty cinema i saw it in! Ah well, 'twas a matinee anyway and i heard that the 9:00 show had just sold out as i left. 7 out of 10 (and i've never read the book).
Alegol1983
19-12-2001, 19:30
Utterly, utterly fantastic.
It's really hard for to be objective about it, I just got back from seeing it a couple of hours ago. But my initial thoughts certainly support the view that this will become a classic.
Like the very best films, you can't really pick out one aspect that stood tall as the whole film was just magical as a whole.
Brilliance.
I've just reviewed it for DVD Times. Check out the link in my sig, and Cap'n Al, bring on the debate my son!!!!!! :D
Watched it this morning and I can't really decide. There were parts where I almost nodded off and found it a very long 3 hours. However, I was tired and not in the right frame of mind. The film did stink of pure class though, and I'm sure when I watch the DVD in the comfort of my own living room, I will absolutely love it!
WiggyWog
19-12-2001, 21:48
[It's really hard for to be objective about it, I just got back from seeing it a couple of hours ago. But my initial thoughts certainly support the view that this will become a classic.
I agree with you there :) Its hard to pick out fave scenes as the film was great as a whole. Im definetley seeing it another 2 times anyway so ill be able to be more critical on it then. I found only 1 bad scene in the film, the Galdriel temptation scene. That was cringeworthy, very unlike the excellent scene in the book, Lothlorien was definteley the low point of the film.
The prologue, wow, i really love the way they showed sauron taking on 20 people at a time and his spirit passing over the battlefiled. Hobbiton was perfect, weathertop was OK, same with Rivendell, moria was great, but the gem for me was Isenguard. I love those diving shots jackson uses to show the underground pits of the orcs, forging armour and destroying trees, should be good when the ents get their revenge, a nice tactic that.
Ack, theres too much to name, i wont bore you, but definetley my fave film of all time, well, until The Two Towers comes out :)
Tyler Durden
19-12-2001, 22:03
Just got back from a packed showing in Birmingham. My thoughts, in no particular order are :-
1) Mayby it was because we were sitting near the front, but a lot of the scenes seemed out of focus or blurry. Was getting a bit of a headache until I got used to it.
2) It was a little long, 2 out of the 4 people I saw it with fell asleep at some point :eek:. Up until they entered the Moria mines was too slow, thankfully things picked up a bit after that.
3) Rivendell/Lorien (sp) the elves in general were not magical enough IMO
4) It was faithfull to the book, except the end, the battle scene was a whole lot more up tempo than the book & I'm fairly sure that Boromir doesn't die in the book until later on
:confused:. I did spend too much time comparing the film & book (I finished reading FOTR yesterday)
5) At the moment I'm in two minds about it, I can't really see the public in general going for it in a big way because a) its too long, b) it doesn't really follow the 'hollywood' blockbuster receipe. As someone else had alreadly mentioned most of the people leaving the cinema this afternoon weren't exactly jumping up and down with excitement... it was the same at the showing I was at
I definitely agree with Wiggywog, that Lothlorien wasn't done justice, although that is my only criticism of the entire 3 hour film, so Peter Jackson has done a magnificent job.
There is so much that they gained at Lothlorien, that I think it will be hard to show this in the next 2 films.
It was cast better than I expected, Aragorn and Gandalf were spot on, and the battles were done superbly. Roll on The Two Towers!
Just got back from seeing it and was blown away! A triumph for Peter Jackson.
My only gripe is that because of the format so much of the book had to be left out!
The three hours flew by for me. Ok some things didn't really live up to the book such as Lothlorien - the elves just looked gay to me not magical! Other bits like the mines of Moria were utterly superb.
Overall the film left me really moved.
Was it just me with a tear in the eye after Gandalf fell or at the death of Borimir!?
I'm now desperate for the next one - one whole year!!!
I know what I'll be doing on the eve of the Two Towers - watching The Fellowship of The Rings on DVD!!!
jonathan_d
19-12-2001, 23:31
i went to see it at the filmworks this afternoon and thought that it seemed blurry too (especially the austin powers trailer before hand)
probably just me getting used to being so close though as i normally sit right at the back
who ever is in control of the projectors there is a fool as they had the wrong aspect ratio and even left the damn lights on for about 10 minutes at the beginning :mad:
i did really like it although i thought the first hour or so was a bit slow
the mine scenes and cgi were truely spectacular, especially the flames and stuff
and the music at the scene where gandalf fell left me with shivers it was so moving
my friend said 'Is that it?' too, he didn't know that this was going to be a trilogy hehe
'you mean i've paid to see a 1/3rd of a film!!!' he said
i do think i'm gonna have to go and see it again to take it all in it was that good and i'll probably end up reading the book to find out what happens next ;)
Originally posted by Tyler Durden
4) It was faithfull to the book, except the end, the battle scene was a whole lot more up tempo than the book & I'm fairly sure that Boromir doesn't die in the book until later on
:confused:. I did spend too much time comparing the film & book (I finished reading FOTR yesterday)
I'm pretty sure this part was accurate. The only bit that veered from the book as far as I can remember is the pursuit to Rivendel.
Nope - just checked - you are sort of right! The film appears to overlap a few pages of The Two Towers....
This is the 8th paragraph in that book :
Aragorn knelt beside him. Boromir opened his eyes and strove to speak. At last slow words came. 'I tried to take the Ring from Frodo ' he said. 'I am sorry. I have paid.' His glance strayed to his fallen enemies; twenty at least lay there. 'They have gone: the Halflings: the Orcs have taken them. I think they are not dead. Orcs bound them.' He paused and his eyes closed
wearily. After a moment he spoke again.
I've just got back from the film - I would say that it has to be the closest book to film translation I have ever seen (imho obviously).
I agree that parts dragged a little - but I found that parts of the book did as well.
Overall, fabulous film, and I can't wait for the next one.
smiddyboy
20-12-2001, 06:56
jonathan_d and Blenky , tut , tut, you should really be using the spoiler tags for people who don't know what is going to happen at the end of the film.
Werdna007
20-12-2001, 07:04
This is being written after seeing it last evening ,and a night's sleep for contemplation.
I too was blown away by the film. Sure there were some differences between the book and the movie but as people have said, you cannot translate every word or section of the book to film.
Peter Jackson has done what I (and many others) thought couldn't be done, and that is do a brilliant film adaptation of the book. Sure he added a few things (increase Arwen's role) and removed others (Tom Bombadil for example) for artistic license but everything just shone with quality. Every actor was so right for their role, and I do mean everybody. The sets breathtaking and the special effects spot on (loved the Balrog).
Middle Earth lives on the screen. One believes, just like in the books, that this is a coherent universe where all these races exist.
I didn't want to sound so biased, because as I am such a fan of the book and I had my doubts before going, but they were soon dispelled.
Others have mentioned that it would not appeal to the larger public. Well the biggest critic (mostly negative ;)) I know is my wife. She has very limited tastes in movies, hates Science Fiction and Fantasy, and has never read the LOTR books. She was completely won over by the film after the first 15 minutes, and kept singing its praises all the way home.
A local paper, which is normally also very harsh towards films (especially English speaking ones), said the only negative point was having to wait a whole year for part 2.
The only thing which struck a false note was near the end of Moria when all the Goblins and Orcs came pouring out of the walls, ceiling and crawling down the columns. There were just too many. The first thing I thought in seeing this mass of figures was the all the scarab beetles from The Mummy.
Was no doubt the film of the year! But most people will/have been saying this.
I was quite surprised it got a PG, as it was quite sinister at times, and violent, which was good to see but don't know how the kiddies are going to react.
Brilliant Film that has to be be seen at the cinema, as I don't know how well it will translate to the small screen.
Nice to see the chaps voting at IMDB (http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0120737) have a sense of perspective about the whole thing.
Only a 9.7/10 average then?
jon smith
20-12-2001, 09:41
I saw it at the matinee yesterday.
It was very good, but I was a little disappointed. The problem of course is with the structure of the book. There were points I was really into, then my mind just wandered off. It really feels like 4 episodes of a mini series strung together because of that. This episode we go here, next episode we're off to there. This makes the film feel longer than 3 years (imagine sitting down and watching 4 episodes of some 45 minute show, after the 2 episode you're flagging a bit, come the fourth you want to gnaw your own arm off).
Best thing about the film, the chap who plays Samwise.
The bleeched out scenes were very blurry and this did hurt my head. Some of the fight scenes didn't gel. One minute you see a large number of beasts in long shot, in the close ups you feel cheated cos there's suddenly about 5 of them.
Despite that, I would like to see it again. I think i'm gonna get the cartoon again, cos in my head the cartoon is better than the film. This may be my memory playing up again though.
Left me anticipating the next 2, but not a great film in it's own right (but did the setting up job well).
Why didn't the make the Hobbit as well?
WiggyWog
20-12-2001, 10:27
Oh yeh, i can see what you mean, this film pales in comparision to Bakishi`s cartoon ;)
Fabulous film :)
I havent read the book so really dont care if this little details was ommitted or that character had a smaller part than in the book etc etc etc
As a film it was a triumph.
I recommend George Lucas and Robert Zemekis be sat down in an empty theatre at gunpoint and made to watch it 10 times "take notes you useless bastar*s"
Again I would disagree with the point about it not appealing to the masses, my wife hates science fiction and never sits through longs films - All she has done is talk about it since we came out and wants to see it again.
The long hard summer of ***** movies is saved by LOTR :clap:
tj_director
20-12-2001, 11:17
Blenky please could you edit your post, you've just ruined a bit of the story for me :(
Saw it yesterday at the first showing. Initial thoughts were thats was a great film and I should be more excited, but I wasn't. It definitely needs the other two to make it truly great. The more I think about it though the better it gets and I wanna see it again. The first hour is great, while the book dithered a bit Jackson put a great sense of haste over the situation. Can't wait for the other two. All the actors were great, even Liv Tyler who usually ****** me off with her thick voice, Gandalf and Saruman were perfect and Jackson has got a shed load of Oscars nailed for this film. As a whole 9 hour trilogy it'll probably be the best film(s) ever.
Originally posted by tj_director
Blenky please could you edit your post, you've just ruined a bit of the story for me :(
Yes I'm really sorry. I stupidly assumed everyone has read the book. Please except my humble apolgies for being so ignorant.
Steve
Just come back from a lunch time showing which was packed. Overall the film was superb. Definetely worth waiting for and the movie of the year. The characters were just as I imagined them in the book. A must see movie.
tj_director
20-12-2001, 21:48
Originally posted by Blenky
Yes I'm really sorry. I stupidly assumed everyone has read the book. Please except my humble apolgies for being so ignorant.
Steve
well i've only read the first part, and was unaware the film overlaps into the 2nd book, hence why part of the spoiler is a spoiler in some ways -- :rolleyes:
as a matter of interest guys, where does the film actually end in terms of the books?? I hoped each book would get it's own film out right :(
Spooksta
20-12-2001, 22:42
LOTR
If you liked Gladiator for the action but thought the story was ***** then you will think LOTR is BRILLIANT.
If you liked Sixth Sence but thought there was no action then you will think LOTR is BRILLIANT.
It basically has it all 10/10 for me.
Does not have a crappy ending cos its not ended yet .!!
Has 2 or 3 s l o w moments but you need that in films like this.
Is long but i thought it was just right. (2hr 45)
People who compare it to Harry Potter are Potty cos its in a totaly different class.
Potter is a "Honey i shrunk the kids" type film
LOTR is a "The Empire Strikes Back" type
Nuff said i think
WiggyWog
20-12-2001, 23:16
Well, ive heard people say that its much better on your second viewing, ie. ready for changes and bad parts, well it would have been if it hadnt been a blasted school trip showing. Talking, bickering, teachers patroling the cinema :mad: , damn them, kids should be banned from cinemas :D.....
Anyhow, yes the film was probably better 2nd time round, and Im going to see it a 3rd time tommorow :D
And fellowship is probably the weakest of the books. Well I say books, yet it is really 1 book, thats why it doesnt work greatly as a film on its own, but I dont have a problem with this, confuses audiences a bit though.
Anyone who thought the background history at the start with the last alliance and Sauron was good, you aint seen nothing yet, the next 2 have battles like this but better :)
Oh, my rating second time round 9.4. needed a lot more of some things ie. Bree, less of others.
Blown away by this, just come back from watching LOTR and apart from some annoying thick git behind me absolutely loved it, my wife is on her third reading of the book this year and despite some ommisions, loved it aswell. I totally agree that this is not a kids film, why some adults take kids to see 3hr films with a 9.oopm start is beyond me.
Mr Jackson :clap: :clap: :clap:
tj_director
21-12-2001, 14:58
watched it for the 2nd time today -- well sort of, last night i watched the first half but walked out, because i simply didn't want it to be ruined by my Mother who was snoring, and an audience who couldn't stop coughing, ruffling plastic bags etc...
--- i've really got too used to the privacy of home cinema, i HATE packed cinemas nowadays, maybe i should use the word LOATHE!!!! :mad:
anyway -- it certainly is better the 2nd time round, because you shouldn't be comparing it with the book, instead taking it for what it is -- and that being one excellent adaptation. If i were to add anything, i'd probably have made it a bit longer, showing more of the hardship of their journey i.e. being constantly hungry, now water etc.., which is such an endearing quality of the books IMO. Plus i would have liked to have seen the nicer side of Galadriel, and the fellowship's affection for her, especially Gimli's. I felt her sinsiter portrayal was the only thing that dissapointed me.
I really wish the film was 4hrs long!!!
Otherwise this film has captured me, well and truly... if it weren't the holidays, and the cinema wasn't so busy (the cinema was pretty darn busy for an 11am showing, and was crammed last night) -- then i'd watch it again this afternoon -- and that's saying something!!!!
and was i the only one who had an annoying group of pre-pubescent girls behind me, contantly mocking the film, and making damn sure everyone know they were bored. If they don't like fantasy films etc.. then why come in the first place!!?? that said, one of them seemed to be won over, and eventually moved away from them, and was later mocked on the way out for sobbing a bit at the end of the film -- so i'm glad to see this film is winning people over into the dramatic and wonderful world of fantasy, and to know it's not just about men in cloaks waving magic sticks about!! Plus my sister and here friend, who certainly aren't fantasy fans, completely loved it, and can't wait for the next two :clap: !!!
GO SEE THIS FILM!!!! and congrats to New Line and Jackson etc.. for making a film for fans of film!!!
Chief Brody
22-12-2001, 22:55
First chink in the LOTR armour : boxofficemojo.com are reporting that the five day opening weekend will be in the $65 million range - both Potter and TPM easily cleared $100 mill over the same period (AND TPM was on fewer screens). Now some of you may argue this is down to length - but the 3-hour Pearl Harbor took over $75 mill in FOUR days. Getting LOTR up there in the all-time blockbuster stakes will prove VERY difficult now.
Am I the only one who felt extremely let down by this film. I read the reviews and was taken in by the hype but I watched it today and came out feeling extremely underwhelmed. I am a fan of the fantasy genre but for me the film didn't really have characters I could relate to and because of this I didn't feel as much emotion towards them. The SFX and sound were both really good, the sub had the cinema floor shaking, and the three hours passed quickly but it ended so abruptly. I understand it is part of a trilogy but others trilogies opening chapters such as The Godfather have adequate endings. Maybe my opinion will change after I have seen the closing chapters of the trilogy but until then I will feel underwhelmed. I give it 3 Stars.
tj_director
29-12-2001, 00:14
Hi Rooboy -- well part of a trilogy it may be, but unlike Godfather, Star Wars etc.. the Lord Of The Rings is just one book, but for the sake of making things easier Tolkein wrote and released them succesivly in 3 parts. So technically it's not an orthodox trilogy,
FOTR is basically the first act of the story, albeit a VERY long first act!!! :) when all 3 films are completed and the audience sees the whole thing together as one complete thing, then all these 'complaints' about finishing abrubtly will soon be diminished. But i get what you mean -- if you don't know how the story continues then the film does end unsatisfactorily.
But looking at Godfather, Star Wars etc.. it's true to say the 3rd films are the weakest parts. Which hopefully won't be the same deal with LOTR. :)
Its the best film I have ever ever ever ever can't say it enough ever seen ever.
I have not read the book.Yet.
What a good film that was.Superb!
I must say that i don't enjoy films at the cinema.I just kept thinking it would be better in the comfort of my own home.I know it sounds daft,but i don't like a huge screen.
The 3 hours flew by though.
Flanners
30-12-2001, 11:17
Saw the film last night, thought it was very good having not read the book I cannot comment onhe tie in. I thought the sets were oustanding and the locations amazing I am looking forward to the next instalment as I felt rather unfullfilled at the end.
Saw Harry Potter last week and that just fades into the background in comparison to this, it was just so average to me.
I cannot wait for the DVD release as I am sick and tired of people stuffing their fat hog like faces around me,the packets crinkling etc etc rather the viewing experience in my own pad.
Cobertizo
30-12-2001, 12:17
After seeing it for a second time, I still think it is a very good film. There are a few things I didn't like (the music was terrible, and I didn't like the bit around Lothlorien (Blanchett's speaking especially- what was it with those weird elven women?)) but as I say, overall it was a wonderful film.
I felt the CGI was well done (I didn't like the cave troll, but that was about it), but while I was expecting the whole "visual style" (or whatever it is called :)) to be very obviously CGIed, in fact at frequent points it seemed almost painted. Off the top of my head, the most obvious of these were an early long shot of Rivendell and while they were boating around the part with the huge statues of men. I wasn't sure whether I liked it at first, but now I think I do.
I agree with what was said above about you being able to judge it better as a film second time around- I wasn't expecting bits from the book that weren't there, so its cohesion despite lacking them was more apparent. It was a very impressive adaptation- perhaps not perfect, but it certainly worked well. The main real problem with it was trying to end it- it wasn't really satisfying. I recognise that there is no way to end it well there, but nevertheless it wasn't satisfying. Bring on back-to-back screenings in a few years time!!
Morpheus2000
30-12-2001, 16:37
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring stars Ian McKellen as the wizard Gandalf and is based on the popular book written by JRR Tolkien.
Lord of the Rings is set in the fictional place called Middle-Earth and the Hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) finds an ancient ring. When worn this rings makes the person invisible! The ring then falls into the hands of Bilbo's nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood) and he is soon on a quest to destroy the ring in the fires of Mount Doom! Gandalf steels the show with his pointy hat and his wonderful wizardry!
From the opening the viewer is catapulted into a fictional world with awe inspiring landscapes and beautiful cinematography! From the start of the film you're convinced that this world is real and does exist! The characters are instantly likeable and have a solid background. The special effects are amazing, but how did they manage to make the actors shorter than the others?
When Frodo discovers he is the only one that can bear the ring without falling into it's evil he finds courage that no one else dare possess in order to carry out this task! When he does say he'll bring the ring to the fires of Mount Doom, he manages to inspire others to travel with him.
The only downsides to this film is that there seems to be bits missing from the book. Also in some parts the scene changes without a presentation of how the Fellowship got from A to B. One part that I found rather over the top and didn't really work me is when Frodo meets Galadriel!
This film will most likely now (hopefully) spawn other films in the same vain as there's been a serious lack of decent Fantasy films.
The ending is a bit unconventional but this is expected really since it's the first part of a trilogy. In this respect the patron would be better off waiting till the entire collection is available in a DVD box-set in 2004 as this will most likely have a bonus disc!
Overall this is an excellent film that takes the viewer on an adventure that nobody has ever seen before and they're glued to the screen for every second. This is indeed the best film of the year as the competition fails in comparison. One for the DVD Collection!
Finally went to see it for the first time today. It starts off slowly, but once it gets going, this movie ROCKS THE WORLD, and the 3 hours whizz by in an instant (except for the intermission, which my bladder was quite thankful for :nuts: ).
Man, I can't wait for the DVD which, being a New Line release, should make for one AWESONE set (2, 3, even 4 discs???)
Roll on, September 19!
DVDWotcha
30-12-2001, 22:24
Finally got to see it tonight and yes all 5 screens sold out again.
(I really don't understand why the box office is so low compared to Harry Potter, which I saw 5 days after release in an almost empty cinema). Amazing.
As is the film. I was totally gobsmacked. I have always wanted to see this book done justice on the silver screen and this is it. You just let yourself sink into the whole middle earth experience and let the story carry you away. I couldn't rate it high enough and I'd be very supprised if it didn't come away with more than a few Oscars.
One of the top 10 movies of all time acording to The Sun... could be...
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: (5/5)
Harry Potter ? Don't make me laugh...:rolleyes:
Saw it this afternoon. Despite the interruption caused by a fire alarm and evacuation of the cinema 1 hour into the film I still enjoyed it very very much.
I also feel that since all three films were made back-to-back they should be of a similar quality which should surely make this one of the Greatest Trilogys Ever Made - up there is Star War (orginals) and The Godfathers.
5/5
Can't wait for Part 2.
:clap:
Mr Furious
31-12-2001, 09:22
I've seen this film twice now, once with friends and the second time with my other half.
I really enjoyed it the first time, but absoulutely loved it the second time. For some reason I was more gripped and thrilled the second time round! :confused:
I've read the books, but tried to detach myself from that because movies and literature are seperate mediums with different objectives and therefore films can never be straight translations. The film is a fantastic spectacle, and I think Mr Jackson has done a wonderful job recreating middle-earth. Considering the number of people that have read the books, each with their own idea of what the characters and scenery looks like, Jackson has managed to create a vision that satisfies most - something I would have thought was impossible.
My girlfriend has never read the books, and I was worried that she would be bored of the rings - but, I needn't have worried - I've never seen her so gripped by a movie as much as this.
IMHO its a masterpiece... and I can't wait for The Two Towers! :)
Saw Fellowship of the Ring on Sunday and was, like many others, really blown away. I've talked about it in other threads, but I have to echo the sentiments about great acting, visuals, directing, characters etc.
IMHO Star Wars does not even touch Lord of the Rings (so far). :p
When I've finished playing Fifa tonight I'm starting the book. Might take me a while though. :D
http://www.dwrees.co.uk/images/gandalf.gif
This film will most likely now (hopefully) spawn other films in the same vain as there's been a serious lack of decent Fantasy films.
The ending is a bit unconventional but this is expected really since it's the first part of a trilogy. In this respect the patron would be better off waiting till the entire collection is available in a DVD box-set in 2004 as this will most likely have a bonus disc!
Overall this is an excellent film that takes the viewer on an adventure that nobody has ever seen before and they're glued to the screen for every second. This is indeed the best film of the year as the competition fails in comparison. One for the DVD Collection! [/B][/QUOTE]
I get your point about the film spawning more fantasy films, but I have my doubts on how good they will be considering how many lord of the rings wanna bes out there in the book world. They try and do him but fail badly. Mind you I wouldn't mind some of David Eddings, or Terry Pratchett's books being made in to films.
Ravenger
02-01-2002, 15:41
Originally posted by PaulaB
. Mind you I wouldn't mind some of David Eddings, or Terry Pratchett's books being made in to films.
I'd love to see a film adaptation of the Belgariad, but David Eddings has said he doesn't want a film version as he wants people to read the story, and not watch it on a screen. Pity, Sean Connery would make a magnificent Belgarath.
I havn't seen the film yet. I was wondering if the character Tom Bombadil is in the film, if not does anyone know why???
stantheman
02-01-2002, 22:31
Have to agree with tjdirector and anyone else who have mentioned the total packed cinema experience.
Lots of annoying kids waiting for the next big effects scene,
3 so called experts behind me, ("that did'nt happen in the book" etc etc) all the way through the damn film.
Kinda spoilt my enjoyment of the film.
It was also the first 3 hour film I've seen that really really really hurt my backside, I was feeling so uncomfortable about 2 hours in, and the last 30 mins I was lifting me arse of the chair it was so numb!
Will go again though, when the sprogs get back to school and on a nice afternoon weekday.
Mr Furious
03-01-2002, 08:29
Re: Tom Bombadil
No he isn't in the film and I must admit I didn't expect him to be. I think the main reason lies in the difference between writing novels and writing screenplays.
Due to time restraints a screenwriter cannot afford to include anything that does not contribute in some significant way to the resolution of the story. A novellist has more leeway here, and although everything should be relevant, events do not necessarily have to contribute to the resolution in a significant way. Frodo's encounter with Bombadil is an example - its an interesting part of the story, it reveals some of the history and wonder of Middle-Earth and he saves Frodo from the Barrow-Wight, but none of these really pushes Frodo any closer towards destroying the ring, or even any closer to Rivendell.
People tend to forget that screenwriting and novel writing are different, particularly when watching novels converted to the screen. A film simply cannot be a straight conversion of the novel - they are different mediums.
Dan Druff
03-01-2002, 11:45
I went to see this on the first Friday (it opened on the Wednesday before Christmas). The cinema was half empty.
I brought my girlfriend. She almost fell asleep and hated it. The girl in front of me fell asleep on her boyfriends shoulder. At the end of the movie a couple of girls said 'its good, but too long'.
I really enjoyed it but couldn't get into it as I would have liked because of these women (why? distracting)..ladies of the forums, did YOU enjoy it (I suppose ladies of the forums would be film buffs and would be more partial to excellent film-making).
Definitely one to see again.
Wendelius
03-01-2002, 12:31
Just wanted to mention what I feel might happen in regard to LOTR only taking $65 mil the first 5 days. I still think this movie might achieve very impressive earnings for 1 good reason: repeated viewings.
Not many people who have seen Harry Potter (me included) will just rush to see it again (even though I enjoyed it). On the other hand, it sounds like most of my friends who have seen LOTR either already have or are planning to go see it once or twice more (me included). There is just so much to take in that it's really tempting to go back for more.
So I think that the lesser turnout in the first few days (this is only a long part 1 with no real ending of a fantasy movie, which might have put lots of people off) might still be offset by the phenomenon of repeated viewings. I know I'm going back this week and maybe once more around the end of the month.
Opinions?
Wendelius
Dan Druff
03-01-2002, 12:51
Yes I might go again.
I think though the advent of DVD has lead to an increase in the purchase of bigger TVs/Projector systems as the quality of the image is so good. Rather than break box-office records, LOTR will break DVD records. On that note, a question: is the rumoured 4 hour cut being released this year on DVD sans extras or do we have to wait until 2004 for the Trilogy Boxset?
Mr Flibble
03-01-2002, 13:34
I really need this movie on DVD - I even bought the second part of the trilogy yesterday to find out what happens next - I just can't wait until the next movie :)
They could release a bare-bones version for all I care - I know the disc will be crammed with extras, but as long as the transfer + sound is top notch I don't care about the extras!
Do you think there will be a worldwide release (like there was with TPM) or will it be a regionalised affair? One thing I REALLY hope for, would be an R2 version (I've got an R2 only player) that comes with DTS.
Start reading 'The Two Towers' tomorrow, can't wait - I haven't been this exicted about reading a book for years!
StayPuft
03-01-2002, 14:36
Finaly got round to seeing it last Friday. Very very good :) Very well cast, couldnt fault a single character. Fave was the elf king? no idea what his name was, and Christpoher Lee as Suraman(sp) did a damn good job.
SFX was very good, cave troll was a touch dissapointing though. Loved the little touch where they made Bilbo look really evil for a split second when he saw the ring on Frodo.
Would have liked to see a little more of the scene setting battle at the begining of the film but from that the wars in the next books are going to look awesome.
Not sure if i could sit through it at the cinema again. Too much coughing/sweet rustling and a seriously sore bum at the end of it :) But really looking forward to the dvd, hope he does a good job on the extras :)
Only confusing thing is how Peter Jackson blagged the job with his past history of ultra low budget horror flicks.
WiggyWog
03-01-2002, 20:22
I really need this movie on DVD - I even bought the second part of the trilogy yesterday to find out what happens next - I just can't wait until the next movie
Hehe, i cant help myself sometimes, but if you havent already read the fellowhip of the ring, then do. A lot of people seem to start with the two towers just because theyve seen the film, but read FOTR first just to get used to the style , plus you dont know what your missing. (If you already have read FOTR ignore my ramblings :D )
tj_director
03-01-2002, 22:28
COMPLETELY agree with Wiggywog!! -- DO NOT read the 2nd book if you haven't read the first one -- i know it feels like a bit of a chore to read a pretty big book, when you already know the storyline and what happens -- but i assure you that if you reckon that you'll be a fan of LOTR -- then i whole heartedly recommend starting the book from the start. The film omits quite a bit from the book, so that when you read the second book, there'll be parts which may leave you a bit confused. And as Wiggy said, get a sense of the whole style and atmosphere.
The book is a different experience from the film, and if you read it, you'll get a whole new outlook on FOTR movie, you'll be able to appreciate many little things etc... and catch up on a LOT of chaacter interaction and depth that's in the book, but obviously the film had to leave out.
so in conclusion, don't start the 2nd book, without reading the first. The fact is that LOTR is ONE book, spilt into 3 parts for the sake of convinience, so why would you start a book halfway?? it don't make sense. :confused:
and who can say reading FOTR isn't time well spent??? :)
Mr Flibble
04-01-2002, 09:01
Looks like that was seven quid wasted then :(
Mr Furious
04-01-2002, 11:12
Its not wasted if you buy and read the first one - then read the two towers.
I agree with the other guys - you really need to read FOTR before reading The Two Towers - it'll be worth the effort and money IMHO.
DVDWotcha
04-01-2002, 12:50
Originally posted by Wendelius
So I think that the lesser turnout in the first few days (this is only a long part 1 with no real ending of a fantasy movie, which might have put lots of people off) might still be offset by the phenomenon of repeated viewings. I know I'm going back this week and maybe once more around the end of the month.
Opinions?
Wendelius
I have a hunch the lesser turnout on the first few days has more to do with the fact it was released on a wednesday and most people don't want to watch a 3 hour movie+trailers+ads, get home at gone 12pm and go to work in the morning.
I also expect that a lot of people (me included) assume that the first few days will be all sold out and impossible to buy a ticket, so they don't go.
I've noticed this phenominen with rush hour traffic... the quietest time to drive through west london on a friday is between 5 and 7pm. go figure !
DVDWotcha
04-01-2002, 12:56
Originally posted by StayPuft
Not sure if i could sit through it at the cinema again. Too much coughing/sweet rustling and a seriously sore bum at the end of it :) But really looking forward to the dvd, hope he does a good job on the extras :)
Only confusing thing is how Peter Jackson blagged the job with his past history of ultra low budget horror flicks.
I did go see it again last night... Great stuff... Although I was a little tired by the end (it was gone 12).
I can't wait for the DVD either but as I don't have a sub, I doubt it will feel quite the same. My local cinema's sub seriously shook the floor in the Balrog scenes.
Mr Furious
04-01-2002, 13:23
Originally posted by DVDWotcha
I have a hunch the lesser turnout on the first few days has more to do with the fact it was released on a wednesday and most people don't want to watch a 3 hour movie+trailers+ads, get home at gone 12pm and go to work in the morning.
I also expect that a lot of people (me included) assume that the first few days will be all sold out and impossible to buy a ticket, so they don't go.
I've noticed this phenominen with rush hour traffic... the quietest time to drive through west london on a friday is between 5 and 7pm. go figure !
I think you're right. It still managed to make over £11m in its first few days in the UK and has already taken $170m in the US in two weeks which isn't bad.
I think people are right about repeat viewings - I've seen it twice already (which is RARE for me) and might go again!!!
Davester
04-01-2002, 17:03
Tj is correct. LOTR is one book, not a 3 sperate books - there isn't really an end point to it. It could have been longer to explore the relationship between Glimi and the elves and sam and frodo. I have seen it twice now, and teh second time it is fantastic! You concentrate more on the film and less on the book! IMO probably the best film of all time.
tj_director
04-01-2002, 18:51
Originally posted by Mr Furious
I think you're right. It still managed to make over £11m in its first few days in the UK and has already taken $170m in the US in two weeks which isn't bad.
I think people are right about repeat viewings - I've seen it twice already (which is RARE for me) and might go again!!!
If i'm not mistaken from imdb.com, in Austraila it made more during it's 2nd week than it's first, which is the true sign of a film that has made an impact with the audience.
Watched it more or less for the 3rd time yesterday, it just gets better. Want to watch it again whenever i get the time, but being 3hrs it's a nuisance, and it's the kind of film that you'd probably enjoy more on DVD with your Home Cinema, because Sore Bum is a serious factor to consider ;) -- but no-one's home cinema can beat the massive screen, and the earth shaking LFE's like during the intro when Sauron blows up!! and decides to knock over a few thousand soldiers!! -- CHRIST!! a reference quality DVD sountrack to match SPR is definately in the Wings!! :nuts:
Originally posted by andyp2
I recommend George Lucas and Robert Zemekis be sat down in an empty theatre at gunpoint and made to watch it 10 times "take notes you useless bastar*s"
lol! very true there :)
Originally posted by Blenky
Was it just me with a tear in the eye after Gandalf fell or at the death of Borimir!?
blenky you hit the nail on the head there....in spite of the people who go there (the cinema) to eat/swap ring tones etc i was still caught up enough in the experience to be very moved by it - can't wait to have the dvd and be able to experience it in peace :)
edit : did anyone else think that the first shot we see of the shire as gandalf and frodo approach on horsedrawn cart looked more than a little like tellytubbyland?
mushgussie
06-01-2002, 11:06
Originally posted by tezmo
did anyone else think that the first shot we see of the shire as gandalf and frodo approach on horsedrawn cart looked more than a little like tellytubbyland?
Exactly what my wife said :)
I saw it for the third time yesterday morning... in a virtually deserted cinema, which was perfect. No disturbances of any kind, other than the odd (rather sweet) shriek or giggle from a little girl sitting behind us :)
Call me sad, but even after three viewings I can't sit through it without welling-up. It's one of the most emotive films I've seen in a long while. People have criticised the score, but although it is a little 'Titanic' in places, I thought it totally suited the movie.
The only scenes which didn't impress me much were Galadriel's 'test' (a really poor 'B' movie type effect) and Sam's near-drowning (I haven't read the book, but it seemed like an unnecessary 'Hollywood' addition).
A great movie which I'm sure I'll watch again before the end of its run...
Well, I'm going to go against the vast majority, and say that I thought it was a poor film, I certainly won't be going to see the next two.
I usually like just about any film I see, but I could not identify with any of the main characters and was not interested in if they made it.
To be fair though, the main thing that spoilt it was that as the Warner Brothers I saw it at last night, the whole film was slightly out of focus for the full 3 hours, which permanently distracted me.
Michael Mackenzie
09-01-2002, 16:32
Originally posted by mushgussie
The only scenes which didn't impress me much were Galadriel's 'test' (a really poor 'B' movie type effect) and Sam's near-drowning (I haven't read the book, but it seemed like an unnecessary 'Hollywood' addition).In the book, Sam does almost drown, and that is what persuades Frodo to finally take off the ring and reveal himself. So not a Hollywood addition but definitely a little over the top.
I just got bavk from seeing it. I have never read any of the books and to be honest the subject matter (wizards, elves etc) doesnt interest me in the least. But it's a big movie and everyone is talking about it so I just had to go and see it.
I know people have been making comparisons between LOTR and Harry Potter, which is unfair but I guess it's just becasue they are being released at roughly the same time and are both adaptions of popular books.
Unfortunatley Harry Potter bored me beyond beleif so I wasnt sure what to expect, but I'm a huge movie fan so I thought I'd go in with an open mind and...
... I loved it, what a cracking movie. Well paced, good story line, good special effects. Excellent movie. The running time was a bit grueling seen as I'm quite tall and anything over two hours in the UCI seats and I'm struggling, but put that aside and it was a top notch movie.
I thought it was pretty graphic for a PG to be honest, it's certainly not a kids movie, I could imagine myself being pretty scared if I had see it at 9 or 10..
But I was pleasantly supprised (which is nice these days).
Reccomended!
Roll on the next two.
Mark
Michael Mackenzie
10-01-2002, 14:39
Originally posted by pythons
I thought it was pretty graphic for a PG to be honest, it's certainly not a kids movie, I could imagine myself being pretty scared if I had see it at 9 or 10..I agree with you entirely. Although I have nothing against them releasing it as a PG, I think it is unfair that other films, such as Gladiator, are in some ways less graphic but get rated 15 or even higher. To be honest, the creepy imagery probably isn't grounds for increasing the age rating, but some of the moments in the final battle where Boromir dies were pretty graphic -- a headbutt, a beheading and multiple arrow piercings.
Originally posted by carcher
Well, I'm going to go against the vast majority, and say that I thought it was a poor film, I certainly won't be going to see the next two.
I usually like just about any film I see, but I could not identify with any of the main characters and was not interested in if they made it.
To be fair though, the main thing that spoilt it was that as the Warner Brothers I saw it at last night, the whole film was slightly out of focus for the full 3 hours, which permanently distracted me.
Whilst the visuals were impressive , i though the film was a let down..
Where is the story , plot line etc....
It just seems to amble along from one fight scene to another.I thought it could have ended at any point (the end of the film isn't really an ending).Nothing really happened in the last half hour..
I was very very dissapointed , especially after so many positive reviews :rolleyes:
I have to agree with the majority, it was a fantastic film. Mind you having seen it I agree with my sister, knowing her 3 (they are 7, two girls and a boy) they wouldn't like the film as they are a bit young for it.
As for comparing it with Harry Potter I don't see the point. They where two different films enjoyable in their own right as good films. And as such I will buy, rewatch and enjoy them both. Not because one is better than the other, but because they are two good films and I have never seen why it has to be either like one or the other why limit yourself?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.