Hate LOTR?!?

[~phunk~]

I've been seeing good reviews about LOTR everywhere I go and everyone is raving on about it.

Personally, I haven't watched it yet, but has anybody seen it who doesn't like it?!?

[Cap'n Al]

I neither loved it or hated it, finding it an occasionally enjoyable but rather frustrating experience.

[~phunk~]

Originally posted by Cap'n Al
I neither loved it or hated it, finding it an occasionally enjoyable but rather frustrating experience.

Why?!?

[RDJ]

I wasn't keen on it. I wouldn't say I hated it but it fell way short of being great.

I won't list all my problems but mainly I felt the pacing was off, the characters were underdeveloped (the Bakshi movie didn't suffer from this at effectively half the length) and the CG artists were showing off far too much on the shots of the towers/cities/so on.

I hesitate to call this film bad or to not recommend it as nearly everyone I know thought the film was amazing and I'd have to be pretty arrogant to suggest they're all wrong.

Before anyone mentions it I have no problem with any changes made from the book to movie, I just wanted to enjoy it and, for me, it fell flat.

Shame really as I'm a fantasy fan, a LOTR fan and a Peter Jackson fan (and still consider myself so)

[Cap'n Al]

I thought it was very good in many respects, in all fairness; Middle Earth was created superbly, with some occasionally stunning special effects, the performances were mostly very good apart from Cate Blanchett (hammy) and Elijah Wood (wooden), and the score was fantastic (and, oddly enough, the part of the film not enough people have commented on).

My problems with it were that it was unengaging, didn't succeed as a stand-alone film, took an absolute age to get going, lacked a satisfying climax, was occasionally incoherent, and contained the line, as said at a key dramatic point, 'No-one tosses a dwarf!'.

[Woz]

Originally posted by Cap'n Al
and contained the line, as said at a key dramatic point, 'No-one tosses a dwarf!'.

Ah, but they clearly do - a good friend of mine has seen just such an act on a fuzzy second generation video tape. :nuts:

[ian_davies]

I loved it, my Tolkien loving friend thought it was pretty good, but not faithful enough, my Mum kept on falling asleep and prefers the animated version.

Satisified? :)

[Ben Martin]

i thought it was very good, but it fell a bit short of what i was expecting. easily one of the best movies of the year but i am at a loss to explain the salivating ravings of the likes of harry knowles about this being one of the greatest movies ever etc.

that said, it still could be i guess, as the main thing that 'spoiled' my enjoyment of the movie was it's incompleteness and the resulting effect of pacing and plot structure. but then, surely i was expecting that, right? after all, it is by its very nature "imcomplete" - we're not even halfway through it yet!

i have to disagree with the comment above about the music though. with the major exception of the vocal compositions (which i thought were excellent) i thought howard shore's score was very average indeed.

[mikegray]

I thought it was decent enough but nothing that I'm going to run out to buy or see again... so while I didn't hate it, I've certainly seen better films.

[Davester]

Originally posted by ~phunk~
I've been seeing good reviews about LOTR everywhere I go and everyone is raving on about it.

Personally, I haven't watched it yet, but has anybody seen it who doesn't like it?!?

I liked it when you were banned :D

[Chief Brody]

"i am at a loss to explain the salivating ravings of the likes of harry knowles about this being one of the greatest movies ever "

I wouldnt' trust Knowles as far as i could throw him. His site is notoriously biased, he was given first-class round trips to the LOTR set in New Zealand, and he is a close personal friend of Elijah Wood. He was hardly going to pan the movie, in other words. Roger Ebert, America's best-known critic, was only lukewarm on the movie.

[McD]

I agree about Blanchet, not Wood, who looked born to the part. Liv Tyler was in a bit of a non-role too, but then I've never liked her.

For me, the biggest problem was the story (as mentioned in another thread) - ok, I know its fantasy, but the whole 'guys on a mission' theme leant itself to a series of obstacles (like nothing more than levels in a computer game) and aside from a few members being picked off near the end, it really moves almost nowhere dramatically for well over an hour - which could be some kind of record!

Oh, and some guy has made a ring that can harm folks, and they have to destroy it. Why no one thinks the same nasty bit of work (or one of his mates, C. Lee perhaps) wont just make another escaped me.

Also, as stated elsewhere, it reminded me of more other movies than anything else I think I've ever seen. Oddly enough, its also quite similar to Harry Potter (possibly coincidental) - stairwells that dont go where you hoped, a club wielding giant who is near identical in both, and actors looking massive next to others as an effect (Coltrane, McKellen).

The score was nice, but repeated its main theme more times than I liked (Potter did the same). I was familiar with it before I saw the film, but yes, it was enjoyable. The Enya stuff suited the score very well and didn't feel like a tacked on pop song.

There is some rowing in the film which proves beyond doubt that Jackson has never done it himself. You don't have to be Redgrave to see what they were doing wrong.

The ending, and it might possibly be exactly the same as the book, was identical to The Empire Strikes Back. Tolkien fans might say Lucas ripped him off, but hey, I'd seen it before.

It's miles better than Potter, which in a perfect world would have slipped by unnoticed, but LOTR really isn't a contender for best film ever made, nor probably the best film of the year.

I can also add that there were slight groans in the cinema when it finished. It would appear that despite the hype that brought them there, most of the audience were unaware this was part one of a trilogy! I think a 'to be continued' idea might have been good for the general punter.

The Hollywood Blockbuster has fallen a long way in the last four years or so. It's becoming easier to look good next to a dismal crowd (Mummy 2, Pearl Harbour, POTA, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, JP3, etc) - is it any wonder that the merely very-good LOTR is being hailed as the best film ever made? But was it more memorable or enjoyable than The Deep End which I saw the night before? I cant say, hand on heart, that it was.

[BlueDwarf]

Yeah, what McD says.

Just think, part two will have neither a beginning or an end...

[Noel M]

Originally posted by McD


For me, the biggest problem was the story (as mentioned in another thread) - ok, I know its fantasy, but the whole 'guys on a mission' theme leant itself to a series of obstacles (like nothing more than levels in a computer game) ...Oddly enough, its also quite similar to Harry Potter (possibly coincidental) - stairwells that dont go where you hoped, a club wielding giant who is near identical in both, and actors looking massive next to others as an effect (Coltrane, McKellen) ...The ending, and it might possibly be exactly the same as the book, was identical to The Empire Strikes Back. Tolkien fans might say Lucas ripped him off, but hey, I'd seen it before.


I think you've totally missed the point here. "It's like a computer game". 'Lord Of The Rings' was first published in 1954. It defined the genre that has been imitated ever since in computer games, films and fantasy novels. I'm amazed that even though you compare it to Harry Potter and The Empire Strikes Back, you don't realise that none of these films would have existed without 'Lord Of The Rings'. You make it sound like it has copied these films! It doesn't imitate anything except myths, legends and folk tales.

You may have seen it all before, but now you know where it came from, because the film is a pretty much faithful adaptation of the book. I thought the film worked very well because it managed to capture the whole epic scale of the story - it is like a legend or folk tale.

[dms]

you're so right noel ;-)

reminds me of seeing King Ludwig's (ludwig the second i think ;-) Castle Neuschwangstein in the alps (bavaria) and hearing a yank comment along of the lines of "this is nothing, its straight copy of disney"

i wonder what fantasy castles would look like without ludwig ;-)

i thought history worked from teh past and went forward, not "whatever you've seen last is the original" ;-)

[Shingster]

Oh, and some guy has made a ring that can harm folks, and they have to destroy it. Why no one thinks the same nasty bit of work (or one of his mates, C. Lee perhaps) wont just make another escaped me.
Did you miss the epilogue? Sauron put all his power into the One ring, which means if you destroy the ring, you destroy him. Just getting the bleedin thing chopped off his hand caused him to lose his corporal form, so imagine what destroying the ring would do to him.


Also, as stated elsewhere, it reminded me of more other movies than anything else I think I've ever seen. Oddly enough, its also quite similar to Harry Potter (possibly coincidental) - stairwells that dont go where you hoped, a club wielding giant who is near identical in both, and actors looking massive next to others as an effect (Coltrane, McKellen).

Yeah that's right!! It's totally fair to compare LOTR with Harry Potter isn't it??? After all the LOTR novel was released after Harry Potter wasn't it?? If the film has cliched moments because everyone has been plundering the novel for ideas for 5 decades, it's hardly the films fault is it?? PJ could have altered the moments that future film-makers have looted from the novel, but then it would cease to be LOTR wouldn't it?? I'm sorry, i just don't thing this argument & the comment about the computer game structure are fair at all.

The ending, and it might possibly be exactly the same as the book, was identical to The Empire Strikes Back. Tolkien fans might say Lucas ripped him off, but hey, I'd seen it before.
Again, unfair argument imo. But it does raise the interesting point that plundering lost classics for ideas does dampen their effect on newbies later on. Lucas ripped off so many ideas in LOTR, that a Star Wars fan who'd never read the book may feel like they've seen it all before, but that's their problem, not the film's.


For me, the biggest problem was the story (as mentioned in another thread) - ok, I know its fantasy, but the whole 'guys on a mission' theme leant itself to a series of obstacles (like nothing more than levels in a computer game) and aside from a few members being picked off near the end, it really moves almost nowhere dramatically for well over an hour - which could be some kind of record!
If you ask me, this has always been the problem with LOTR, it's so bleedin long that the first book mainly serves as an introduction to the characters. The FOTR novel is even slower, but in fairness, it's best to view the trilogy as one long film, with a running time of around 10hrs, so 1hr of character building is to be expected. I agree with you that FOTR isn't a perfect, or even great film, but i don't think it ever could be because it's really just the 1st & 2nd act of a much larger story. It's incomplete & should be viewed as such. It's not like most movie trilogies, in that The Godfather is a film in it's own right with full conclusions, Star Wars is also very much a film in it's own right (Even if there isn't a proper confrontation with Darth). But FOTR was never written in a film like way, so if the film was to remain faithful to the source, it had to have an underwhelming ending & appear to be weighed down by characterisation. The next film should have the fastest pace & most action, the third should have the slowest pace & go back to characterisation again.
My point is that viewed on their own, none of the films should be great, but hopefully, viewed together as a one big (too long) film it should be superb, & i felt that PJ did an excellent job with the translation & that FOTR was a great 1st act, to the total story. If PJ keeps up the good work, i think LOTR will end up being a great, epic film. Although, who be crazy enough to sit through 10hrs of film in one sitting?

I also thoroughly agree with you at the state of the modern blockbuster. 2001 has seen some appaling action films, & it could well be the reason people are going OTT with the first decent blockbuster to be released in over a year.

[McD]

Originally posted by Noel M
You may have seen it all before, but now you know where it came from, because the film is a pretty much faithful adaptation of the book. I thought the film worked very well because it managed to capture the whole epic scale of the story - it is like a legend or folk tale.

I referenced to all of this in my original post. It is obvious - to me, anyway - that Peter Jackson has been heavily influenced in turn by the Harryhausen movies and the original Star Wars trilogy (and others). I haven't been devouring the press on this film (watched the South Bank Show thing) but it's obvious enough to me for me to believe that Jackson wouldn't deny and would probably enjoy talking it up given half a chance.

Now compare it only then to Jason & The Argonauts, a superior film (in my book), and based on a story that preceeds LOTR by a far greater distance than LOTR's 23 year jump on Star Wars. Men on a mission, with a few slight differences - the item in question is peace giving, and it appears at the end, rather than being destroyed at the end. Even 40 years of SFX improvements didn't produce anything as breathtaking in LOTR as Talos in the former film.

Hey - I said the film was very good - but a little perspective all you best-film-of-time hysterics. :)

[Jedibitch]

well well well so the MIXED public reviews are in!!!!

anyone who thought this was going to be the greatest movie of all time was never going to be pleased, I for one didn't enjoy it simply because it contained 3 problems for me.

Casting:

Never has a film contained more mis-cast people than this,

Elijah Wood - truely uninspiring, never has someone looked so out of his depth.

Sean Bean - turned the film into some sort of joke at the end, plus his line delivery sounded like it had been ADR'd from Sharp.

Liv Tyler - From what the reviews said about her I thought she would be in it for a little more than 10mins and when she was she did the old under play the part (BW in sixth sense)

Plus most of the other band of merry men felt they had to crack gags everyone 10 to 15mins to soften the 3 hours plus film you were watching, a very poor idea as it turned some of the more dramatic scenes into rubbish!


Effects:

Since the Phantom Menace appeared CGI has become the thorn in a films side more often than not, LOTR was no exception, here the CGI crew thought that they could get away with CONSTANT landscape shots, I mean if they had cut the excess shots down the film would have been about 2 hours. Also when the effects needed to be spot on they were poor (water creature, bridge falling and snow mountain come to mind).


The Pace/editing

This is most possibly the biggest crime of all, you can't make a film that long and not really get anywhere, yes i know that is how the book ends but it just does not work, The film spent an absolute age in the shire when it was just not needed also the battle at the start when the ring is lost was far to good to start on everything after that was no where near as effective. As for the editing well in a film THAT long I dont expect harsh scene jumps and in the battles why did the decide to jump around on the close-up scenes so much. This comes down to one thing in my mind and that is the film rating, when this film started I remember people saying it would never side step anything and would be as faithful as possible to the book, now come on if they were going to make the book it would be a minimum of a 15 Cert. I just got the impression that they were leant on by the powers that be to cut down some of the violence, thus the sharp editing!!!

You probably think I hate this film but I dont I just think it was very very average and certainly no better than The Phantom Menace which got panned at every turn, where as LOTR seems to get praised at every turn!!!

Opinions are a strange thing!!!!!

pHiL