Subject:
|
Re: Lord of the Rings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:15:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
734 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 03:55:54 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net>
wrote:
> Wow. I loved it. 'Course, I read Jurassic Park years before it became a
> movie, and Lost World. Movies can't do justice to the books on which they are
> based [1], but they do a good job of graphically portraying the characters,
> especially Dinos:-) Reading the book and *then* seeing movies is the best way
> IMO to go. I'd think living in Utah you'd be a little more sympathetic to our
> extinct friends;-)
Well, the movie did have one advantage over the book: It didn't have
to start the very first scene with the apalling retcon of how Ian (?)
the mathemagician really _isn't_ dead.
Other than that... both the book and the movie, even compared to other
Crichtons, basically just sucked. It was a pure money-grabbing quickie
by Crichton, and it got turned by Spielberg into a film that would
have been extremely impressive just for Visual effects if it had
appeared a year after JP. But it didn't, and it wasn't.
All IMHO of course.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lord of the Rings
|
| (...) ~~~...~~~ ??? Wow. I loved it. 'Course, I read Jurassic Park years before it became a movie, and Lost World. Movies can't do justice to the books on which they are based [1], but they do a good job of graphically portraying the characters, (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
69 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
