Subject:
|
Re: Lord of the Rings movie
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 16:06:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
243 times
|
| |
|
|
I'll have to come back and read this later in the day, despite the "no
spoilers" (and what's to spoil, I know the story backwards and forwards).
My son gets out of school at noon today, so I'm taking off early today and
going to see the movie (if humanly possible, of course). The Los Angeles
Times gave it a glowing review. Frodo lives!
Bruce
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Erik Olson writes:
>
> No Spoilers here!
>
> I too wanted this to be the Film of the Decade, but after viewing it in the
> flickering dark, all I can say for sure is "Now we had better have it
> again." As soon as possible, like tomorrow night.
>
> There are numerous original touches to the film version. Plot for sure, but
> also in characterization. Gandalf and Elrond seem altered in character,
> other characters are not so much altered as quickened by having new scenes.
> There is some gravity, and some moral dimension, but this is of course a
> film with crowds of undead, and telescoping zoom lenses, which are like
> having candy in between every dish of a meal. Some sequences are hurried,
> some to good effect, others not so good. The Council of Elrond has much
> less gravity, and no storytelling.
>
> We finally learn where orcs come from. Much more sensible than I had been
> led to expect.
>
> At the end there are fewer loose ends than the book has (it is a movie after
> all) but also less tension. At least one audience member gasped, unaware
> that the story would not be completed tonight. Ring virgin!
>
> The Ring (Sauron too) is very active in this movie. One of the motifs of the
> books is how every character reacts to being tempted by the Ring -- that's
> here, and some of those scenes work less well than others.
>
> I'm not sure if there is a firm structure to the film. Perhaps it was
> something about the frequency of plot twist and resolution, or the pacing of
> setup and payoff, that seemed sloppy. Haste was always the enemy in these
> things.
>
> The music: maybe less memorable than the awful score from the 1979 version,
> certainly more unobtrusive than beautiful. Otherwise there is no poetry,
> outside of one jingle.
>
> The movie introduces one role never mentioned in the book: while Frodo may
> be the Ringbearer, one of the other hobbits becomes Gandalf's Hatbearer.
> More Hatbearing would have been a good inside joke. Considering the inherent
> laughability of some elements (anything involving the undead raised snickers
> from the audience) the real jokes seem ill-timed.
>
> The movie, of course, is too short. I do not think any of it is boring, with
> the possible exception of that awkward pause in Bilbo's Speech, and I would
> have gladly stayed in the theatre even longer. But one has to sleep
> eventually, every road must come back to the door where it began, and two
> years from now we'll be able to block out an entire day to sit in front of
> the Rings, and that will have to be enough.
>
> -Erik
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lord of the Rings movie
|
| After seeing it the second time, I'm starting to glow. I better give it a third chance. The second time through, I notice some evidence of shortened scenes. SPOILER -- NOT A BAD SPOILER -- WATCH FOR THIS In particular, Galadriel's gifts (or rather (...) (23 years ago, 20-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Lord of the Rings movie
|
| No Spoilers here! I too wanted this to be the Film of the Decade, but after viewing it in the flickering dark, all I can say for sure is "Now we had better have it again." As soon as possible, like tomorrow night. There are numerous original (...) (23 years ago, 19-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
