Subject:
|
Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Dec 2001 19:23:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
374 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> Time weeds these things out.
I might have used a different metaphor, but I agree.
One of my problems with the current LOTR movie is that I REALLY don't have a
lot of prior knowledge of the material. Noeckel suggests that this film
should be viewed as the first part of a much larger work -- and I am not
sure that's fair seeing as how the next two installments are respectively
one and two years away. With such long gaps in between releases, I think I
needed something a little more self-contained. I wouldn't have used this
criteria against the film if the releases had been one every few weeks (say
one now in December, another in January, and the third in February) -- if
the filmmakers want the benefits of a serial feeling they can't make us wait
a year in between things. A year from now I may not even care about seeing
part 2, I will have lost the thread of the plot (except that the story so
far is staggeringly simple) and most of the names of the characters most
likely. Maybe someday, all three parts crammed onto one DVD will make a
great 7-9 hour movie -- taken in pieces I'd have to give it a far lower
rating. Let me put it this way: it was a beautiful film, but there are far
better beautiful films that tell the story in about 2 hours and have no sequels.
Amongst such amazing films I'd list amongst my top favs are (more or less in
order): Barry Lyndon, Moll Flanders (BBC version, Alex Kingston), Prospero's
Books, Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh version), Mishima, Dangerous Liaisons, Fight
Club, Excalibur, Raising Arizona, and Four Rooms. I can probably give
honorable mention to things like Blade Runner, Croupier, Reservoir Dogs, The
Matrix, Elizabeth, Orlando, The Piano, and The Usual Suspects as movies that
may stand the test of time because in the end they are fairly well written
if nothing else, and they have more than that going for them. [Note: You
can well imagine my disappointment that the Hamlet I like best is not
already on DVD -- what gives with that?]
Anyway, LOTR -- the best film of the year/ever? Of the year, maybe. Ever,
not likely. Not by a wide margin. Is LOTR better than things like Star
Wars, Raiders, etc.? Probably (time will tell, of course), although those
Raiders of the Lost Ark films have a lot of nostalgic charm on their side.
For me LOTR has real problems including underdeveloped critical characters,
a slightly annoying score (all that quasi-gregorian chant stuff has no place
in this mythic world, and Enya doesn't help -- I mean, what -- was Journey
unavailable?), and a lot of stuff that just flashes by the viewer. You
people who have read the books cannot grasp how sketchy the film is for
someone who doesn't know the story or the characters. Who are all these
beings we meet? They are on screen for a few moments, maybe I caught their
name, and then they are not seen again...
Frankly, all I was left with was pretty pictures. REAL pretty pictures, but
that's the bulk of it.
But compare LOTR to Excalibur for a moment. Few things are as grand in
scale as the Arthurian romances, and yet Boorman managed to tell the
essential myth in under 3 hours, and the plot even includes the quest for
the grail! Despite some minor 70s damage, that film is pretty amazing.
Think about it. LOTR is visually stunning, but it could and should have
been more I would think...or maybe it's just not the kind of story that can
really be made into a truly great film. A lot of great literature defies
the transfer to film.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
| (...) It's possible that you and I (and probably a few others around here) are the only ones who've seen and enjoyed Barry Lyndon--a good pick, though! (...) Haven't seen that in a few years, and it's not a particular favorite for me, but it's (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
| (...) This line of argument is of course only fair when taken as "of course there is a deficiency in its incompleteness, but the next film will turn that into an asset." (You will probably be let down again at its ending... it too should have the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
| (...) Excalibur… HA! They wore their -shiny silver armor- EVERYWHERE, to dinned…to bed…on short walks to the river…to the bathroom… ;) They never changed their armor, *they lived in it!!!* Sure, it looked all shimmerin’ and fanciful, but COME 0N…not (...) (23 years ago, 26-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
| (...) It's just an initial reaction, based in part on enthusiasm. Yes, I enjoyed it (note that it is up for a Golden Globe for Best Picture already!), no it isn't the best movie of all time, but in my view it is only the first third of an (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
