Subject:
|
Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Dec 2001 07:30:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
478 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler writes:
> My complaint is not in the re-doing, but in the praise that Fight Club >received critically and by word-of-mouth as if it were addressing something >revolutionary.
Ah, I have almost no idea what kind of press it got -- I rented it on video
some several months later on a whim and was happily surprised. It's funny
how things like that can work for and against a film. I had no
expectations, and therefore liked it a lot -- you, perhaps having heard more
positive press than I, were disappointed in your expectations. Doesn't
really matter...
I am not sure it was in any way dealing with new material. I just liked the
extremity of it's approach.
> To date, I don't know that there's been a good one. I didn't have cable and
> therefore couldn't watch Zimmer-Bradley's recent miniseries, so I have no
> opinion on it. Anyone know if it was any good?
It was really -- okay. As usual, the book was a cajillion times better.
The film looked great, sounded great, was often great, but was not great in
totality -- on the whole it was very sketchy. I think this is what may
ultimately be decided about LOTR, although I look forward to being
disappointed in this expectation by the next two films.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
| (...) "Heathers" springs to mind, as does "Doom Generation," and even "A Clockwork Orange," to a certain point (though admittedly in a different direction. Even the awful film "Strange Days" addresses the blurring and isolation of the individual. (...) (23 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
