Subject:
|
Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:55:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
358 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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.
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 everywhere?
Apart from that and the stellar LACK of acting ability (Jean-Luce-Picard
should ‘ave carried the film… but alas no…) the film was loyal to the series
of events and the score was nice. But over-all, a poor choice.
[I poop-on your opinion -Conan O’Brian] ;)
Sincerely,
--==RiçhärÐ==--
P.S. thank you so very much for that link to:
http://www.unet.brandeis.edu/~ariiah/freud/mission.htm
A really great site overall and a nice commentary to the pop-culture hit
Fight Club
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
