Lord of the Rings - a very sad review!

[antonkk]

Well, I'm back from the Return of the King and what can I say...this is the most tasteless piece of cheese I ever saw. A total desecration of the greatest book of the last century. I was really disappointed with first two series but this one just shocked me. There are 4 good things about the movie though: Gandalf, Aragorn (looks great though hardly a great actor), battle scenes (though they avoided any reality blood scenes not to scare small kids who make a big percentage of viewers), and most cities, landscapes and castles are just beautiful. Now the BAD things.
My biggest problem with the movies is that it lacks all the deep philosophy and poetry of the book. The book is tragic and the atmosphere of doom and the end of the world is totally absent in the movie. The finale of the book made most people cry (Grey Havens is probably one of the saddest literature scenes ever - friends separated for eternity, even in the afterlife) while the movie finale made most kids in the cinema laugh ( edited for content - aashton ) and Tokien's story of personal sacrifice and spiritual quest (I actually had my University diploma written on "Frodo Baggins and the problem of free will") turns into cheap soap opera. Frodo hardly look like a tortured martyr he's supposed to be in the end, more like a guy off for some cool free vacation.

P.S. And of course, the orcs. C'mon, this is not some cheap comic book for 10 year old kids! If this is not a perfect example of bad taste then I don't know what is. Peter Jackson makes the Harry Potter director look like Fellini!

P.S.S. What a wasted opportunity! Hollywood butchered another masterpiece and I'm really sad that kids will learn about LOTR through this cheesy crap. :shake:

[Ken_McAlinden]

Uh...I disagree...as do most critics, moviegoers, and fans of the books.

They didn't show enough gore, but the orcs were in bad taste? I'm puzzled. Sorry you did not enjoy it, though.

Regards,

[RDK]

Um, no one said that you had to enjoy the film - I'm sorry that you didn't - but you know you're in the minority, right? As Ken said, most people who've seen the film are very fond of it. I think it's a stunning adaptation myself.

As to your "biggest problem," well I hate to break it to you but "deep philosophy and poetry" are hardly the hallmarks of the motion picture medium. Films are often at their best when delivering visual spectacle, compelling acting, and (hopefully) involving drama. If you're looking for philosophy, read a book...

[lbangs]

Ah, the classic trap. You read the book, the film wasn't the book, you don't like the film.

The truth is the film is the film, and the book is the book, and never the twain shall meet completely. I bet you'll be so much happy with movies if you take this approach.

Do you think your reaction would be so negative if you hadn't read the book, much less spent the time writing your diploma on an element which isn't brought out nearly as much or as well in the film? I realize I sound confrontational, but really, I'm curious.

Although what do I know? A Hundred Years of Solitude was my favorite novel of the last century (though I do like most of JRR's books). I like the film, but I do think it is incredibly over-rated, so I sorta enjoyed reading your review. I like the first one better (especially the expanded edition), and for last year, I favor Lost in Translation. So, I enjoyed your cranky review! (I've been known to write cranky reviews once and a while myself...) Thanks!

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

[antonkk]

Originally posted by Ken_McAlinden
Uh...I disagree...as do most critics, moviegoers, and fans of the books.

They didn't show enough gore, but the orcs were in bad taste? I'm puzzled. Sorry you did not enjoy it, though.

Regards,

I'm not contradicting myself. Have they done the battle scenes like Besson's "Joan of Ark" - the emotional involvement would be much higher.

[antonkk]

Originally posted by lbangs
Ah, the classic trap. You read the book, the film wasn't the book, you don't like the film.

The truth is the film is the film, and the book is the book, and never the twain shall meet completely. I bet you'll be so much happy with movies if you take this approach.

Do you think your reaction would be so negative if you hadn't read the book, much less spent the time writing your diploma on an element which isn't brought out nearly as much or as well in the film? I realize I sound confrontational, but really, I'm curious.

Although what do I know? A Hundred Years of Solitude was my favorite novel of the last century (though I do like most of JRR's books). I like the film, but I do think it is incredibly over-rated, so I sorta enjoyed reading your review. I like the first one better (especially the expanded edition), and for last year, I favor Lost in Translation. So, I enjoyed your cranky review! (I've been known to write cranky reviews once and a while myself...) Thanks!

Shalom, y'all!


L. Bangs

Yeah, I guess if I never read the I could possibly enjoy the movie. I'm not expecting the movie to be 100% like a book. I'm just expecting it to be true to the SPIRIT of the book, since it made LOTR so special. Not to make a cheap comics out of the true masterpiece!

P.S. 100 years of solitude is indeed amazing. I actually had an honour of meeting Gabriel Garcia Markes (a good acquaintance of my father) when I was 16 or something. Back then Markes was my fave along with Bulgakov.

[MagicAlex]

Originally posted by antonkk


Yeah, I guess if I never read the I could possibly enjoy the movie. I'm not expecting the movie to be 100% like a book. I'm just expecting it to be true to the SPIRIT of the book, since it made LOTR so special. Not to make a cheap comics out of the true masterpiece!

P.S. 100 years of solitude is indeed amazing. I actually had an honour of meeting Gabriel Garcia Markes (a good acquaintance of my father) when I was 16 or something. Back then Markes was my fave along with Bulgakov.

Did you like the first two installments of the trilogy?

[antonkk]

I'm speaking about the whole film trilogy. Jackson blew every part.

[MagicAlex]

To be honest I don't think I'd enjoy it to much if Fellini, Bergmar, etc had done it. It might have been interesting done by the Archers though. :cool: ;)

[antonkk]

I think there were/are a few directors who knew how to make a masterpiece and make very spectacular (hope I'm using the right word). David Lean (I mean if was alive now...The guy who makes Lawrence of Arabia just can't go wrong with epics)! Akira Kurasava, Milos Forman and (don't kill me) David Lynch! Dune was a great example of good taste in fantasy though hardly his best movie.

[Holy Zoo]

I haven't seen any of the three... but, it is interesting to note that it has a VERY high rating at rottentomatos.com:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/

[Ron Stone]

For what it's worth, antonkk, I don't like the films, but didn't expect to. I didn't like the books, either. Finished THE HOBBIT, never got into . . . whatever the first one's called. I was dragged to all three films by friends I didn't have the heart to tell the truth. Then I had to watch the expanded DVDs on their home theatre systems. I just have no use for elves, trolls, wizards and dragons.

I do find the acclaim surrounding the films out of proportion to their dramatic accomplishment. As a non-believer, I thought they were in need of serious editing/rewriting. Too much of each film was comprised of the heroes running/galloping from one battle to another, when a good rewrite would have compressed these events and eliminated some of what I considered redundant action.

Did we need to have the seige of a human city the centerpiece of two consecutive films? Did we need the attack on the evil wizards' strongholds to climax those same two films? Couldn't these redundant plots have been collapsed into one movie about saving a human city, and the next about carrying the attack to the evil wizards? In comparison to the relatively fast pace of the battles, the subplot of the hobbits and their treacherous guide was entirely too slow and repetitive. One more wide-eyed shot of The Torments Of Master Frodo and I would have screamed in the theater: "Okay, I get it!"

Instead, the moviemakers tried to cram too much of (what I presume was) the original material on screen, and each three-hour installment ended up feeling sketchy despite their lumbar-challenging length. What happened to the bad white wizard? What happened to Evil Eye's toady? What exactly does all this elf stuff have to do with anything? Not having read the books, much of the action on screen did not make sense, which I consider a failure on the part of the film.

Obviously I'm in the minority -- again. I think I was the only teenager on the continent who didn't like STAR WARS, either.

[Claus]

I also haven't watched this movie... after my shock when I have seen Matrix Revolution, I don't need another bubblegum-movie!

[RDK]

For what it's worth, Claus, I'd hardly call LOTR "bubblegum." I also think it's everything the Matrix trilogy wasn't: emotional, human, etc...

[Steve Hoffman]

Just read this thread. Interesting. I loved the books, was shocked at the movie version, but have since come around to them. I just treat them as movies, not attached to the trilogy. The books themselves have a place deep in my heart.

Everyone is allowed their opinion.

Glad to see you all playing nicely in the sandbox...

[thegage]

I'm not contradicting myself. Have they done the battle scenes like Besson's "Joan of Ark" - the emotional involvement would be much higher.

I found the battle scenes in "The Messenger" (the US title) overwrought and stagey. Watching them, I had the experience of realizing that I was watching a film, as opposed to forgetting that and being emotionally involved.

On the whole I enjoyed the final film of LOTR, though I could sense where material had been removed to make a more acceptable running time.

In terms of sheer film accomplishment (as opposed to duplicating the book) I find the trilogy a very admirable accomplishment.

John K.

[GP]

I used to promise myself not to see movies that get too much hype, like Harry Potter. I wound up liking those HP movies a lot. I haven't seen the final installment of LOTR yet, but I am prepared to be disappointed. I think the spectacle of these films is fabulous, but some situations do get almost cartoonish at times, and the dialog becomes sappy and unbelievable as well. I didn't care much for TTT, but I do think that "The Fellowship" was overall a nice film, once you get past the dumb stuff.

In the documentary it was mentioned that it required five or six crews working simultaneously to complete these films. That sounds more like factory farming than filmmaking, but what do I know.

[lil.fred]

Well, it looks like you drew a lot of fire. I for one totally agree with you. These 3 films totally failed to become movies worthy of the books. A waste of time all around.

[mcow1]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Just read this thread. Interesting. I loved the books, was shocked at the movie version, but have since come around to them. I just treat them as movies, not attached to the trilogy. The books themselves have a place deep in my heart.

Everyone is allowed their opinion.

Glad to see you all playing nicely in the sandbox...
I wish I could separate the movies from the books but I can't. These are my favorite books of all times and I have read them uncountable times since 1970. It always irritates the hell out of me when a director takes a great book and "has a better idea" about how a character should be or even how it should end. I just can't bear what they did to Faramir especially. To me the whole point of the books is missed when they make the wholesale changes that Peter Jackson did. Too bad.:( I wanted so much to like these movies but I find them almost impossible to watch. Harry Potter, on the other hand I loved both the books and the movies.

[Hawkman]

Originally posted by lbangs
Ah, the classic trap. You read the book, the film wasn't the book, you don't like the film.

The truth is the film is the film, and the book is the book, and never the twain shall meet completely. I bet you'll be so much happy with movies if you take this approach.



Indeed! Anyone here ever actually READ The Wizard Of Oz after having only ever seen the movie since childhood? 'Tis a revelation indeed. Better yet, try looking at Disney's "The Sword In The Stone" and then READ that part of "The Once And Future King". Wow!

I read the LOTR books and saw all three films. I liked both. Face it, with a series of books of this magnitude, depth and scope, something's gotta give and it usually does. Peter Jackson and company did a great job given the task at hand.

My only problem was going into the films after years of seeing The Brothers Hildebrandt's illustrations and having to see someone else's vision of Middle Earth. So ingrained in my mind were those illustrations, I kept looking for their influence from the first film onward.

Of course, others are free to NOT like the movies. And they would be no less correct.

Gene

[teaser5]

I enjoyed the films very much which caught me very much by surprise since I, like Ron, tend to not like films (or music for that matter) with swords, dragons, wizards, etc. I didn't watch Fellowship until it had been on DVD for a couple of months and even then had a "what the hell" attitude until I pushed play. I have probably seen it ten times since then.

While I enjoyed "Towers" very much I preferred the first movie more. I liked the dynamic of The Fellowship; the nine characters against a formidable foe. When they began to scatter it was less enjoyable for me.

As I have posted here before, my trip two weeks ago to see "King" was my first time in a movie theater in over two years. I have what I consider to be a damn fine surround system and can't abide all the usual things you hear people complain about (kicking, talking, crunching, etc.) when they visit their local Bijou. While "King" was my least favorite of the three I certainly enjoyed it very much and will buy it too when the deluxe home version comes out. The bottom line here is "To each their own" and that's cool with me.

Except for one final remark: you state: "the greatest book of the last century" ?? Are you serious?

Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Cheever, Joyce, Lawrence, Forster, Steinbeck, Wilder, Carver...Good Lord, I could go on forever. The past century has produced some amazing books by some very gifted authors. With all due respect I have a difficult time comparing "The Hobbit" to, say "Light In August". In my opinion of course.

Best-
Norm

[Ron Stone]

Originally posted by Hawkman

Better yet, try looking at Disney's "The Sword In The Stone" and then READ that part of "The Once And Future King".

While I've probably disqualified my opinions in the eyes of many forum members by not liking the LOTR books or movies, I can heartily recommend T.H. White's THE ONCE & FUTURE KING (of which "The Sword In The Stone" is the light and whimsical first part). The best fantasy novel I've read, and one of the best novels, regardless of genre.

[Johnny C.]

It was a spectacular spectacle.

Oh, and I did have a lump in my throat at the end.

[Metralla]

The books were very hard to get into. They required an enormous investment of imagination to deal with the mass of detail that Tolkein presented - countries, characters, stories, language, even alphabets. Now for some, this type of fantasy is perfect; they can imagine all the worlds the writer describes, populate it with all the people and get stuck into it. I don't have that type of imagination.

I enjoyed The Hobbit, but found the Lord of the Rings endlessly challenging to my imagination, so much so that I gave up on it. Actually I started with the last volume, and never read the other two. This as a young teenager. Just too much bloody work.

In my early twenties I was bored witless by the cult of "Lord of the Rings" that seemed to play in the hippie space, and could not abide the stoned references ("wow, this is just like when Bilbo goes down to the ...").

Probably (over)reacted against that and would not try to read "Lord of the Rings" because of it. But honestly, I much prefered science fiction - did not like science fantasy that much. And pure fantasy was totally off the cards. I was more into someone like Philip K. Dick. Take the real world, twist it around a bit, and see what pops out. My scene.

That said, I very much enjoyed the trilogy on film. Since I did not know the story I felt it was well done, enough to keep my interest over a long sitting. Even in the final chapter, the 3 hours and 40 mins seemed to pass without me squirming in my seat and wanting it to finish. And the absence of the "Hollywood" touch and no really big stars worked in its favour. I think Jackson has done a fantastic job and will be thought highly of by this generation, and many to follow, for these three films.

I'm biased in that I have a very soft spot for the New Zealand film industry, and this trilogy has given them a speed-ball and I expect to see some great films come out of NZ. This should have a spin-off effect on the Oz film scene too, which I'm also biased towards (natch).

[Hawkman]

Originally posted by Ron Stone


While I've probably disqualified my opinions in the eyes of many forum members by not liking the LOTR books or movies, I can heartily recommend T.H. White's THE ONCE & FUTURE KING (of which "The Sword In The Stone" is the light and whimsical first part). The best fantasy novel I've read, and one of the best novels, regardless of genre.

Amen, Brother! That and it's final book, "The Book Of Merlyn" are some of my favorite books of all time!