|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 12/24/03 - 09:54 Post subject: LOTR III - am I the only one who thought it was just OK?
CAUTION: IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET, DON'T READ. Some plot discussed below.
I felt this was the weakest of the three movies. Not enough Legolas or Arogon, too much of those stinkin' "Hobbitses". Every scene was longer than it should have been, and I can't remember the last time I was at a movie where I was like, "just end it already!" Seriously, the fade out fade back in twenty thousand times at the end got annoying.
Visually it was great, true. A friend of mine had a great analogy, though. Unlike the original Star Wars trilogy, where the Jedis actually lost once in a while, the good guys ALWAYS won except for two very small battles in III. Those Orks were a bunch of wimps if they couldn't defeat the little men they so vastly outnumbered. Seriously - how could they have been a credible threat of evil if they never defeated the good guys? Why were they feared so much if they lost so much? 
This is why I do not nor have ever liked fantasy genre stuff - they're illogical, and in this case, severely ill-paced. What I loved about the first two was that if you didn't read the books or hadn't seen the other movie, they still made sense storywise - they stood on their own. I hadn't seen either 1 or 2 since they were in the theatre, and forgot a lot so I was a bit like "huh?" Poor Paramedic had to re-explain stuff. I did like the backstory of how Gollum/Smeegle (spelling?) came about. But at 3:30, it should've been 2:30. Less pointless fighting which was pretty much the same throughout - give me a story. And this from someone who LOVES gratuitous violence in movies. But don't give me so much story in the last 15 minutes of the movie that I'm pissed because it was crammed at the end to tie up loose ends. grrr.
I'm glad I saw it on the big screen, because visually it was spectacular. But I was so excited to see this, and in the end was disappointed. Once again I disagree with the majority. Watch this lukewarm tale win Best Picture. 
|
|
|
|
|
PackerBacker
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 31 May 2002
Posts: 491
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 09:56 Post subject:
Come on, tell us how you really feel about the movie 
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 10:23 Post subject:
Gasp!! Heretic!!
|
|
|
|
|
BamBam
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 2974
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 11:07 Post subject:
I believe because of my expectations and the reviews, I was let down.
I too think the visuals were stunning as were the battle scenes. I understand his need to deviate from the book, but the entire Path of the Dead scenario was so different from the book I was somewhat dumbfounded. I hope that Jackson did indeed film so much additional footage that we may be able to view his concept of these actions on the extended DVD.....extended to somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 hours or more....
|
|
|
|
|
RunsLikeAGirl
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 01 Apr 2003
Posts: 1499
Location: Upstate.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 11:10 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | | Gasp!! Heretic!! |
 !!
Gotta disagree with you, Lauri! Thought it was easily the best put together of the trilogy. I have no patience for longwinded typing, so you'll just have to take my word for it.  Not much in the way of acting (except for Gandalf - he's spectacular), but that's the nature of the third book. All about action, that one.
Thought it was great.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 12:08 Post subject:
JUST OK??? JUST OK??? Mama, git mah gun!!
I agree with RLAG, the third book was focused more on the "Hobbitses" so that's why the storyline went the way it did, although I do think they Hollywoodized it a little much, but nonetheless it was still a fantastic movie and I can't wait to see the extended version. I think they did an excellent job with the Smeagol/Gollum story and, as disappointed as I was not to see more of Legolas myself, he really wasn't the focus of this one.
I'm ready to go see it AGAIN!!!! We are die-hard LOTR fans in my house and so far it's been a two  rating here. 
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 12:26 Post subject:
| genie wrote: | | JUST OK??? JUST OK??? |
Yup. At least it didn't suck like the Matrix sequels.
|
|
|
|
|
kattzoo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 3813
Location: Happily at the back of the pack
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 12:29 Post subject:
Gives me something to look forward to. I hated the first movie, haven't seen the second, and we're going tomorrow for our annual Christmas movie to see this one. I guess I'll get lots of popcorn, and a good nap in.
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 20:07 Post subject:
| genie wrote: | | I agree with RLAG, the third book was focused more on the "Hobbitses" so that's why the storyline went the way it did... |
I just got back from seeing the film. As anyone who's ever read the book knows, it's true: Return of the King was definitely a hobbit tale. There shouldn't be any surprise there.
| genie wrote: | | ...although I do think they Hollywoodized it a little much |
Ya think?!? Of the three shows, this one deviated the most from the book. Of course, that's just my opinion. There were several instances where liberties were taken with the story. I'm fairly certain that many will agree that the whole thing with the Battle of Pelennor was great...until the cursed undead showed up. Give me a break, Mr. Jackson.
| genie wrote: | | ...but nonetheless it was still a fantastic movie and I can't wait to see the extended version. |
I concur. The grandeur of Minas Tirith was well done. Superb. As far as the extended version, well, I hope that people unfamiliar with the story find out how the palantir got to the ground at Orthanc....how Eowyn and Faramir (and Merry) were healed by Aragorn (that whole dynamic was left untouched at the expense of laying it on a bit too heavy with Aragorn and Arwen)...how Saruman and Grima Wormtongue met their demise...the destruction of the Shire. That's one of the missing ingredients of the entire story in film: time lapses aren't explained.
| genie wrote: | | I think they did an excellent job with the Smeagol/Gollum story and, as disappointed as I was not to see more of Legolas myself, he really wasn't the focus of this one. |
Agreed - Smeagol/Gollum was well done. And although you might have wished to have seen more of Legolas, it'd be kinda hard to do - without an equal amount given to Gimli. That whole friendship thing wasn't done well. Elvish dislike of caves and dwarf dislike of forests - it was missing but...well, there was no Glittering Cave nor lots of time spent in Fangorn so...
| genie wrote: | | I'm ready to go see it AGAIN!!!! |
Wow, not me! My butt's still sore! But I'm looking forward to November 2004 - I suppose that's when the extended version will appear but maybe not...there's no fourth episode!
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 21:31 Post subject:
I've never seen the 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Nor do I have any intentions of doing so. I just don't understand what people find so interesting about Lord of the Rings.
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/24/03 - 22:10 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | I've never seen the 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Nor do I have any intentions of doing so. I just don't understand what people find so interesting about Lord of the Rings. |
Let me guess - you haven't read the book either, right?
I'm curious - if you haven't watched any of the films and don't intend to AND you don't understand why other people find it interesting, what compelled you to read this thread and provide comments?
Don't misunderstand me. I don't mean that you shouldn't read or comment. I just find it a bit odd that you'd even want to read/comment. Actually, starting your own topic with your observations would seem more sensible.
And you are far from unique. There are millions of people who won't watch any of the movies nor will they read the book. You are not alone!
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/25/03 - 10:03 Post subject:
| msparks wrote: | | GaRebelRunner wrote: | | I've never seen the 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Nor do I have any intentions of doing so. I just don't understand what people find so interesting about Lord of the Rings. |
Let me guess - you haven't read the book either, right?
I'm curious - if you haven't watched any of the films and don't intend to AND you don't understand why other people find it interesting, what compelled you to read this thread and provide comments?
|
Just because I don't understand why people find LOR interesting doesn't mean I'm not interested as to their comments about the series.
The only reason for commenting on this particular thread is because Elkid seems suprised he doesn't give the movie the same raves as most people who follow this series. Whereas in his case he doesn't seem to give this part the raves as the others I keep waiting to see something either in the newsprint, on the commercials or in threads like these that would compel me to see the movie and/or read the book. Even the Matrix I could understand the interest although I didn't go see the movie. This movie has thus far 3 parts to it and even in reading the review I'm just baffled as to why it is so popular.
And thus the reason for my comment as I seem to be the only person at my office who has not seen any of the movies. As far as reading the book I don't know of anyone even among the most avid of the fans at my office who have read the book. You seem to be a little more "into" the movie than most.
And bear in mind I'm not criticizing the movie/book or series. I just don't understand all the fascination with it.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/25/03 - 12:17 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | I've never seen the 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Nor do I have any intentions of doing so. I just don't understand what people find so interesting about Lord of the Rings. |
I had never read the books because that genre does not appeal to me--I am not very interested in fantasy/otherworld/post apocalyptic-type books.
I went to the first movie because BC and Colin wanted to so badly and I ended up being blown away.
It is the type of storyline that leaves you thinking for days on the deeper meanings--philosophical meanderings. It is the type of movie whose cinematography leaves you awed and a bit breathless by the end.
After the first one, I had to see the others.
I think you should go if you enjoy moviemaking at all--these are very well made movies that don't pander to the lowest elements like so many other movies do.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/25/03 - 14:47 Post subject:
Good point, Aire, and anyone who is very familiar with Tolkien can tell you that his books, as are many other great works of literature, are largely expressions of his political views and biases. He was not a fan of industry, as evidenced by his focus on the evilness of Saruman, the destruction of the trees and the fires of both Isengard and Mount Doom, as well as the building great armies, et al. The bridging of the chasm between the elves and the dwarves via Gimli's friendship with Legolas, as well as his fascination with Galadriel, represents a great deal of what was going on in the world in his time too--the stirrings of prejudice, class consciousness and such. There is SO MUCH more to these stories than the basic storyline, from a moral, spiritual, and political point of view, that if you really analyze it and know the background of the time Tolkien was living in when he wrote it, it makes it all the more interesting. I absolutely LOVE his portrayal of Eowyn as a strong, independent woman who wasn't afraid to stand up for what she believed in and who didn't want to be a submissive woman ruled by any man. Very good representation of the changes in society, no?
Msparks, I bet you have some thoughts on this too.....?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 12/25/03 - 21:38 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | I've never seen the 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Nor do I have any intentions of doing so. I just don't understand what people find so interesting about Lord of the Rings. |
Me too
|
|
|
|
