[Isric]

LotR is a huge story. After seeing the movie, and then reading the books again, I'm really amazed at how HUGE the actual story is. Basically, you HAVE to have read LotR to really appreciate the film to it's fullest. I mean, if Jackson really made the film exactly like the book, it would be 12 hours long. We could see farmer Magot, Tom Bomadil, etc... and there's just to much. What the film did, was show the people who have read the book what these places looked like (not exactly) but to actually SEE Isenguard, to SEE the inside of BagEnd, and for the love of all that is good and holy, so SEE with my own eyes, the city of Minas Tirith....Man.....I honestly cried when I saw it (I thought I would have to wait for the second movie). Anyway, thats my rant. Seeing it the second time takes away a bit of that 'amazed' feeling, and lets you really look at the details. But I wouldn't recomend seeing it twice unless your one of those initiated types (yeah I'm a nerd).

[RenaissanceGirl]

I finally saw it. Overall, I thought it was fantastic! I was trying not to think about the book and trying not to expect too much (as I always do, thus spoiling any chance of enjoying any film). I thought the dialogue was excellect. horstenpeter - you stated that you saw a dubbed version, so there is no doubt in my mind that there was a lot lost in the translation. As far as you disappointment with the effects - I suppose that's your personal taste. However, I was a little disappointed about the depiction of Lothlorien too - it didn't seem as magical as described in the book - not just according to my interpretation, where are the golden leaves damnit! But no big deal, just a minor things, overall, I still loved it.

I'm expecting a majority of you have seen it by now, but if you haven't, ignore the lower portions of my post.

As much as I'm trying to ignore some elements, I really can't help but be annoyed by some things. Such as the over-exaggeration of Arwen's role. It was unnecessary for them to replace Legolas' parts with Arwen - such as the river scene; it was Legolas who saves Frodo and Gandalf who raised the waters! I can't help but feel like they only did that because it was Liv Tyler playing her. It wouldn't have made the film shorter for them to stick to that part of the book! Naturally, I expected certain parts to be removed for the sake of time and budget, but I didn't expect these changes.

[c]

count me in as one of the few (it seems) who was not that impressed with lotr. its not because it wasn't like the book, or too much like the book, or any other superficial stuff like that. it just didn't grab me as a film. it was beautiful to look at, but after the first quarter it just seemed to sputter out for me.

btw wtf was that scene with galadriel about? the one where she's tempted by the ring. she turned into this horrible blurry blue piece of shit from the land of photoshop hell. that was probably the most surprising part of the movie .

[Highfive]

Am I the first user in Australia to see it? YEAH BABY!! It frikkin' ROCKS!!

I don't know how we got a half-empty cinema on the release day of the 26th of December. What blew me and my girlfriend away if after we left the movie showing at 10:30am, there was a queue to the next session (1:30pm) that run all the way out the foyer doors! We were so lucky!

Lord of the Rings is everything you ever wanted a fantasy movie to have! 3 hours without ever a dull moment.

[GatoNegro13]

I don't think I blinked through the whole thing! It was soooo well done! I cried like, twice too! Ok so im a little emotional....but..........hey

[GatoNegro13]

C, that IS true! THats soo funny! THats exactly what I was thinking on that part!

[the_monkey]

i think i noticed a mistake....
sam says at one point "ive never gone this far before", but somehow later on route to bree he knows that the next bridge is exactly 12 miles away, and he is the one guiding the raft downstream. dosent that seem odd? or am i dumb.

[greenmode]

before i begin, i want to say i totally respect your opinions about the movie.

this was seriously a bad movie. and im not trying to bash anything or anyone, me and my friends got advance tickets to see it and i thought that it was just such a sorry movie. i started to notice that 15 minutes into the movie . . the problem with it is that everything in the film is SOO UNORIGINAL(specially the dialog), and the only thing good about it is that its Lord of The Rings...the fighting scenes were so bad that i couldnt even see what the heck was happening and the enemies were so dumb and badly made, it added up to the whole dullness of the movie. and what happened with the christopher field music? the musics in the movie were BAD. hmmm, i think i figured out the overall mistake in LOTR....Peter Jackson.

but, DAMN IT i wanted to like this movie so much. a week before i saw it, i thought it was going to be THE movie. but SOO many people who've seen it in advanced screening told me that it was "THE BEST MOVIE", and that just made things worse. the only thing impressive about the movie was Liv Tyler

Ahh, i know what this movie reminds me of!! ...Episode 1

just as bad

oh and the scene with galadriel....blagh#%$^#

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: greenmode ]

[Jucas]

Green as you, I respect your opinion. But the way you desribe your Opinion is just that, an opinion. You don't base on anything other than what YOU like and what YOU don't like.

This is by no means a bad movie! Not at all. Perhaps you didn't like it, but I can't really get a read on why you didn't other than the "I just didn't like it" argument.

But what can I say, I loved the move alot, a whole lot. And as far as I'm concerned Lucas can Suck on his lightsaber.

Cheers,
Merry X-mas,
-jono

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Jucas ]

[christian cox]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_monkey:
i think i noticed a mistake....
sam says at one point "ive never gone this far before", but somehow later on route to bree he knows that the next bridge is exactly 12 miles away, and he is the one guiding the raft downstream. dosent that seem odd? or am i dumb.

---

Actually, I believe Merry was the one who said that the next crossing was 12 miles away, and was also guiding the raft downstream. But I could be mistaken.

[Jabberwocky]

I saw it again... yes three (3) times now. And I swear there's a stupid girl that goes to all of the showings and when it's over she says, "Is that it? What happens to the ring? It can't be over!"

This third time I turned around and said, "Hello there's 3 books, meaning 3 movies. If you want to know what happens to the ring go get yourself the books and read them."

Man people here are beyond stupid!

[travis travis]

saw it a couple days ago.

me and my party agreed that it starts off slow, gets you interested and into it late, then pulls... well, what the books pull. It's just that you really get introduced to the spirit of the quest late, and suddenly you are pumped for the movie to go on but it stops in a real abrupt and trilogy like manner... in other worlds... zilch is resolved. This may work with the books, but in the theater it's a pisser to have to wait two more years to see two more parts before the conclusion.

despite that, the movie is neato. It's missing a certain 'spirit' and certainly lax on making the characters connect with each other or us... but it's still quite watchable and packed with visual fun. the movie does lacks a certain 'bringing to life' if you will, the story for film and like others have mentioned it kind of just jumps to this incident and that from the book and doesn't feel like we are being brought into the world. I hope that diminshes with the sequels, as all that does start to fall off towards the end of this one.

I'd still rate it a 4 or maybe 5 out of 5 stars. It may not have personal moxy, but it's respectable work and worth seeing. It's like a Tolkien-inspired fantasy art calendar brought to life, more then the books, which is a neat thing in itself.

Also, I've been heard to sing a song about the Balrog... it goes something like... I love the Balrog, why does no one else care about the Balrog? la la la.

[Impaler]

Heh. Yeah. That part with Bilbo's face was extremely gay. *cracks up*

So was the part with Galadriel.. buahahahaahahaha. I think someone just taped Wacom pens to their ass and sat down on a tablet.

The movie was long and drawn out. It was interesting to watch.. but the tedium of the entire movie made it slightly maddening.It had little rhythm, I guess. Other than that, it was a great movie. The cinematography was sexy.

[sacrelicious]

RenaissanceGirl: Actually it's an elf named Glorfindel who gave Frodo a lift, and Elrond who flooded the river- Gandalf added tumbling boulders and made the water spray look like horses carrying soldiers.

[Bg]

I've seen it twice and the effect on the Galadriel scene was bad only because it went over her face, the colours on the face were great, but the blur over it made it look like some crappy Photoshop filter.

DO NOT READ THE TEXT BELOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE ME "SLIGHTLY" PISSED OFF

greenmode: You say: "everything in the movie is so unoriginal" can you give me some examples of what other movies/things it resembles? Say atleast ONE director who has camera movements of same quality? And the dialog, it's one of the most unique dialogues in the movie history. Or do you have some film dialogues in mind? When you say EVERYTHING you must have meant also the
looks of the film, it had very unique look in my opinion (the character design, the environment design, overall colour scheme, make-up...list goes on and on).. So what on Earth is original in your opinion??

"the fighting scenes were so bad that i couldnt even see what the heck was happening and the enemies were so dumb and badly made, it added up to the whole dullness of the movie." Hahaha, badly made enemies! How
can you call the realization of Sauron, Balrog, Cavetroll or any of the characters in the whole movie bad?? Think again and think hard: are you absolutely sure you have seen monsters made better in some other movie, please tell me if you have, because I would be happy to watch it!

"it added up to the whole dullness of the movie" Oh yeah, it must have been a very dull movie... hell NO!!

Here comes your best argument so far: "The fighting scenes were so bad that i couldnt even see what the heck was happening" There's indeed some people how can't see things as fast as the other people. I didn't have any problems following the fighting scenes and the feeling where weapons hit and where they didn't hit was great and even better than in Ridley Scott's movies (another director who has fast paced action). I guess you would've preferred the typical "ohh I can see 'em all fighting there. Just look at that soldier swing that orc over there, or the elf dying on the mountainside." -look where the camera is a couple of hundred meters above the battle field and you get nice overall picture of it all. The battle in LotR was in the point of view of an individual. It was supposed to be fast paced and hectic... if you have any kind of fighting experience at all, you should know what I'm talking about. All in all those were the best fighting scenes in history IMO. They carried the feeling of being there.

This really gets on my nerves:"I think i figured out the overall mistake in LOTR....Peter Jackson." How
dare you say something like that with zero arguments!!? I wonder if you even know what is the director's role in movie making..

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bg ]

[Wyatt Turner]

I have to agree with allot of what horstenpeter said,,, I and My wife saw it yesterday,, now my wife was itching and wiggling through out the movie,, she does that when she is board. We saw Crouching tire hidden stuff and she waited in the car for me.

I my self liked the movie as a whole,, but there were a few parts that got a little dull.. Maybe cause there were allot of action, fighting and what nots. we all did clap when that Orc dude lost his head.

My wife and I never have read the books,, she likes that sappy love stuff.. So she was wondering where the damn love story was gonna kick in. Well no love and War but we did agree that it was a fun movie,,

But this is kinda what I would expect too feel like after 3 hours..

My wife doesn't even know the difference between a human or elven or etc.. she had a hard time understanding it all.. she's not much of a Fantasy person neither am I,, But I do enjoy a good battle... I liked those big bad dudes. that was fun. But yes I feel there was allot of fighting going on.

Maybe I can get her too see the next one.. she was pissed at the end.

And my but started to hurt

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Wyatt Turner ]

[greenmode]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jucas:
Green as you, I respect your opinion. But the way you desribe your Opinion is just that, an opinion. You don't base on anything other than what YOU like and what YOU don't like.
[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Jucas ]

---

thats true, it was only an opinion. i actually found it hard to pick out anything from the movie in proving my opinion. i dont care, im not a film critique. your wondering why i didnt like it, and im still wondering why so many people are liking it. but maybe your right, maybe this wasnt a BAD movie, but EXTREMELY disappointing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bg:
can you give me some examples of what other movies/things it resembles? Say atleast ONE director who has camera movements of same quality?[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bg ]

---

i dont see anything unique about the "camera movements" in this film, therefore i cant think of anyother it ressembles. besides, do you know of any other directors that have the same "style" as Michael Bay. the same camera angle, lighting? no, but he still sucks. i have to agree that there were some cool camera shots, like at the begining were the scene swings over the war scene, and also the chasing scene with the horses, but nothing unique. and thats very little for a three hour movie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bg:
So what on Earth is original in your opinion??
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bg ]

---

original? well, just to name a few, i like the works of Andrei Tarkovsky, Akira Kurosawa,Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, (HaHa, i just noticed theyre all dead Steven Spielberg, the earlier works of Ridley Scott, etc...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bg:
I guess you would've preferred the typical "ohh I can see 'em all fighting there. Just look at that soldier swing that orc over there, or the elf dying on the mountainside." -look where the camera is a couple of hundred meters above the battle field and you get nice overall picture of it all.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bg ]

---

Exactly, there isnt anything Typical about that. i havent seen anything like that since "The Longest Day"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bg:
I didn't have any problems following the fighting scenes and the feeling where weapons hit and where they didn't hit was great and even better than in Ridley Scott's movies (another director who has fast paced action).
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bg ]

---

umm, im happy for you...

when you say Ridley Scott, im guessing you're talking about Gladiator. heh, this is where we find out that you and i have WAY different thoughts about whats good in a movie and what not. I thought Gladiator was a DISGUSTINGLY bad movie. Everything from the fight scenes( just as bad), "camera movements", Editing, CG effects.(and im not saying that any of us has a better vision of what a good movie is) Ridley Scott is a brilliant director. Bladerunner and Alien are both spectacular films. but thats only when he's in control of everything in his movies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bg:
The battle in LotR was in the point of view of an individual. It was supposed to be fast paced and hectic... if you have any kind of fighting experience at all, you should know what I'm talking about.
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bg ]

---

Why? and how does that make it interesting? why do i really want to see THISbattle in first person view?? ok, i really dont give a damn if it was meant to be "in the point of view of an individual." my problem was that it was edited badly. (if it was in the point of view of an individual, then why was it cutting 5 times every second?) , i can make battle scenes like that in my back yard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bg:
This really gets on my nerves:"I think i figured out the overall mistake in LOTR....Peter Jackson." How
dare you say something like that with zero arguments!!? I wonder if you even know what is the director's role in movie making..
[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bg ]

---

dont be enoyed by me. i hate ALOT of movies these days. heh, and i too get confused when someone tells me that he didnt like one of my favorite movies. i guess i went a bit too far by saying that. but i was really pissed that the movie wasnt what i was hoping it to be. im telling you, i was so excited before going to see the movie, i couldnt eat a thing.

[Jucas]

It is obvious that we all have differences in opinion. Whether or not you/me/them liked LOTR or did not, you cannot say it was a bad movie. Cause folks it wasn't. This was not a bad movie at all. In fact it was very well done. Everything in the LOTR is done to perfection in its own unique style (whether it suits your tastes is another argument). Depending on our personal tastes our opinions will effect our experience and opinion of the movie as a whole.

Green- seems to me you have good taste. Gladiator was mediocre, but not by fault of direction alone. Russel Crowe is an amazing actor and he did a wonderful job as Maximus, but unfortunitly he had nothing to work with. The direction, while not spectaculor, was solid. IMO the thing that hurt that movie was infact the core to every movie, the plot. There was simply nothing to it. And the fact that the script was horrible didn't help either.
On a second note Kurosawa rules.


Back to LOTR. The most common complant I have heard about the movie is that it was "disappointing" or just didn't live up to the books. In my humble opinion that is a cheap way out. It is not much better than saying "I just didn't like it."

I understand that Peter Jackson's LOTR had a tremedous amount to live up to, he was basing his movie of one of the most influential books of our time and my favorite books after all, he did an excellent job. Excellent.

The way Jackson invisioned Tolkein's work was simply put, masterful.

I'd like to have a little play, if you like about why you didn't like the movie. If you would be willing. I don't mean to change your opinion, I am curious however.

Cheers,
-j

[Muzman]

In a world where the populace generally pulls out the Shawshank Redemption as their most resonant film (ayi yie yie!) LotR deserves many high accolades. It deserves to spank Titanic for one thing.
Jackson has his own directorial style, even in the fight scenes. To dismiss it as just another fast edited sequence in the modern style is ignorance. Folks are allowed not to like it, mind. But that doesn't make it "the same" as the other stuff someone doesn't like. (maybe it's me, but I dunno a better way to do it other than back off in the old style and watch everything from a distance. *yawn* might as well be on stage).
Ridley Scott is a dodgy director who subordinates his characters to the vistas he makes. He would have done it to Alien as well if he had the money. They live and die by the writing and, as it stands, all but two die. Still, they're fun to watch.
LotR deserves big points for it's character and sweeping plot as well as everything else.
Most of the criticisms I hear about it are either from fantical book fans annoyed that it wasn't 15hrs worth of every word from the book or jaded film geeks upset that it wasn't Memento or something.
To both it must be said "No Shit! What the hell were you expecting?"
It's also one of the few films whose flaws (pacing; too many story details etc) make people want to see it again rather than say "well that sucked. What the hell was going on?". This bodes well for the demise of Titanic (yeah, I'm obsessed with that )

[Bg]

Greenmode:

I am not speaking about style I'm speaking about _quality_.. When Peter Jackson made Braindead (Dead/Alive) 10 years ago his compositions, lighting and camera movements were at least as good as Steven Spielberg's, now 10 years later even Ridley Scott goes pale in comparison with him, because he has developed as a director.. unlike Michael Bay, whom you mentioned. Ridley, (James) Cameron and Jackson could direct Pearl Harbour just like Michael did, but could Michael direct it like any of these three I mentioned? I say no, he's compositions are OK, timing is poor, he doesn't know how to make a scene so it doesn't take 10 million dollars (200 meters over battlefield scenes are expensive and shouldn't be used every 10 seconds..) lighting is that usual Hollywood stuff (key light, and a couple of fills), it's like some crappy TV series, and you call THAT original?

First you said LotR is unoriginal and now you are saying that Michael Bay is original.

I like Blade Runner, it had great visuals, but Gladiator had even better visuals (Ridley Scott has developed as a director in the last 20 years, too, and it shows). You said: "Gladiator was a DISGUSTINGLY bad movie. Everything from the fight scenes( just as bad), "camera movements", Editing, CG effects.(and im not saying that any of us has a better vision of what a good movie is)" Can you give me an example of bad CG effects? By saying the editing is bad are you referring to the whole movie or to the fight scenes? If you say the latter, I ask you to not generalize.

"original? well, just to name a few, i like the works of Andrei Tarkovsky, Akira Kurosawa,Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, (HaHa, i just noticed theyre all dead Steven Spielberg, the earlier works of Ridley Scott, etc..." You like those directors, but are they original? Tony Scott (Ridley's brother) makes movies almost the same way as Ridley does, True Romance, Blade Runner and Black Rain look like they're made by the same director... Ridley has stronger lighting (mood) and better compositions. But those are the biggest differences. So basically Ridley's not that original.

<QUOTE>"Why? and how does that make it interesting? why do i really want to see THISbattle in first person view?? ok, i really dont give a damn if it was meant to be "in the point of view of an individual." my problem was that it was edited badly. (if it was in the point of view of an individual, then why was it cutting 5 times every second?)"</QUOTE>
I personally wanted to see how they felt in different parts of their adventure, I didn't want to see a document, I wanted to see a movie and that's what I got, try to imagine how you would have felt in the fight if you were 3 feet tall hobbit and knew that you couldn't harm any of the enemies, but they could kill you in a blink of an eye. The editing was excellent in my opinion and I can understand your annoyance.. it would have been a much worse experience for me if there would have been slower cuts, but much better for you. You can't make everybody feel comfortable and unfortunately you are one of the unpleased this time..

[balistic]

My thoughts, after seeing it twice:

I thought certain sequences and scenes were very cool, and the acting was excellent. Some of the "actual" locales were very beautiful.

That said, the bulk of the movie left me wondering what the hell certain people were thinking. The fly-by establishing shots really started to bug me . . . how many times do we need to fly down the orc pit? I understand that they're in a pit, I don't need to soar down into it everytime something happens there, thanks.

The other main gripe I had was the abundance of cliche . . . I realize that Tolkein invented a lot of this stuff, but that doesn't make it not cheesy when an elf is kissing a ranger on a log by moonlight in front of a Thomas Kinkade painting with motherfucking Enya playing in the background.

Some of the effects were quite good, but some could've definitely been done better by Tippet's or Winston. I'm sure Weta will improve with the next film.

I liked it . . . it was good . . . but I think the "best movie evar" hyperbole being tossed around is more than a little generous.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: balistic ]

[sacrelicious]

Greenmode: I've heard it said that the fast cuts in the fight scenes are unfortunately necessary edits made to keep the film under an R rating, as in they cut away before major injury is depicted (except for a few occaisions such as the decapitated Moria goblin and Lurtz, the main Uruk-hai). If so, the supposedly rated-R DVD should have longer shots.

[elam]

This movie was just plain boring. Maybe I'm getting old or the quality of cinema is getting old, but either way, chalk this up as another unispiring movie offer.

There's no way you can cram those books into a three hour movie and get the same emotional response as you do with the books.
A mini-series maybe.

The best part, IMO, was seeing that ugly dude from the Matrix("Hello, Mr. Anderson.") in another movie.

I'm big on cinematography. I like innovative and original ideas, but this thing was soooooo traditional. Looked like it could have been made in the 70's.

Save yourself the $7.50 and read the books instead.

[burn0ut]

the set of books cost like 25bills hahah!!
damn i gota see the movie!!!!!!!

[vrap]

lol balistic

[Joachim]

Just saw the movie and I just really feel like telling someone (don't care who ), that I think this is one of the best movies I've seen in a loong time.
Great story, tension and atmosphere. And not to forget the amazing effects and beatiful filming !!! oH!

I've always thought peter jackson would become something big, since I kind of feel that every movie he has made has had something good, no matter what. And, that he pulled this movie of so well, even though the book probably had more expectant and critical nerds than star wars. -I think it's really admirable that he's managed to do it so well and artistic, and still gotten more or less only good critics... There will always be some dorks that thinks they know better though hehe

-I'm not even worried that the next movie will hold the same standard. I can hardly wait.

[XandGash]

Geez, Tolkien created most of those "cliche' scenes" that people are talking about. LotR is the proverbial fantasy film in its truest form. While I thought it was a bit choppy at parts(mostly due to time restraints), I felt that the overall feel of the movie was amazing. The horse riding, the fight scenes, all of it felt interesting. I can't believe that someone would say that those graphics weren't great. Balrog...outstanding, Gollum...great, Galadrel...uh, never mind. The wizard fight was cool. Every moment of this film made me feel like you were part of it. I saw it, thinking that I had never read the books, but then the bar scene felt like Deja Vu. I come to find out that I actually HAD read the books when I was real young, and that scene(among others) was so close to the way I had imagined it, that it brought back the memory of the scene in the book. That shows me that they tried really hard to make the movie look and feel as close to the book as possible, and succeeded in doing so. I'm gonna go see it again.

[Highfive]

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Highfive ]

[burn0ut]

just saw the movie today, i thought it was awesome!
sure they cant fit everything in there but damn i liked it for what it was!
but, i couldnt get a feel of how far they traveled in the movie, they could have done some indiana jones thing..

the fighting scene in moria gave me a headache, tho it was still pretty damn cool..
favorite scenes were prolly, arwen with frodo on the horse, and balrog of course ;D