Cool News
LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS Review
I once was on a film criticism panel with Harlan Ellison and someone from the audience in Atlanta asked us which we preferred writing… A positive review or a negative review. Harlan said that he loved writing negative reviews because after you say you love a movie, what else is there to say, whereas with a negative review you can make those bastards pay for every execrable moment that they made you suffer.
I took Harlan to task for that statement. I told him that if you love a movie, there’s a thousand things you can say about it, because if you love a film, there are reflections of your dreams, loves and soul. That you can spill everything in your heart that you’ve recognized in this work to paper and make others understand not only the film better, but what makes you tick. And if you can’t do that, then you’re a soulless son of a bitch!
Harlan deferred to me saying, “He’s right.”
I love these films. Not in that idle sort of, “Oh, I just loved it,” kind of way, but in that deep marrow of the bones type of love. Aching love, needy love, that roll around with a smile on your face, can’t wait to see it, be near it, just be close to it kind of obsessive love. I love FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE TWO TOWERS the way you can’t think of anything, but that object of your affection. It’s just sick how much I love these films. It is dangerous, it scares me, because I get the genuine sense of worry that I’ll never find films that I’ll love this intensely again.
You see, it isn’t that I love a part of, a piece of, moments of or segments of… I love the whole. Tuesday night, from 9pm till 3:30am Wednesday morning I was in Middle Earth loving the back to back joy of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE TWO TOWERS. It was heaven. Two gorgeous prints, a packed audience there to love the films and no worries. No responsibilities, no need to entertain anyone, no concerns or distractions… Just LORD OF THE RINGS.
As a child I was brought up in an indulgent realm of cinema love. I was brought up with the utmost reverence for Forrest Ackerman, Ray Bradbury and Ray Harryhausen. The first books I was drawn to were stories about THE CRUSADES, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Ivanhoe and of course The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In the pre-video world – the films on demand I would see would be 16mm, and they were the collections of my father and his friends… So I saw their favorite films over and over again. KING KONG, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, TREASURE OF SIERRE MADRE, EL CID, BEN HUR, FANTASIA, JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS, SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, SON OF FRANKENSTEIN, TARZAN AND HIS MATE and so on. These films are my cinema DNA. The films that created the odd quirks in me, that birthed my fetishes and passions for cinema. THE LORD OF THE RINGS has key aspects of all of those. You can feel those films’ influences in Peter Jackson’s epic if you know where to look.
Take Gollum. He has the sadness of Karloff’s Frankenstein Monster. That pitiable wash of sadness and melancholy of the living dead. Also look at Humphrey Bogart’s Fred C Dobbs. The maddening self-craze that he goes into regarding his own ‘preciousss’ – that same sweet/evil twist. Concern for what is right versus what is necessary versus what he needs. Also there’s that bit of Lugosi’s Ygor, the way he talks about himself in the third person, that evil twitch in the eye, the mad insane looks of mania. However… and this is the part that kills me… Gollum tops them all for me. Here’s this character that’s lived in the back of my head for 20 years as words on a page. I can see all these influences, but this is the superior character. The better story. The more iconic part. It is no wonder that I see these vintage influences to the way Gollum moves… aside from all the assertion that this is a 100% Andy Serkis performance… I know enough about hype to know that that is about AWARD positioning and not about reality. I’ve had long conversations with animators that were working on Gollum, their influences and when I see Peter Lorre or Humphrey Bogart or Charles Laughton or Bela Lugosi shining through in that performance, I know that isn’t just Andy Serkis up there… but a team of the finest artists in the world breathing life into something that is not any one person’s creation. What needs to happen with Gollum is a special award at this year’s Academy Awards. It is a milestone achievement in cinema. A marriage of special effects and performance that is so much more important than just a supporting actor award. There’s seven years of work in that character and an entire history of cinema behind that. This goes back to Lon Chaney and Gertie the Dinosaur. This isn’t just a highlight of 2002, this is history. Motion picture history.
Film history. It is something lost on many people. This grand epic – this is the first film of the modern age that dares to dream a DeMille dream… a D.W. Griffith dream… a Kurosawa dream. This is film ripped straight out of the biggest sorts of dreams, the ones grander than any reality we could ever hope to offer in the mediocre age of modern man, this is ancient grandeur and splendor. These are stories being told for this age and beyond. Plucked straight from the crazed wonderful mind of a Kiwi that didn’t know better than to try to tell the impossible on the screen. And I love it. Love it through and through. I see it, I recognize it for what it is. I know these films will live far beyond any award race we see today. Past the cynicism of the naysayers. These movies will permeate tomorrow’s consciousness and become a part of the best history of cinema, the films that live forever.
Last year at Butt-Numb-A-Thon a little person by the name of Clarence Swenson came at my request to talk about his part in the making of THE TERROR OF TINY TOWN, a movie cast entirely of small folks playing out a story of the old west. Clarence had been a part of 3 films. THE TERROR OF TINY TOWN, TARZAN ESCAPES and THE WIZARD OF OZ. In regards to the OZ he was asked what it was like to be a part of cinema history. He told us that he is in his eighties, that he will die. His children will die, their children will die. His name will be forgotten, but the WIZARD OF OZ will live for all times. It is something bigger than the individuals that made it. And that being a part of it, is to be immortal.
That’s what is awaiting those that made THE LORD OF THE RINGS… immortality. These are films that will be revisited time and time again. Are they the best films of all time? Yes, No, Maybe - that’s for each of us to weigh and say, but for me it is enough that they are amongst my favorites.
That this new film has given me such wondrous dreams since I’ve seen it. That I’ve seen Frazetta’s primal majesty given motion in the wonder of Weta’s Uruk Hais and the charge of the Rohan. That I’ve seen Yakima Kanut’s Running W given new digital life without the death or dismemberment of a single horse or warg is comforting.
In terms of adaptation, I’ve begun to notice something very similar to what Peter Jackson was doing in his KING KONG adaptation… He’s choosing to take a couple of left turns instead of rights, before getting back to the path we know. In breathing cinematic life to a story that is known and cherished chapter and verse in many homes, there’s a danger of just going through the motions. I love the Warg battle – to me, it is exactly like the brontosaurus stampede in Peter’s unfilmed KING KONG – one of those “Oh Bloody Hell, What if this had happened!” moments. The Aragorn fall… I love it because it gives rise to those moments with Gimli and Legolas. To Gimli’s “luck” assertion. I love it because it strengthened the bond between the three even further than being the three hunters, the remainder of the Fellowship.
I love the arrival of the Elves profoundly. I don’t know why, but their arrival produces tears… I think it was out of relief, the reprieve. But then in the realization of the battle, all the Elves did was buy them the dawn. That horse charge of Theoden and Aragorn – desperate, determined and hopeless… It reminded me of “the ride into legend” from EL CID… and when Eomer pulls his sword and the rest of the Rohan join him and Gandalf and they begin riding down that pass… as the sun rises against their backs blinding the Uruk Hai before them and they ride straight into the belly of hell – It was like some living Renaissancian fresco about the Arch Angel slaying demons. I was just blown asunder.
The pacing of the three stories – the fact that while the Fellowship is parted, their fates are intertwined. That the despair is shared, the losses felt and the triumphs conjoined. Their fates are linked, as is the future of these people as a whole.
The best character work going on in TWO TOWERS circles about the Hobbits. Their stories may not have the showy grandeur that Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas’ have, but they are growing the most. The 3 warriors are in their element, they are born native to the battle, but these Hobbits… They’re a different breed. In this film they take great leaps in character. Pippin finally realizes what is at stake – his path in the next film will become epic. Sam is beginning to take center stage and I’m delighted. Sam and Smeagol’s discussion about the preparation of dead rabbits for consumption is perhaps my favorite scene I’ve seen this year. I just adore it.
Last film, I went into what it is like to see scenes that I was there for the filming, come to life on such a grand scale and I can say again… it is the greatest waking dream of a life once lived that I’ve ever had. There’s a bit of Dorothy Gale to it all… it was a really true place, honest and he was there and you and you, but it was different, wonderful. I saw Gandalf die and be reborn. I walked in Fangorn Forrest and came to meet Treebeard. I walked amongst the shards of the broken door of Helm’s Deep and I was there in the cave with Frodo and Sam as ‘guests’ of Faramir. How does that affect my viewing? It means if I get drunk or take drugs and watch this film, my ability to separate reality from fantasy is highly confused. Otherwise, it just makes pieces more familiar than others. The interesting thing is that Fangorn Forrest was 12 feet from the snow that Gandalf died in. Interesting, eh?
I’m going to wrap this up for now… I’ve still only seen it once, and I must see it many more times. I find it difficult to talk about TWO TOWERS without FELLOWSHIP, because truthfully I saw them together and they are still but two thirds of the grandest movie ever shot, to be completed next December.
Hopefully, I’ll be able to see the film again this weekend… if seats permit.
-
+ Expand All
-
For perhaps the first time ever, I agree with every single word of Harry's review. These films are the very definition of the term "instant classic."
-
These movies are considerably better if you're stoned out of your mind while watching them. Seriously. They're like the ultimate hesher movies. Enough sherm in you and you'll want to dress like Aragorn, too. And all of a sudden the cheesy stuff works.
-
I found myself falling asleep while watching it, and walked out VERY disappointed, for three main reasons, all of which were the exact same thing I was very suspicious of every time I had seen any pictures or trailers for it: 1) Very Dull and Dreary settings this time out, 2) A very recycled and poor score, 3) And mainly, Structure: Too much action, not enough intimacy with characters. When the characters were not wandering aimlessly in what looked like volcanic mountains, marshes, or depressing Kansas plains, they were in a too-Earth bound medieval castle that could have been the set from a Xena: Warrior Princess episode. I know the landscapes are exactly as they are described in the book, however, it is not "what" in filmmaking, but "how". As the lands are portrayed this time around, they serve only to put you to sleep. Plus, the castle was too medieval European to work for Middle Earth. Even though many things in Fellowship of the Ring are things or structures we have in our real world, the way they were rendered in that film gave them a unique, fresh, awe-inspiring feeling, unlike this time out. One may argue, "But that land and castle were the human areas, that is why they look too familiar." To which I would counter, "Well if you are pulling from medieval Earth, why limit it to English/European only? Why not mix it with Asiatic/South American/Indian culture as well, so that it would be a familar yet very new looking take? It would be unique to Middle-Earth, but very representative of humankind at that level of civilization. And not only did we have to watch 40 min. of preparation for the big battle, we then had to sit through 40 min. of the actual thing, with so much hacking and slashing it melodically set a tune to sleep to! The Battle at Helm's Deep I have seen before: It was the long-ass 40 min. castle siege from the Messenger: Joan of Arc, and it was just as boring there. Too much clutter on screen can actually distance you from the characters and events. Gollum was pretty good. I thought he was a little overused, not mysterious enough. Plus he was lacking the green-tintng to his skin we have all been used to forever, including on Fellowship of the Ring. But despite his cartoony Max Fleischer eyes, he is the best CG character yet in cinema. Treebeard was pretty good as well, but the Ents in general looked too CG. They should have used puppets there. And what character-driven scenes there were present, were mishandled. Namely, the Merry & Pippin in the forest scenes were essentially a single scene or two (a single chapter in the book), stretched out to infinity, as it was cross-cut into the whole length of the movie, when it should have merely came up front of the film all at once. I realize that the event was handled that way in order to keep Merry & Pippin's presence strong throughout the film, but it got tedious going back to such a simple scene over and over until the end. Every time it cut back to them, particularly in the latter half, the whole narrative thrust was lurched to a halt. And as for other character-lacking, Gandalf stood around smug in his power, with none of the humanlike warmth from before. He was much too distant and one-dimensional. Kind of like Superman: If a character is suddenly too powerful, they become boring. Back when Peter Jackson was told he could only make the trilogy of novels into two films only, fans were upset. However, I feel that missing this second act would not matter at all. There was nothing of note that occurred in this film other than the big battle, and that could have well been told in summary during the first ten minutes of Return of the King. Remember how effortlessly and economical the opening narration to the Fellowship of the Ring was? Well, everything of note in Two Towers could have served as a great opening to the next one as well. Even though a big battle is a major thing, it is usually better not to actually see the tedium involved. Reservoir Dogs is a jewel-heist movie in which you never even see the heist. That is why I am so glad to know that Lucas will not show us more than a glimmer of the Clone Wars on film. A lot of people will be upset thinking they get to see a whole Clone War movie next time around, but instead it will just be the ending. We do not need to know the details, just the results. Cause and effect are the points. The transformation between the two is usually boring. Fellowship was all building up and driving towards something big. Same thing applies with A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, or with the Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. The building tension is great. Seeing it expelled is not, unless it is the end act, the money shot, where we know it is coming to a close. Do not get me wrong. I think it is a good movie technically and faithfully to the novel, but it really bothers me to the point that I do not really want to watch it again soon. I will give it another chance however. When I first watched Fellowship of the Ring, I thought it was good, but not glorious. However, once I watched the new extended version of it, I fell in love with the film, and cannot get enough of it now. Maybe the same thing will happen when I see a different cut of the Two Towers. It is hard to assess structure of a film when it is an adaptation of a novel. I know it was tremendously faithful to the novel, and it should recive praise for that. Like I said, I am sure I will like the film much more as an extended version, and will definitely like it a lot when it is put together with the other two films as one giant 10 1/2 hour movie. Yes, it is only a section of one story, but since that one section was all that was shown as a movie unto itself, then I had to judge gut reaction to what I saw and heard. All I know is that I walked out with one of the biggest feelings of disappointment I have ever experienced after a movie, based upon my expectations for it. I do not mean that the events in the story were unimportant to the whole, I just meant that the battle at Helm's Deep could have been summarised MUCH quicker than it played out. No matter how technically good the film is, I do not see why it had to be dragged out so long. Yes, as I said before, Gollum was very good. In addition to Yoda in Episode II, I think he was the most near-flawless CG character ever. I know I sounded like I hate it, but in actuality I was just majorly disappointed. Not because of story, but in HOW the story was executed. As for the European slant on Gondor, I know all about Tolkien as the Anglo Philologist. I have read biographies of him, and know the sources he drew upon. I just feel that in the area of the castle, visually it was a little too ordinary to match the grandeur contained in Fellowship. My criticisms are directed at one section of one long story, as it stands alone. As it stands by itself, I do not think it makes a good movie. But within the course of all three films it will play out absolutely wonderfully. All I know is that I do need to see it again.
-
Somewhere during the endless SW/LOTR debates, the fact that the Lord of the Rings movies are pure, great cinema was lost. It took a few viewings of both Ep2 and FOTR to finally realize just how incredibly human the LOTR story is. There are precious few other movies that make you care as much for the characters. And that's all I have to say about that.
-
I like Harry's reviews. I know some people are always attacking him and stuff, but personally i think that the way he reviews is why i keep coming to this site. And Moriarty's reviews too, of course. Can't wait to see this!!! I have to wait till January 2nd...
-
I agree completely. You put into words for me what I was unable to place into words just the other night. Before I saw these I wanted to be a film director, but it wasn't a very definate lifetime commitment. Now I know that I want to make movies, if only to get the chance to make something half as good or even less than these simply to say that Lord of the Rings made me want to make movies. That's what this is to me, this is the fulfilment of a dream in so many ways.
And Gollum needs to get SOME kind of bloody recognition, but knowing the Acadamy, it's "Fantasy" and therefore "not worthy of recognition."
i hate the crummy acadamy bastards, but if gollum gets smething, then ill be happy. -
Dec 19, 2002 9:03:09 PM CST
No film is perfect, but at least this one has its perfect moment
by wasp
I need to see it many more times, but methinks it shall be quite a while before I see a film with a shot that matches the beauty and profound sadness of Arwen by the grave of Aragorn.
-
I was amazed at how they took such a dispicable charachter and made me care about him and want to like him by the end of the movie. Great Flick.
-
I read a long time ago the supposedly "greatest b movie of all time" was to be released opposite Lord of the Rings 2. I guess they scared the zombie folks into the summer, lol. I hear they open the weekend of July 12th now, starring the great Joe Estevez (not to mention Lloyd Kaufman, JR Bookwalter, Linnea Quigley, Julie Strain...)
-
First,I like how we are brought right back into story.Its at that point we are brought back to one of the most emotional parts of FOTR,Gandalf battling the Balrog.It was like I was in the same theater at the end of FOTR.From there I was taken into Middle-earth again.I will not comment on everyone's performance,which I feel all the actors nailed(yes even Farimir) but there was one thing I did not expect,my emotions for Gollum.I never thought that I could be so ridden with repulsion, and then pity on him.There were several moments where I hated him and then in almost the same moment have the utmost compassion for this creature.It left me almost sick.There was a moment of horror too,not when Gollum attacked,but when Frodo looks at Gollum as a mirror in himself,that stopped my heart.It also made me think,it can happen to anyone,it could happen to me.Helm's Deep,if there has ever been a more jaw-dropping scene in a film,I don't recall it.I found myself wanting to grab a broadsword and start to slay as many Uruk-hai as I could before I died.I have to see it again.
-
Having just read Harry's review, I can't agree more that these have been two of the best films I've had the pleasure to watch. I'm a huge fan of the books - in my opinion the best story ever told - and don't have a major problem with soem of the liberties Peter Jackson has taken with the story. The main point to me is that he's captured the essence of Middle Earth on screen and given life to characters many of us have loved for years. I remember back to my first theater viewing of the Fellowship. I came out of the theater feeling immensely satisfied with what I saw. I may not have had the wonder associated with seeing a completely original work, but nevertheless knew I had witnessed something special. Middle Earth was there to be seen on the screen. I took the time to re-read the trilogy between my 2nd and 3rd theater viewings of Fellowship and then truly realized just how well the story had been transferred to film. TTT was my favorite of the 3 books and I was not disappointed with the film in any major way. I only hope that some of the scenes from the final chapters make it into the opening portion of ROTK. I'll be back for a second look tomorrow and am just as excited as I was Wednesday afternoon for the first. Kudos to Peter Jackson and the whole crew.
-
Saw it midnight Tuesday, loved it immensely, seeing it again tomorrow. I don't know if anyone else felt this way, but with Fellowship, when it was over I couldn't wait to see the next one, but with Two Towers, when it was over I couldn't wait to see Two Towers again. That's a very good thing.
-
These movies have become a part of my life now. I saw TTT over 24 hours ago, and since then I haven't thought of anything else. I see myself 20 years from now making my kids sit down and watch these movies with me, and then disowning them if they dont like it. I'll compare my movie going days to the night I saw the Two Towers. I love these movies. Like you said Harry, to the marrow of my bones type of love.
-
Just saw the flick today. Yeah it's really good and all, best CG work ever. Gollum makes Jar Jar look like a little bitch. But do you think Mr Jackson could stop using that same old editing sequence....... Oh no! he's been hit! Is he dead? OK, drop the natural sound, music up, slow motion, cut to reaction shot, continue music. More reaction shots, more slow motion....... wait! ..........Maybe he's not dead!........ and... nat sound up, bring the music down, end of slow motion.. It's getting very old. Between these two films this happens about six times. As much as i loved the film I really can't stand that technique. Next film I want to see a significant character die, fast cold and hard. No weepy music, no slow motion. But then again, who am I to say, I'm probably more of a bitch than Jar Jar.
-
Spoilers. What I hated (in no particular order) #1 CGI Gollum is indeed the best CGI ever however he still looked like Ren from Ren and Stimpy as Smeagol and then a pissed off Yoda as Gollum. He looked best with Frodo and Sam and worst with Faramir's men. #2 Treebeard sounded waayyyy too much like Gimli #3 Are we really to believe that 200 non-soldiers plus a squadron of elves held off 10K Uruk-Hai? #4 The Nazgul on the singed fell beasts looked a little "blue-screeny" #5 Why did the old guy fire first? If any Uruk Hai were in firing range wouldn't Legolas have let them have it just to decrease the numbers? #6 Sam's ending speech-he might as well have held up a sign that said "ending goes here" FOTR's ending was bad too. #7 The flashbacks in the beginning. The alternative angles were great but to use the exact same footage is just way too "t.v." a stunt to pull. I mean ESB didn't need no stinkin' flashbacks. #8 The score just wasn't as bold, memorable and melodic as FOTR #9 Gondor was the least fully realized of all the locations so far (Rivendell, Shire etc.) #10 The Wizard of Oz shot when Sam adn Frodo were about to sneak in to the open Mordor Gate with the Southern Men. I have expected them to be singing "Oh we owe...the old one." OK What I loved #1 The scenes with Merry and Pippin and the Orcs. It was great to see the orcs speak (south London?) and interract. In fact this so fascinated me that when they later show the orcs on top of the gates of Mordor chatting I was wondering what they were saying. Much better than the faceless helmeted drones that usually just serve to get easilly killed. #2 Brad Dourif's tear as Wormtongue first sees Saruman's army #3 Gimli's comic relief handled much better this film #4 Legolas' kick ass horse-mounting #5 The Warg battle #6 The crazed look in the eye of the Uruk Hai who had the Uruk next to him get killed at Helm;s Deep. #7 When Frodo and Sam were about to sneak in the gate of Mordor. THey were actually about to try to sneak across a wide open plain and were only stopped by Gollum. I was right there with Gollum pulling them back thinking to myself, "are you guys fucking nuts? you'll get caught!" This really illustrated the futility of their task and their bravery to me. #8 Andy Serkis performance truly deserves an Oscar nod #9 When Elrond shows Arwen what her life will be with and post Aragorn was handled beautifully #10 The Ents destroying Eisengard was worth the wait. Only 51 more weeks to ROTK!!!
-
Definatly one of the top 5 movies ive ever seen and the other is FOTR. The Two Towers is a specticle of imagination and vast creativity by Team Weta and Peter Jackson & Co. Some might talk down on the movie..they have their own oppinions..but the affect LOTR has on people is spellbinding. Watching the crowds in the Theater cheer for their favorite characters...just like they did in FOTR. Arwen I thought was perfectly added in. The back romance was "Definately" needed to get the idea that Aragorn really has to fight for the hand of Arwen..specially when their love is so great. Eowyn a constant pull on his heart because he finds such a strong and beautiful woman..one that does not sit by and let shit happen. She wants to fight..she wants to join the men..she does not want to be locked up. Aragorn sees this life in her..this passion and it excites him..Gimli was funny as hell and I dont think he over did it. He's playing the perfect quarky dwarf that im accustomed to play in RPG games when im playing a dwarf. I act the same way when I play games. I hope this movie lives on and only gets better with ROTK..Cause its reached the pinnicle beyond any Fantasy movie of all time!
-
YES!
-
Absolutely one of the best I've read on here in a long time. I'm still trying to digest the whole film, its so much to take in at once. I walked away really liking it, but with a few problems (mostly nitpicks). But the more time that passes, the more I'm loving it, and the less those problems bother me. I'm sure once I see it again, those nitpicks won't phase me and I'll fall head over heals in love. Hell, I think I am already. God what a movie all three parts will make!
-
Doesn't get the average cinema-goer the fact that Smeagol/Gollum is NOT meant to be a goofy, comic relief character???? WTF did these idiots come to see TTT just to love at every heart-breaking scene involving this terrific creature? Is schizophrenia, the struggle with the own soul, such a funny thing? I don't know... but I know for sure that all you out there who love the books and the films as I do will understand me. When I saw TTT, not only Gollum's incredible performace was making me cry... but also the stupidity and ignorance of the biggest part of the audience. Why can't EVERYBODY see the magic on the big screen? Sad...
-
Embarassing... but I am in such a rage. Dammit!
-
These are films made by fans for fans. Nothing that the naysayers bring up can ruin the splendor of these movies. Bravo to Harry for caring so damn much, and for not being afraid to. These stories will live in the hearts of the fans all our lives. Thank you Peter Jackson for doing justice to such an incredible world.
-
Didn't you mean execrable (adj.--
Deserving of execration; hateful. Extremely inferior; very bad: an execrable meal.)
rather than excretable?
Thanks. -
Thank god they dropped the tagline, "You will find adventure, or adventure will find you." Yeah that's kinda old, but for some reason I just remembered it, and how incredibly cheesy that sounds. That would of been the worst tagline of all time.
-
I'll try to make this as quick as possible. I know I've rambled somewhat in my last few posts. First off, I give this movie ***1/2 out of ****. I rate Fellowship as **** though. Now here's some of the reasons why. I don't at all claim to be a purist of the books. In fact when I've read them I have a tendency to skim through longer passages of back story. That being said, certain changes from the book really bothered me. First of all, the ending. Cinematically, I love the ending. The exact same as Fellowship: The kind to piss off the viewer who doesn't understand this is a continued work. That I like. What I don't like is that Shelob is moved to the next book. I don't like that Gandalf/Aragorn et al don't make it to Isengard. The part about that particular change that bothers me most is Merry & Pippin are never reunited with the rest of them. I found their scenes to be weaker than a lot of others. It also doesn't help that Treebeard sounds much too similar to Gimli. I guess this means Saruman returns, as they're not doing the Scouring of the Shire apparently. But I regretted that we didn't get to see more of the White Wizard. His lines mainly seemed to be wielding menace and rousing his Uruks. We still never find out the real reason why he betrays the side of good. In the books, it was because he wanted the ring for his own. I know they changed that in Fellowship, but his character seems to lack motivation in this movie. Now all he's left to do is be outworded by Gandalf at the beginning of the next movie. The Faramir scenes bothered me. He didn't give in to temptation really at all in the book. In the movie he's talked out of it simply because Sam tells him of Boromir's fate (by the way I really missed Sean Bean. Couldn't he have played Faramir too?). It seems like they just haven't found his character arc as of yet. I suppose that they had to show him giving into some temptation just to separate his morals from Aragorn's. I guess that since Aragorn is the destined king, he must stand above all other men in every possible way. I hope they do find Faramir's character better in ROTK, as I know he ends up with (spoiler for those who've never read) Eowyn when the war ends. I thought taking the action to Osgiliath was unnecessary, as was having Frodo face off with the winged Nazgul. Their presence alone, flying over the Hobbits' road, should have been enough. Now I feel these are all little quibbles, but by adding them all up, I feel it detracts from the overall effect of the film. One last thing, I really just missed that warm, group feeling of Fellowship, but I also chalk that up to being the second, darker act. Also, again, I would have preferred the Shelob/Cirith Ungol ending to this movie, as it would have left a nice tidy cliffhanger just like Empire. We all would have wondered what Frodo's fate was now, and what Sam needed to do. Now all of the good: Believe all of the hype of Gollum. My feeling of the character always was the Rankin/Bass creation. Green, little & few teeth, emaciated, raspy voice, totally evil. As much as I loved that character, mainly due to the voice work by Brother Theodore, I loved this creation. You do loathe and pity him at the same time. The arguing with himself scene is great. I liked the one with Dafoe in Spiderman, but I liked this one better. I think that was due to the background. In Gollum form, you see the hobbits in the background, just beyond him, as if he's ready to spring out at them and take back his precious. In Smeagol form, you see nothing but the wilderness. To me that's the uncertainty being faced by all 3 characters at that point. What lies ahead? Gollum was a remarkable piece of work, and more than anything else, what I was most waiting for in the entire trilogy. The Battle of Helm's Deep is great. Maybe not quite what I pictured, mainly because I've played those levels of the video game too much, but spectacular nonetheless. They just keep fighting back and forth. They also did a decent job of putting faces to the men of Rohan. They accurately show how they are afraid and fighting for their homes at the same time. Theoden and Eowyn are great characters. I really like Bernard Hill, and was more impressed with the makeup job to show his difference. Miranda Otto is very beautiful and deserves to be seen in some mainstream U.S. stuff now. She handled Eowyn's role very well, ever loyal, yet itching for the chance to prove her worth. The other actors are good. Ian McKellen isn't quite as imposing as in Fellowship, and the character a little too one-dimensional and know-it-all-ish, but that's kind of the point of the character now. Pippin's turn in realizing the threat to his home despite it being so far away is well done. Sam was much better done, and I liked his speech at the end. He is now serving as the compass for Frodo. At that point of the film, Frodo is giving into the evil of the ring. Sam brings him back from that. He rescues Frodo from temptation. I think Sean Astin has Sam nailed. Elijah Wood has the hardest role. You really believe his inner struggles. He is despairing, he doesn't know how to get into Mordor, let along Mount Doom, yet he is still trying to bring back the good of Gollum. Overall the way it ended definitely made me wanting more. I saw the film with my Dad, and the first thing he said at the end was, "And now we have to wait a whole year." I agree. Damn it if this movie didn't make me want to see ROTK right now. I'm upset that I'll have to wait almost 2 years for all of the movies to all be out on theatrical and extended DVDs. That upsets me. So, like I said, ***1/2. Hopefully some Oscars. I'm sure I'll still prefer this to a lot of other Oscar contenders. I haven't seen any of them, unless you count Minority Report, and I probably won't be able to see them. I'd like to see About Schmidt and Adaptation, but Gangs of New York and especially Chicago both look really stupid to me. I'm sorry, but what's the point of Gangs of New York? I don't find the story all that interesting looking. And don't get me started on a musical about female murderers. Thelma & Louise singing and dancing. Ugh. Count me out. Anyway, back to Two Towers. Great piece of filmmaking. The scenery is great, despite what some would say. It is depressing compared with the first, but that's the point. The tone is darker, the hobbits are out of their comfortable surroundings. The brown terrain and barren rocks, and especially the dead marshes, reflect all of this. So again, the ending disappointed me in the sense of how it was altered, and some of the characterizations could have been improved. But it's still worth seeing again and again. Now with my hectic retail schedule between now and Xmas, I have to figure out when I can see it again. Probably Xmas night. OK, I lied. This was waaaaay too long a post. Sorry. Go see the movie if you haven't seen it.
-
good review.
shit damn the tension iis kiiling mee...
why cant I stay away from TTT related news? Why does it sit like corkscrew bacteria inside my head, drilling further and further into the depths of my subconscience? 13th street UA NYC! @ 8:00! see ya there! -
...because Two Towers was half a movie without it. The most developed character was Golum. The rest was a long buildup to the final battle which was strong effects shots, weakened by shitty shakey cam Closeup shots. 8 out of 10.
-
Dec 19, 2002 10:33:23 PM CST
Elves at Helm's Deep, Aragorn's "death", Faramir, Frodo and Sam
by atticus finch
PJ dropped the ball on each and every one of these. Oh, and as for Harry's "review", who didn't see this coming the day the LOTR banners showed up on the AICN home page?
-
Dec 19, 2002 10:35:09 PM CST
Harry, you will see a movie that would make you as excited as th
by the_one000
The movie will be Saint Seiya
-
Dec 19, 2002 10:37:58 PM CST
it is sad that nowadays a "good movie" is defined by how "real"
by shumway718
First off let me say I loved this movie. Period. How can people watch this film and pick it apart because of flaws in the effects. the first time you saw Raiders of the Lost Ark did you say "That guys face melting looked really fake." The shark in jaws has never looked real to me, but that movie created a fear in so many people that still exists today. The fx in a movie are simply a tool to help convey a story. As far as the story following the book I guess it is going to upset purists but I enjoyed it nonetheless. A book is meant to be read, movies cannot capture the feel of a book. Ever. So what Mr. Jackson gets paid for is to take his interpretation and try to bring it to motion pictures. I for one am happy with his vision, he might have left out what some people consider important parts but he did not butcher Prof. Tolkiens tale. All in all good review, I wish people could lose their cynacism and just enjoy a movie once in while, but I guess Fanboys will be Fanboys.
-
Stop blowing Jackson, this was a disappointment with many flaws. BOOYA!
-
the only thing i'm terribly missing from the 2 towers is sean bean. But Gollum somehow compensates boromir's absence. Gollum was fascinating to watch,He looked real (not always, but for the most part).and serkis'acting was great. for me TTT is an exellent continuation of the fotr....and i'm sure that return of the king is going to be a crowning achievement...
-
It sounds like people don't like it as much as the first one. I'm really really looking forward to seeing Gollum, I have avoided all pictures of him. I'm seeing it tomorrow and can't wait. As far as the effects, from the trailers and commercials the wargs do look pretty bad. I haven't seen enough of the ents to decide though.
-
I dont agree with you often but damn, you wrote exactly what I've been feeling this time. Some of the most breathtaking scenes in film history are in this film. I loved PJ's tribute to Kubrick with the travel through time and space. Everything just worked so well.
-
There are only two types of people who watch LOTR. Those who don't like it, and those who get it. People go in with all these expectations ("it's gotta be a certain way," "I won't like it," etc.). Harry understands #1: All three of these are one huge movie. You can't say that one segment is better or inferior because it has or lacks something the other has. We are forced to see it piecemeal until the RotK DVD comes out, but we should take the epic, and the film-making (which is no less epic) as a whole, and compare it to most other movies out there today that aren't in any way a labor of love and passion. #2: There are certain movies that are meant to be cinematic experiences, and if you allow yourself to simply submerge yourself into the world presented you, you will not get it. Thanks, Harry - this type of reviewing is what keeps me coming back. Why aren't you on Metacritic?!
-
Dec 19, 2002 11:01:45 PM CST
The last 4 weeks of 2002 are redeeming an entire film year.
by stifler's mom
Two Towers, Gangs, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Adaptation.... some very good movies are beginning to erase memories of XXX. Bring on 2003 and Hulk, Kill Bill, Grace and the Storm, Return of the King...
-
Did everyone forget about the asskissing people did on the work of Rob Coleman and Frank Oz for Yoda in Attack of the Clones.
Now everyone jumps on the Gollum bandwagon as if the Yoda peformance was a shitty as computer effect you'd see on a Sci-Fi channel original series.
Gollum was good, but Yoda was done much more subtle and better that way.
I think these are alright movies. I want to like them so bad, but i just can't connect. I'm there with the tons of freaks and junkies at the midnight shows, but I still can't connect. I just think they are alight. 3 star movies.
Lets just not all forget about Yoda, cause it seems we all have. -
I believe you mean execrable.
-
but I didn't love it. Does that make me a moron? Why oh why Lord can't I have the same reaction as Harry and Mori??
That said, this is still grand entertainment of a kind we rarely see. And Gangs of New York is gonna be better. Me Hopes.
P.S Why can't Star Wars Ep.1,2 be half as good as LOTS? -
i agree 2003 has one badass slate but lets not overlook the MATRIX sequels!! any year that brings not one but TWO MATRIXES is a landmark year for asskicking!! ive seen ten minutes of GRACE AND THE STORM at the NYFF and WOW!! now if anybody could send me the KILL BILL trailer-
-
Gollum is a very accomplished character, but Episode 2 is truly awe-inspiring in terms of creatures and effects... I hate to be one of those Talkbackers endlessly comparing the very different series, but Clones runs away with the FX prizes. Star Wars has been around 25 years so, ironically, nobody gets surprised when Lucas breaks new ground anymore. Evolution, I think I saw the same 10 minutes of GRACE AND THE STORM, Pipe finding the druggie while he's peaking- AWESOME.
-
I woould in no way say that TTT is a perfect movie, but then again what is? I wonder what you think of old films some people consider classic? Effects do not make the film or "remove me from the fictional dream...". What the fx do is help me try to see the scope of the creators imagination, the concept even. Someones imagination will always top any effects that technology can muster, that is why books are so powerful. As far as the "soul" that you say it is missing I think that FoTR was mainly character development because the next two have so much going on and so many characters that as a director he had to shortchange something even for a 3 hour movie. No one seems to take into consideration the magnitude of what Peter Jackson tried to do, or did depending on your opinion. This story is epic, I cannot fathom on where he began as far as trying to adapt it to motion.
-
Moosehead1867, Kubrick?? WTF????
and about Yoda, i think yoda was done really good but Gollum had a better performance . -
Because of work, school, family, and traveling, I woll not get to see this until next week. I loved the review, and I can not wait to lose myself in middle-earth.
-
He would.
-
Its true. Its damn true.
-
maybe I saw a different film..are you guys really talking about aotc?
-
Dec 19, 2002 11:35:39 PM CST
This review reminds me of fricking Dennis Miller monologue......
by retrace
I don't get most of the comparisons, but it sounded fucking good. I need to see the movie again - the first time some jackass with a leather jacket that smelled like an ashtray with bits of bison ass in it sat next to me right when the movie started. fuckhole. Initial reaction - visually it was better that FOTR - emotionally it was not. I missed Hobbiton and Gandalf the Grey. And no I'm not gay.
-
The only way this could be better would be if PJ was making 6 movies out of the books instead of just 3. All of them 3 hours long. The more time we have in Middle Earth the better. I want the 4 1/2 first cut of FOTR. PLEASE let there be another special extended super duper version that has the whole cut. MORE MORE MORE. Friends, (and trolls) this is a good time to be a geek. Thank you Peter Jackson. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.
-
I haven't seen TTT yet, but I agree with some of the effects issues people are having just based on the shots I've seen. To me Yoda was 100% convincing. The only effect in AOTC that I thought looked completely fake was when C-3PO is in the droid factory and is being carried by that flying robot thing. The rest of the movie looked really good to downright unbelievable. By far the best effects I've seen, but that's my opinion. The only effect in FOTR that was anything less than amazing to me was the cave troll, but even then he was acceptable, if not believable.
-
I remember that when i saw AOTC, most people in the theater were laughing (yes, laughing) when Yoda started "spinning" in his fight with Dooku. Don't get me wrong, i liked that movie ok, but it sure as hell doesn't compare to LOTR or the original trilogy. Anyway, why are we talking about this? Wasn't this supposed to be about TTT? I'm sure Gollum, as everybody who has seen the movie has said, is amazing. He's even getting Oscar buzz, although i don't think he'll win anything, the academy just doesn't have the balls. I have to wait till January 2nd!!! Damn it...
-
There was a shot where gandalf was recounting his fight with the balrog and subsequent death/ressurection where you fly through stars and space a la 2001: a space odessy. That's whay I meant. So many little details in this movie. :)
-
Read Harry's review with Albinoni's Adagio in G minor playing in the backround.
-
Dec 19, 2002 11:45:29 PM CST
The Endless Stair OR... My Favorite Part Was At Helm's Deep When
by jollydwarf
...and exclaims "Look!" Seeing the Republic Gunships landing was a pleasant and startling surprise. Okay, before I get too carried away, did it bother anyone else that Gandalf's ASCENDING battle with the Balrog was not explained more thoroughly? I've read the entire trilogy exactly once (with some thumbing through here and there) and I have to imagine that him suddenly appearing on the top of a mountain would be confounding for the uninitiated. My friend who hasn't read the books was confused. Is the Endless Stair a sequence for the Extended Edition next November? Or how the eagle rescues the resurrected Gandalf? For all the deviations in the film, I thought that this omission was less forgivable. Remember, the uninitiated (and the one-time readers) don't catch all the inconsistencies, but can be baffled by lapses in storytelling.**** What I don't get is how 98 or 99% of the online and print critics loved this film, but the TRUE FANS are very polarized. IS THERE NOTHING GOOD ENOUGH TO PLEASE SOME OF YOU?? As old Splitfoot once told Ralph Macchio in "Crossroads", "AIN'T NOTHIN' EVER AS GOOD AS WE WANT IT." Would you rather have had the trilogy squeezed into TWO MOVIES? Or (gasp!) ONE?? In this day and age of micromanagement and clueless bean-counting fucks (there's my acknowledged cliche for the day), it's no small feat to get movies as faithful as these or even the "Potter" films. This movie was NOT PERFECT. But neither was "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and that will always be my favorite film...ever. I'd wager some of you have it "right up there". The imperfections are part of what you come to love. It's beauty marks, not full-fledged deformation or amputation we're talking about. But that's our culture, I guess. Just scrutinizing beyond the nth degree. Why? Because we've got way too much time on our hands. Because we've got the ability to examine life "frame-by-frame". And what's even funnier is that I think what really draws us into this trilogy is that it's an immersive realm of what humanity has gotten away from. Don't you feel trampled by schedules, corporate sponsorship, political correctness, and the fact that we're hopeless without electricity, cars, and telephones? Jesus, I'm sermonizing. But really, I don't care. I mean, on the other hand, "The Matrix" works because it uses the backdrop of computers and our reliance on them (and vice versa, I suppose)to remind us of what it means to be human and where we could be headed. They're both excellent bookends on our place in the new millenium, I think. Just realize that this is something that comes along once in a lifetime and that its mere existence and defiance of greed's deathgrip is reason enough to rejoice. I LOVED IT. And you can stand there on the hill with your bazooka. Go ahead. Destroy it. We are only passing through history. P.S. Back to the opening scene. Has anyone done the math? How far did they fall (time elapsed times terminal velocity?)? That scene really resonated with me, because of the sheer intensity and speed, and because it felt more metaphysical than just about anything else in the film. Can Lucas make Anakin's fall as poetic? I mean, for Gandalf, it's all about the ultimate sacrifice and Resurrection and Good triumphing ultimately, regardless of the hopelessness of the situation. With Anakin, it's a descent into Hell, really. In other words, can Episode III have one moment that matches this film? I AM NOT TRYING TO START A WAR. And go ahead and insert a "jollydwarf" joke as you see fit. P.P.S. REALLY SORRY for accidentally double-posting on the previous page. Oops.
-
"this is the first film of the modern age that dares to dream a DeMille dream
-
I think that this is how it works, FOTR is more emotional, TTT is more action packed, and ROTK will be a mix of both. It's gonna be really emotional with all the ending stuff, but there's a MAYOR battle in it! I think it's safe to say it will probably be the best of the three. Also, TTT couldn't be as emotional as FOTR, or else the movies would be kinda unbalanced. Well, that's what i think, anyway.
-
I know who Kanut was but what is a Running W?
-
I don't expect a direct translation from the books, I'll get that right out of the way. And I loved the first movie, even more so in the longer version, so please don't think I'm picking on this movie just for fun. I thought the editting and pacing was extremely clunky... 1) Merry & Pippin meet the White Wizard ( we know who), but nothing comes out of that scene... when Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas meet the White Wizard subsequently, WHY IS GANDALF STILL MOMENTARILY CONFUSED TO HEAR HIS NAME after he's already met the hobbits?, and why is there no mention of the hobbits to the rest of the fellowship? That could have explained WHY THIS IMPORTANT PLOT THREAD (about finding Merry and Pippin)WAS ABORTED... what, the fellowship forgets they were looking for the two? Can anyone justify this? ( Oh, it was editted out? Uh huh. Was that wise?) 2) Sloppy CGI. I had no problems with Gollum, I had problems with the "Hi, I'm a flying Nazgul on a soundstage!" and "Hi, I'm in scale with this castle miniature!", and all the "Hi, we're riding a tree!" scenes. For some reason they didn't seem up to par with the first movie's CGI. I managed to avoid any spoiler images of Treebeard and the Ents. I thought they were just embarrassing to even look at. 3) Helm's Deep was mostly intervals of repetitious, uninspired hacking. 4) I thought the pacing between plot threads and different scenes was extremely clumsy. All the grace and skill of someone switching the theatre lights on and off repeatedly. 5) The conflict with the Nazgul at Gondor. "Hit 'im with an arrow!" That was easy, no one tried that before? Once that's done, it's totally peaceful and quiet. 5) Most of Treebeard's scenes just felt "in the way" when we really just wanted to get back to the rest of the movie, that is until the Ents gang up later on, but still, they looked pretty goofy. Why not justify Treebeard's scenes with more than just "D'oh, I'm just Treebeard and I'll have to think about that." 6) Heavy emphasis on the "love triangle" wasn't necessary... Not the "Gollum/Frodo/Sam" triangle, that one worked... if Sam & Frodo would just make out and get it out of the way ("Oh Sam"... "Oh Mr. Frodo"..."Oh Spock"). Piling up the Arwen/Eowen/Aragorn thread just seemed like targeting a demographic to me, or was it so that geeks could more easily talk females into seeing a movie with them? Though I will agree with another TalkBacker who liked Arwen's vision of an aging/dead Aragorn. What worked for me: 1) Most of Gollum. His dialogue with himself was a truly great scene in many ways. 2) Bernard Hill 3) The Orks and Uruk Hai looked BETTER in this film than before! 4) I'm sure I'll go see the next installment, but I'm not eager to see this one again anytime soon.
-
Finally! Those of us that love these movies for what they are and want to discuss them are finally starting to ignore the Star Wars & anti-Tolkien trolls out there! Hallelujah! Do we all realize that they will always be there, and it's best to just "nod and smile"? (Kind of like your mother-in-law at Christmas.) It has taken long enough, but this is the most civil TB I've read in quite a while. On to Gondor! On to the Paths of the Dead! Cirith Ungol! "She'll take care of them for us, yes she will, Preciousssss..." Great Eru, I can't wait. Better yet, I can't wait to have all 3 EE DVD's in my hands for a 12 hour Ringathon in 2004! Must...breathe...12...months...left... Thanks for letting me rant. God bless, everyone--God bless Peter Jackson, and most of all, the Professor for gifting us his grand vision. Merry Christmas, all.
-
"I LuRVED this film, and I don't mean LOVED lurve, I mean LURVE LOVE LURVE LOVE LURVED it! With every ounce, fiber and drop of each and every bit of flesh, sinew and bodily fluid!" Where's my glucometer? Hey, isn't this paragraph lifted from Harry's review of Star Wars Episode One? Anyway, in all sincerity, Harry, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
-
Anyone that did not look past their own egos & give theirself fully to this movie I feel sorry for you. During our short lifetime there will be few movies that will actually move you in a way that is unforgetable. This last year has been like being addicted to crack & waiting for the next hit. Now I have to wait another year for relief to my addiction. You can say what you want about this not being right or yabba dabba do crap. I am sorry that you are not having the experience I having because I am very high right now & you are missing something great.
This is a movie and a movie series that people will watch after all of us here are dead and gone. So I guess TTT wins in the end.
BTW to me 99% of all big budget movies suck. So it is amazing that this is so good.
BTW part 2: LOL Frightners best PK movie? ROFL. What about Heavenly Creatures? Best PJ movie, well it was until the LOTR movies. -
Whoever you are saying blah blah yoda can kick gollums ass, cut that shit quick. you know how dumb you sound? fanboys! jeebus! gollums a scrawny heroin rehab fellow and yoda is a master jedi. in two completely different movies. so put that shit to rest. And even though I despise egging on SW vs. LOTR flameback, SW is dull and stale in comparison. its true, you all know it, get some goddamn sleep and deal.
-
Aye, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the "beyond time and space" sequence...
Amazing movie. Truly amazing. I could try to state all the reasons for which I liked it, but it'd take too long... and in the end, it'd be senseless. Everyone needs to see it for themselves.
To all the nay-sayers - you may *try* to hide behind "De gustibus non disputandum est", but your taste is as bad as it gets, period. If you don't - or can't - love this movie, you're worthless. -
It was while watching this utterly brilliant piece of cinema last night that I realized, beyond any doubt, that Peter Jackson is no fly-by-night stunt director. With this trilogy, he has taken his seat at the table of great directors. One better, Spielberg and Lucas should take a long hard look at Peter Jackson - maybe they'll remember what filmmaking is all about, something they once knew but have forgotten in the years since JAWS and Episode IV. This picture, along with FOTR and, undoubtedly, the upcoming ROTK, shows a passion for movies that is unsurpassed by any of the films being made by professionals today. Any negative criticism or "opinions" are null and void, inarguable. Here's to you Mr. Jackson - Welcome to Legend.
-
Dec 20, 2002 12:12:50 AM CST
Can't understand why people are disappointed in this film? GUESS
by le mu bai
Is it part of that whole attitude that dictates, "If you don't agree with me, you suck!"...? It didn't work for me, and I could spell out some points as to why the film let me down. Can you back up your position?
-
You are right about the inconsistancy of the cgi I will give you that, compared to gollum the dragons did look a tad rubbery.
P.S. As far as the Gollum vs. yoda thing, I think gollum and Dobby the house elf should challenge jar jar binks and yoda to a tag team wrestling match. Scooby doo could be the referee. -
Am I understood that you've actually laid your fingertips page-by-page through a draft of PETER JACKSON'S KING KONG?! PLEASE, have you already reviewed it?! If so, is there a link anywhere on the site to it? I know I've said this same phrase many times before, but each time I use it I feel like I am understating the meaning behind it more and more... Excellent work Harry.
-
"If seats permit..." whats the matter your fat ass won't fit mwahahahahha sorry that was too good to pass up
-
Okay Peter Jackson, ya got me. Two Towers solved all of the problems I had with Fellowship. But guess what there is no way Star Wars and LOTR should be competing. Star Wars is the best Sci-Fi series ever made and LOTR will go down as the greatest FANTASY series of all time. See? It's like Micheal Jordan and Tiger Woods. Fantastic players of DIFFERENT sports. Comeo n guys. let's all GET ALONG! Star Wars is a fast fun saturday morning serial, LOTR is an epic poem akin to Homer. And both accomplish what they set out to do beautifully. I LOVED AOTC, I LOVED TWO TOWERS!!!! I feel the love!!!! Do you feel the love!!!!!! (somebody hug me)
-
This movie lives in my heart as it does in yours.
-
Dec 20, 2002 12:40:20 AM CST
Fellow Star Wars Fans, today we must unite behind...The Two Towe
by moriarity report
Fellowship sucked, we know that. But we are open minded folk. All we want to do is watch good movies, read neat comic books, listen to 80's light rock and masturbate over Keira Knightley in "The Hole" all night. It's been hard on us lately. Listening to people bad mouth the last two Star Wars films. We all know what a great film AOTC was. But yet we must listen to the non believers as they go on and on about how the Bearded One has "had his brains sucked out" and how he "sucks," and how Return of the Jedi is a better film than Episode's I and II. And worst of all....how FOTR is on par with any of the Star Wars films (besides that piece of crap Jedi)and even surpasses them!?!?!?! We told them "Lucas already made his version of LOTR, it's called Willow, and there's no crappy CG and no actors who played on that lame kids movie The Goonies" But the sinners, er I mean, FOTR fans would not listen. We got sick as FOTR was nominated for Oscars while, the masterpiece Episode II got called "gay". We suffered through the DVD release of FOTR. The extended cut re-release of FOTR. But yet we remained open minded that the Fat One might listen to "us", the followers of Good Taste, and try to Lucas-ize the sequel. And luckily, he did. He reduced what sucked in the first film, and trumped up what worked. And he actually added things like "humor" and special effects that were actually interesting to look at. And oh yeah, some action that wasn't TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE. We did enjoy the Fat One's The Frighteners, that had humor and suspense. We began thinking it might just be Zemeckis's influence on him. But now we see he is putting crabby old cockney Orcs in LOTR. Orcs that actually have a personality. All the Orcs from FOTR looked like extras from a Xena episode and all they did was grunt and look strong and mean. Two Towers does not measure in greatness to Episode's I and II, but it is a worthy film, we say. We say, we shall unite! Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings fans.....and Star Wars fans TOGETHER. We say we shall finds us a Star Trek fan and beat him silly and cook his balls? Yessy?
-
I really enjoyed watching both Lord of the Rings movies but not as much as the original Star Wars. I found many problems that distracted me while watching Two Towers.
1. The parallel stories would cut-out too often. It disrupted the flow of my favorite story line that being the one of Aregon and the Orcs.
2. The movie was too long and drawn out at some points. Gollum was great but after awhile I understood the inner conflict but it just kept going on and on and on. OK I get it, he's conflicted.
3. I never read the books but the storyline endings were very predictable, especially the one with the trees. They kept cutting back to that storyline too often.
The movie was great but not beyond critique Harry. -
Wow... I just got back from the theaters and my pulse is racing! TTT is simply amazing! I realize there are people in the talkback who hate TTT for some reason. I really feel sorry for you guys - whatever your personal hang ups are, they prevented you from seeing a magnificent epic, and that's sad. I know that there is a law saying that someone has to spit on LotR and bring up SW and that someone has to accuse Harry of selling out each time he reviews a film he likes. Then there are the Tolkien purists who can't grasp that the movies are a different telling of the books, reverent but slightly altered, and that the books are still there to be enjoyed. To all you people, your views are your own and I'm not going to waste my breath trying to convince you that you're wrong. I do feel really sorry for you, though, because you're missing out big time.
-
It'll probably only get nominated just to help set up "Return of the King". That's right, you heard me. That's your best picture winner. It will be the cumulative award for all three. Remember, it has NOTHING to do with merit once you're nominated. But on the topic of public and critical opinion, do you realize that at rottentomatoes.com, this film is at 98% (120 fresh, 3 rotten)? That's "Saving Private Ryan" and "Empire" numbers. "THE TWO TOWERS" IS WORKING FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT NOT FOR THE TOLKIEN, AHEM, AFICIANADOS. How fucked up is that? I realize that that sort of statistic might make many of you even more resolute in your anger and frustration for story inconsistencies and minor effects and editing flaws. But let's take it outside of a movie context for a minute. Think of your ultimate fantasy girl (or guy). Think about that fantasy girl telling you that she's going to wear what you want her to wear and do to you whatever you want. Okay, howzabout schoolgirl outfit and a blowjob? Maybe that's a bit 'mundane', but roll with it (everyone here from Harry down has got the oral metaphor thing goin' anyway). With the present mentality, you'd be criticizing the length of her pigtails, not happy with the plaid color scheme, and upset that she used too much teeth and that her eyes weren't connecting with you at all the right moments. And that's just the 'initial reaction'. Whether it's pizza, fellatio, or a MOSTLY faithful quality adaption of classic literature, even when it's bad, it's good. And quite honestly, this movie ain't exactly incompetent head-bobbing from an eighty-five year-old, three-toothed sea hag. But I'll leave it there and leave the rest of the oral fixations for the "Head Geek" (now I get it!).
-
The three movies were shot as one. PJ didn't change anything during the past year (well, some reshots, but besides that the main movie remained the same). This movie was done with FOTR, then they added the special effects and all that.
-
Dec 20, 2002 12:51:07 AM CST
My God, Harry, you mean you actually got Harlan Ellison to admit
by iamthefool
I think that may be the first time that's ever happened, and probably the last. Congratulations, you've done what was thought to be impossible.
-
See the problem with all of the comparisons is that the LOTR people are talking about how well it came together while the Sw people are saying how poor the effects were. A great effect, or a dozen great effects doesn't make a great movie. TPM had very good effects I would say they were more spectacular than mosts things in FOTR, but the movie sucked. Made legions of SW fans say "Ohh god, why have you forsaken us". LOTR is not about effects, they are important only in so far as they forward the story. In SW the effects have become the story. Characters, Plot and everything else is subservant to the effects. Thats is why SW is so disparaged, I like AOTC, but it doesn't hold a candle to FOTR, or TTT. In fact I enjoyed Space balls more than AOTC. But AOTC was still okay. About a million times better than TPM. And Jar Jar isn't the first CG charachter, don't forget the cpu in tron :).
-
i have never read the lord of the rings trilogy. when i saw fellowship of the ring last year, i thought it was a visually beautiful film with severe flaws that kept it from being a great and memorable piece of cinema. i felt that the pacing was rushed and that a lot of the story got lost into its big screen translation. it felt wrath with holes and questions abounded me after viewing it. i then got the extended version of fellowship of the ring on dvd. incredible. 99% of the problems i had with it were gone. i wished they released this version in theaters. at this time i think i started to feel what die-hard tolkien fans felt when they saw fellowship on the big screen the first time. in simple words, i loved it. and i was pumped to see the two towers. tuesday night. midnight. i was there with the fans. sold out show. people dying to see the continuation of this most epic of epics. the lights went down. i threw myself into the experience for the next three hours. and then the lights went up. and i was very let down. the two towers was the disastrous wreck that the teetering train of fellowship became. i agree gollum was great but i did not go into the two towers to see midless action flick. how could they take all the substance of the main chracters (especially aragorn) and just flush it down the toilet like that? where was aragorn's internal struggle to face his destiny. where was the wise and fatherly gandalf? when did legolas and gmli stop being great warriors and become abbot and costello? at least they built upon the burden of sam and frodo. again gollum was great. he shouldnt be nominated for supporting actor. he should be nominated for best actor. he was by far the main character of the two towers. but then another huge diappointment. in fellowship the supporting characters helped flesh out the world and and added a greater sense of purpose to the main characters journeys. they might as well of had cardboard cut outs in the two towers. except for the few good minutes of grima wormtongue, the supporting characters were nothing more than faceless (and mindless) beings in character dress. the underlying pull between aragorn and eowyn. pointless. eomer shows up twice to look angry. and faramir- a pathetic and flaccid mirror for the otherwise passionate boromir. and it had among these the problems that the theatrical release of fellowship had: horrible pacing, a sense of impatience in the storytelling. peter jackson let me down. so i say to him be like the tree of fangorn forest and think things through a little more carefully. that extra time would definately benefit the trilogy greatly. perhaps it is best to release the extended versions into the theatre. do not limit or hasten yourself when you have such a grand undertaking.
i know my opinion is not in the vast majority but i do want this trilogy to be great, to be worthy of the "classic" mark. but so far it is not. perhaps it is blind devotion and childhood ignorance that makes the majority fall in love with it despite its flaws. perhaps you dont want to kid yourself. but you do not seem disappointed with the results. and that is good. it did irritate me again this morning, just like last year, that it has been nominated for the golden globes. i know the awards show have lost their luster but for people to fool themselves and give it praise that it has not earned irks me greatly.
but as arwen says there is still hope. there is still hope of an extended version of this tragedy for next fall on dvd. and hope that peter jackson can salvage this wreckage and get it back on the tracks and reach its goal next christmas. -
The problem is this: Peter Jackson made a very good first movie so we expected the same for TTT. Surprisingly, I found it very different from LOTR because 1) The cutting was choppy and many scenes ended abruptly (ex: Merry & Pippin meet Gandalf) 2) Lots of action but very few intimate, characters moments 3) The timeline was hard to appreciate (it all seems to happen in 3 days) and 4) The distances also felt wrong (Gondor being only a day away from Rohan, etc.). Gandalf, Merry and Pippin only seem to be in the movie for the "punch" at the end, and there was barely no dialogue ! Actually, my favorite moment was when Aragorn "reads" the footsteps from the battle. There you see how a character thinks, his experience. Not much in the movie did they take time to show us that, like they did in LOTR. Even in the Mines of Moria in LOTR, they take time to sit down and talk ! We didn't have time to appreciate and discover the humans like we did the Hobbits of Elves. That was what made LOTR so different from the other fantasy movies, so I hope Peter Jackson won't forget that for the third one...
-
I just saw Two Towers, and while I certainly respect Jackson's talent and vision, I do not agree with many of the laurels being placed on the film, especially in this talkback...My problems with the film... 1. GOLLUM...I do not think Gollum is the best realized CG character ever...but this is the problem with fantasy creatures...use a puppet, and there are limitations...use someone in a latex suit, and there are limitations...CG has the same limitations, and Gollum is no exception...I think the CG work on Gollum was on par with AOTC...what made Gollum work was the exceptional voice acting, which is why people hate Jar Jar...Jar Jar's lines and antics were annoying...Gollum came alive and transcended the CG, similar to how Yoda transcends the puppet work in ESB...but he was still blatantly CG and it was the voice acting that gave him life 2. The Uruk-hai must have gone to the stormtrooper school of combatives, because they managed to kill everyone but Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas...its just that Jackson extended the fight sequences to give us more battle scenes, but the "hero" scenes were so utterly unbelievable it was pathetic...Aragorn and Gimli holding off hundreds of orks themselves after a hundred elves and Rohan soldiers get pushed back...Legolas surfing on a friggin shield as the music swells to scream, look how heroic and cool this is...kind of like the bridge surfing scene in FOTR...Jackson adding crap to extend the fight scenes, but what he added to the film just didnt work 3. Gimli reduced to toilet humor belching and dwarf tossing comic relief 4. The whole Aragorn/Arwen relationship...didnt we already cover the mortality aspect in FOTR...why did Jackson have to dwell on it for nearly 30 minutes...not to mention the chemisty between Liv and Viggo was about as believable as the Anakin Padma romance scenes 5. The Galadriel voice over halfway through the movie...it was like, ok the people who have never read the book are probably really friggin confused right now, so Ill sum up the plot for everyone, and this way we can put Cate Blanchett in the credits again 6. The blue screen work was terrible...Merry and Pippin on the Ents...the Nazgul flying around...the orks riding wargs...horrendous 7. The Ent scenes...how many scenes did we need of Merry and Pippin riding around on Treebeard...the dialogue between Merry, Pippin and the Ents was interesting and emotional in the books...this was just wasted screen time in the movie 8. The Aragorn fall off the cliff sequence...WTF...I think we already knew Eowyn had the hots for Aragorn...we didnt need to feign his death to cover the love triangle crap 9. Faramir Faramir Faramir...ok I am going to take the ring back to Gondor...no wait, I changed my mind because the movie is getting close to ending...for all the emphasis Jackson seems to have on character development, he screwed the pooch on Faramir 10. The Samwise speech at the end of the film...yes we know this is the ending scene Sam...dont need a 5 redundant speech to spell it out for us....NOW this is what I thought was good in the film 1. The end charge by Eomer and the riders of Rohan...very well done 2. The siege of Helms Deep, especially the arrival of the elves...were it not for the ludicrous hero scenes, the siege would have been perfect 3. The attack on Isengard by the Ents 4. Gollum's voice acting 5. The exorcism of Theoden by Gandalf the White 6. The scenes with Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas tracking Merry and Pippin 7. The body count between Gimli and Legolas...they were doing just fine killing orks without having to ride shields or get tossed...anyway, I have to say I was disappointed with the film after all of the hype on this board, but thats what talkback is about I guess
-
I'm not the biggest fan (see above) but I have an idea to bolster Peter Jackson's chances for an Oscar next year. Why not edit the three films together for a full nine hour movie so that viewers can watch the movie as it apparently should, with your ass hurting, eyes closing, and wondering why the movie is so fuck'n long. I mean Fellowship was just run and chase, run and chase, run and chase. Two Towers was just bleeding out the inevitable and predictable. Maybe put together the pieces will for a cohesive gell of boredom.
-
I really don't understand where a lot of the critisism is coming from. I guess if I hadn't read the books, the movie would have had much less context and might have been less enjoyable, but my GF hasn't read the books and she thought the movies was amazing. It's as much as you can hope for, IT was done as well as it could have. I beleive if any or all of the alterations critics here have suggested were put in, it would wreck the movie.
-
I think the biggest problem in the movie is there was never a sense of peril for the hero characters, especially in Helms Deep...while we all know Aragorn wouldnt die in the battle, nor Gimli or Legolas, because Tolien didnt kill them off in the books...but to have them pull of feats of heroism during the battle that defy all logic and sense of reality just took the momentum out of the Helms Deep sequence...I mean in some of the sequences, you could see the Uruk Hai actors waiting for their turn to die at the hand of our heroes, where given the context of the scene and the totally disregard for their own lives that the Uruk Hai exhibit otherwise, they could have just rushed Gimli and Aragorn on the bridge sequence...but then again, it was the same problem with the Uruk Hai confrontation at the end of FOTR...yes they are heroes...god knows most action films suffer from the same invincibility syndrome for the hero characters...but why is it that the fanboys are so willing to point out these same flaws in other movies, but not their beloved precious
-
Okay, so this has been something folks in reviews and from seeing the film have not completely understood: Why does PJ have Faramir take Frodo and the Ring with him to Osgiliath instead of letting him go on to Minas Morgul like he does in the book. My thought is, in the books, Tolkien was able to intimate that Sauron knows the Ring is coming close to him, but fears that it's going to Gondor, where it could still perform great distruction on him. He fears the men of Gondor WILL use it as a weapon, and that's why Gondor and Minas Tirith are to be the first attacked. Sauron's interest in Sauraman is primarily to keep Rohan from coming to Gondor's rescue. If you folks remember, there's that beautiful scene with the map of Gondor that Faramir and Flunky #1 are looking over. It shows that Rohan is the only kingdom that could come to Gondor's aid, and Sauron's supporting Sauraman's war against it presupposes that Sauron believes the ring will pass to Gondor. Now, the reason PJ had Frodo almost giving up the ring to the Nazgul was to show that the ring was in the hands of not two hobbits, but hobbits in the hands of men. The hands of men who are soon to be running off to Minas Tirith. Taking it to be used as a weapon. Faramir's letting Frodo go and 'sort of' taking the heat of Sauron's Eye allows the Ringbearer and Crew to enter an unsuspecting Mordor, while Sauron's eye is turned to the west, to where he believes the Ring is being taken. If Frodo and Co. play their cards right, they might just snoop this thing right below the Enemy's nose... or not?
-
As for the textures and emotions on his face, nothing we didnt already see with Watto...as for Yoda, the problem with CG Yoda was that it missed the life that Frank Oz poured into puppet Yoda in EBS...we saw glimpses of that Yoda...during the scene with the younglings in AOTC...the whimsical, playful Yoda that had a life of his own in ESB despite the fact that he was a puppet...but think about the work on the Clone Troopers...I had no idea they were CG characters until I got the DVD and saw the documentaries...I think ILM has WETA beat in terms of seamlessly integrating CG, models, blue screens and effects...Gollum was well done, no doubt about it...but it was the voice acting that made it work...had Gollum come across as whiney or annoying, you all would be bashing him for the same reasons we all bashed Jar Jar...I say the Oscar goes to whoever did the voice work on Gollum, not the stiff CG
-
Look, for all the negative reviews that you people are putting on the movie you simply HAVE to look at the achievements. Sure i'm pissed they messed up Faramir big time, yea i hate the fact that the Marry/Pippin scenes were cardboard with zero character development and so on and so on. But for all these negative i'll trade in that one scene of theoden riding through the orc host only to be met by Eomer and Gandalf charging headlong into the fray. Come on people, that' just something that you do NOT see anymore in hollywood cinema. For PJ to be able to pull off 3 such complex and interwoven storylines to this degree is an amazing achievment. And for all the people who hate the inconsistancies (much like i do) just wait for the Extended DVD. I think that just like FOTR, PJ will have that extra time to flesh out the characters and give the timing/pacing this movie needs. But for the time being, sit back, eat your popcorn and enjoy TTT it's one hell of a ride.
-
The scene where Smeagol swims around in the pool while Faramir and his men prepare to kill him with arrows...for me that was the moment that really humanized Smeagol...at that point Smeagol had fought off the Gollum side of his personality and he was almost fully Smeagol again--which seemed a lot like an innocent child happy to please his master/parental figure...i think an argument can be made that Smeagol's psyche splits again because of Frodo's "betrayal", which was forced on him by Faramir...here, it's man who again corrupts the innocent...
As far as elves...their arrival struck an emotional chord in me because these were immortals who could have just sailed away from Middle-earth...yet they chose to risk their immortality to honor what they know to be right...pretty amazing stuff... -
You freaking loved this film. We'll see if TTT ph33rs z0n3 z3r0 or if z0n3 z3r0 ph33rs TTT. I'll probably be plunking down my matinee bucks this weekend. That is if no freakin phanboiz get my ticket first. $@ur0n ph33rs z0n3 z3r0.
-
OK I liked it, and Gollum is remarkable. But I want to move on,
as I can't accept the changes to the BOOK. Elves at the Keep. Maybe. But a known character dying there (Haldir)is changing the story! Faramir and the sidetrip to Gondor are weak images. Yet how can you not love it as a whole? Onward to Return Of The King!
-
I think it is somewhat unfair to compare Jar Jar or any CG character work from TPM to TTT...because ILM did those effects nearly four to five years ago...and the limiting factor on any CG work is technology...I am not talking about Gollums facial expressions or the quality of the textures on his skin...those were all well done...but I would say Dex, Sebulba, Watto, Yoda and Jar Jar from a technological point of view were equally impressive...I will grant you the admission that Lucas wasted these characters with crap dialogue and ridiculous scenes, but ILM still has WETA beat in terms of consistency
-
Dec 20, 2002 1:56:07 AM CST
Can anyone just watch a movie anymore? It's all whiny nitpickers
by maximus21
whether it be Spiderman or AOTC or LOTR, people do nothing but whine and cry over little things they don't like. The difference between LOTR fans and Star Wars fans is very different though. LOTR fans nitpick the movie to death because it either doesn't follow the book enough or it doesn't match their vision of the book. These people don't go to enjoy the movie, they go to compare the movie to the book. Star Wars fans on the other hand do nothing but praise their movies to the heavens because their is no source material. I always thought Star Wars fans were too fanatical until LOTR came out. I've never heard more whiny crybaby bitches in my life. No need for Star Wars trolls when these films come out because the LOTR fans will bury the movie for you.
-
My point of view on these films and that of many people I know is not often expressed on this site. Here goes: I am a huge film fan, and I see most of the big fantasy films at the theater. I have not read LOTR, nor do I intend to. The films are very GOOD. Note the caps for good. They are stunning visually, balls-out technical achievments, but I do not consider them great for many reasons. They take themselves way to seriously, as do many of you LOTR fans. In no way is A Beautiful Mind a classic, but it was still more deserving of the Oscar than LOTR. Acting counts. Writing counts. The acting in LOTR is servicable, but never spetacular. Yes even Andy Serkis. The thought of him getting on Oscar is fucking ludacris in my mind. And writing. I could relate to LOTR a lot more if it wasn't weighted down with Tolkien's medievil pseudo-poetry. I find it boring and uninspired. There is not a hint of wit or sharpness in the dialogue. And TTT, which I liked for the most part, suffered from a shitty second hour. The love triangle. pointless, contrived, and idiotic. Whoever said Miranda Otto deserved some crossover parts needs to pour cold fizzy water over there fuckin head. Some of the worst acting I've ever seen. I could go on but I don't want to give the impression that I didn't like the movie. It's just hard for me to see the fantasy-geek point of view. How do any of these movies appeal to your life. Not trying to start an argument, just seriously wondering. I watch these movies, enjoy them for the most part, then shrug my shoulders and move on. Until fantasy geeks call anyone who doesn't find these films to be classics as fucking morons who can gather no joy out of life.
-
All us Tolkien fans have had to go with are those god awful Bashki animated versions...until now...and we all know a screenplay is a much different animal then a book...and that changes are essential...but where it doesnt make sense is where Jackson added stuff to the movies that werent in the books and do nothing to add to the story...especially in cases where Jacksons additions are worse then the original chain of events in the books....there were no elves at Helms Deep save for Legolas...Elrond takes that roll at Minas Tirith in ROTK...Haldir, while a minor character and inconsequential to movie goers...still doesnt die at Helms Deep because he was never there to begin with, so why add that to the film...so we can have a tear jerking secondary character death scene...and the Faramir changes...totally unnecessary...the inner struggle of Faramir, dealing with the death of Boromir and then coming to the realization that the ring was the death of his brother...and that it was corrupting him as well...and that it did indeed needed to be destroyed...Tolkien covered those bases quite well without Jackson having to change crap around for whatever reason
-
I went into TTT with Gollum being my number 1 fear and left with him being my absolute number 1 highlight of the film! MY GOD HE FUCKING ROCKS!!! I'm sorry to all naysayers but NEVER has a CG character been so utterly convincing - not yet anyway. Anybody who even tries to compare him to anything we've seen before are obviously fucking high or just plain ignorant. I was expecting Dobby or even Yoda quality but wasn't quite prepared for what I saw lastnight! Bless you everybody involved.
-
In about two years you will be able to pull the Extended Edition DVDs of all three movies off your shelf and watch them back-to-back. If there is any justice, New Line will assemble all three extended editions into a full-screen marathon and tour the country with it.
-
A "trilogy for grown ups" and "the Gollum made me cry"? This is the final chapter in the Pussification of America. Pathetic.
-
Dec 20, 2002 2:29:36 AM CST
What was cooler: Legalos flipping onto his horse, or using the s
by tress
In my own opinion, the horse flip. It comes out of no ware and it is not glorified or focused on. It just happens like this is a common thing that Legalos dose. The shield is also very fresh, but you saw it in the preview for it. (sorry about my spelling)
-
I reckon Legolas flipping onto the horse was pure magic! I personally didn't like the shield surfing, a little too TMNT for my liking. I also liked the way they didn't really focus on him flipping on the horse, it's just something to be expected of him.
-
damn starbuck do you have fun at all at the movies?
-
I think it was in the exchange about how to eat a rabbit, but can't remember for sure... Gollum was talking about eating fish raw, and a subtle spray of saliva, came from his mouth and caught the sunlight.
Gotta see this movie again!
Treasures are there to be gathered, and I plan to!
-
Well said, bro'!
-
and I'm a sucker for multiple storylines and it was good to see Jackson & Co. losen thier ties and just let loose and not take the whole thing so bloody seriously. And, I'm not gonna say if Golum or Yoda was a better CGI creation (though Golum is the shower one) but they both prove that CGI characters CAN fucking WORK if enough time and care is put into them.
-
It's better to watch these movies high. Seriously. I like them fine when I'm sober, but smoke a few joints and watch Fellowship on DVD and HOLY SHIT!!!!! You get so fucking 'into' the movie. Seriously people. I don't smoke that much weed, but if there is one this that is fun, it's to get High and watch Rings. You've got to try it.---------> Be sure to really get ripped though, these movies are so long you'll fall asleep otherwise.
-
Hey little sister, who's the only one? Hey little sister, who's your superman? Hey little sister, who's the one you want? Hey, little sister... SHOTGUN! Its a nice day to... start again. Its anice day for a... White Wedding!
-
Being one of the FOTR naysayers, i went in half expecting another 3 hours of mind numbing drivel but TTT actually had me entertained at times.On a scale of 5 i would give it a respectable 3!
-
Damn, these talkbalks really are out of control. I don't get it. I loved ALL the Star Wars movies. ALL OF THEM. I love the LOTR movies. Both of them. Am I only supposed to enjoy one or the other? I'm confused...or maybe I just don't fit in here, but honestly, what is the debate about? They are movies!! Don't you people like movies? Were any of them perfect? Has there ever been a perfect movie? If you are trying to find religion in either LOTR or SW, or any movie for that matter, you need help. Seriously. We should start an AICN prayer group and add you to our list. You need help. And what's up with the guy that posted he was happy about 9/11 on the Moriarty review talkbalk. What is wrong with that guy? 3000 people were murdered on 9/11. I have close friends that lost family members that day. And good lord, what is all the America is good, America is evil garbage all about. I thought we were talking about a movie! For once, I'd like to read a talkbalk where we stay on topic. Instead what we get is Harry is fat, Harry is gay, so and so is a racist, America and Americans are evil, blah blah blah. What is wrong with you people!! Anyway, enough ranting. Go see TTT if you haven't already. Buy some popcorn, some candy, no drink though unless you have a bladder of steel, and immerse yourself in 3 hours of pure movie magic. Just enjoy it instead of trying to pick it apart and you'll be a happier person.
-
Let me first just say that I loved the movie, and I'm going to see it again this weekend. (and who knows how many times in the coming weeks) and now I can't wait to see the extended edition of ttt...nor can I wait until next xmas to see rotk...
Also, I'd like to say that I loved the book. (I read it right before Fellowship came out last year)
Now...what did I figure out? The "explanation" for the discrepancies between the book and the movies.
Tolkien's story was that the lord of the rings was "translated" from an ancient manuscript. This manuscript, Tolkien claimed, was originally written by Frodo. However, Tolkien didn't have the "original" manuscript as it did not survive, what he had was a copy that had been made by a scribe. (I'm sure you can now see where I'm going with this)
So, Peter Jackson, when he decided to make the movie, had merely found a different manuscript that had survived in which, through the years and through the scribes changing things as scribes tend to do, is not the same as the one that Tolkien had found.
However, I'm sure that PJ cross-referenced "his" manuscript with Tolkien's so that the most accurate movie could be made, and in the places where PJ's differed, he chose what would work best in a movie, or what he thought was the most true.
So, there. Problem solved.
:) :) :) -
Trying to recall any posts of yours that may have been accidentally positive. I think you've still got your perfect track record.
Btw, not sure how you quantify it as Aragorn's "speech". [SPOILER] For one thing, it was Legolas trying to convince Aragorn not to die pointlessly, and let's not forget that nobody else spoke elvish, so that really leaves it to only a dialogue between 2 guys, eh? Seeing as how a 'speech' tends to be a monologue of more than one sentence or so... Boy, your cynicism is contagious. And still trying to figure out how you interpreted it as such a momentous enough commentary to be considered a 'speech' per se. Still, it was good to know you were watching the film, not nitpicking. Oh, wait... -
Chinatown, definately Chinatown
-
I love these movies because at when the title came up at the start, everyone cheered - and that NEVER happens at my cinema.
I love them because they make me remember how I used to feel when my dad took me to the movies as a young pup: sitting in the dark going "Woooow!". As films they're good blockbuster entertainment. Their closest relatives are Indiana Jones and the first couple of Star Wars pictures. It's old fashioned escapist entertainment. And for that it doesn't bother me that Gollum looks fake (and he does). Yoda looked like a puppet but I still loved him. However, if - as some people are saying - audiences don't get Gollum - and think he's some sort of Jar Jar Binks comedy figure, then I'm afraid you can't blame them. Film is mass media, not fan media, and if the masses don't get it, then it hasn't worked. That's a failure on WETA and Andy Serkis's part. For what it's worth though, the audience I was with TOTALLY got Gollum/Smeagol, and hearing their reactions: the progression from bemused chuckles to belly laughs and finally to stunned silence during his famous monologue - just sent shivers up my spine. Loved it. -
Ya know i do read the negitve posts and even with that on my mind I still thought that TTT was one of the best pictures ive seen in a VERY long time. If you havent seen it yet GO SEE IT!!
-
Dec 20, 2002 4:48:17 AM CST
Harry, you are a complete fucking idiot. What movie were you wat
by ranchero
I saw TTT and it was terrible. I'm sorry but I see no difference between Gollum and Dobby the House Elf. THey even look the same. The movie itself was complete hogwash. One boring scene after another. And I LIKED the first movie. I couldn't be bothered going to the third.
-
Watched TTT two times today, back to back, just to make sure I got it all, and I think I do. It strikes me, looking back at the FOTR release, how completely unprepared we all were for just how good these films were going to be, and on so many different levels. We had no yardstick by which to weigh our expectations (except of course the novel itself), because no fantasy film and no literary adaptation has ever been attemped on this scale or at this level of quality. This time around, though, it's different. We have all seen FOTR, most of us several times. Which leaves us all much more prepared to nitpick TTT to death, I think. Was I blown away? No, because FOTR already did that, and I simply expected more of the same this time (and got it, thank you). But that takes nothing away from TTT. It is a fantastic achievement in its' own right, though obviously with a very different pacing and narrative style. Everything worked beautifully for me, with only a couple of minor exceptions. I do find it regrettable that they couldn't find a way out of the whole Faramir/Osgiliath thing. The fact that Tolkien's Faramir had the wisdom and strength of will to resist the ring and send the hobbits on their way is the main thing that set him apart from his brother, gave him his own identity. The change in the film not only departs from the books' plot, it fundamentally alters the character (something that Jackson and Co. have so far successfully avoided). And the Merry/Pippin/Treebeard thing was cut into the film pretty badly. The rest of the film kept moving, and this plotlines failure to do so was distracting (though it was reasonably faithful to the source). They could have introduced Quickbeam, or ent-draughts. I would even have preferred being kept in suspense, not knowing what they were up to in the forest for a third of the movie, over cutting back to yet another shot of Merry & Pippin on Treebeard's shoulder over and again. Finally, I can't be the only one who sat through Sam's little "things worth fighting for, just like in the stories" Osgiliath speech without being uncomfortably reminded of Stan or Kyle wrapping up a South Park episode by saying something that starts with, "You know, I think we've learned something here today...". Griping aside, a great film, can't wait for the next one. Or the extended DVD of this one, for that matter...
-
First of all I think TTT is one of the greatest movies of all time. i have seen it twice now and it got even better. i was blown away the first time, but with so much to take in, I need a few more visits to the cinema to remember it all.
I say this. Everywhere on the net but these talkback on AICN, the talk is of a major acheivement. A MILESTONE IN CINEMA HISTORY. THE BEST SEQUEL OF ALL TIME. Rotten Tomatoes has it running at 98% with 120 fresh and 3 rotten. That proves that critics love it. By a mile.
Many don't seem to realise that this film was made the same time as FOTR. To say it lasck emotion is rubbish, because the emtion was in FOTR, which is part of the same film!
Yes, changes have been made, but I have no problem with them, and I have read LOTR at least a dozen times. This is film, and an adaption of the books, not the books themselves.
This talkback is just full of SW trolls, who are fighting the loosing battle. They are so narrow minded, and hate the thought that another film has come along which is far superior to the recent SW movies, and has easily claimed their top spot.
I love SW and ESB. I think they are super movies. They have gone down in cinema history as milestones. But it's time to realise that LOTR is as big. In years to come this three part movie will be hailed as the greatest fantasy movie in motion picture history.
tickets sales are already through the roof, up 60% on last years FOTR. So many LOTR fans saw the movie last year, and the ones that missed it at the cinema and only saw it on DVD, are all desperate to see the next instalment. Expect it to beat FOTR by a fair distance.
Hail Peter Jackson, who has plucked battle scenes from my brain, and improved them 1000%.
That is all. -
Wow what a visually spectacular film and a lot more funnier than the first. The large battle scenes were great but!
Im a fan of the books and i found i was disappointed slightly with some of the plot lines. I mean I dont expect it to be exactly as the book as that -
It was great. Yes, an expected statement, but true. TTT does have its faults, though. I thought Faramir as a character came off wrong in many ways. The extended edition might remedy that a bit, but still... You know, if just two lines had been removed ("The Ring will go to Gondor" and the whole "a gift from Faramir" bit), I would've been happier, because the character would've been left a bit more ambiguous and you could still see good old Faramir there despite the darkness. And the Ents were a bit of a letdown. But I was expecting that - after all, I suspected that they wouldn't conform to my vision of what Ents looked like. Funnily enough, everyone I've seen it with (I've been twice) has said the same thing: the Ents should be more tree-like, walking with their roots. But, hey, people have their own vision. As performances, the Ents are great, and I loved the fact that they had the rocking back and forth at the Entmoot. ***Otherwise, fantastic film. The Frodo/Gollum/Sam relationship and especially the fantastic Gollum were outstanding and had provided most of the depth in the movie. The small glimpses of the Faramir we know and love (the way he looks almost gently and seems to read Gollum and Frodo's minds) were good. All of the Edoras characters were introduced excellently (though I'm waiting for the extended edition "Eowyn kicking orc ass" scene that was glimpsed in the trailer). I thought the Arwen flashbacks and especially the Arwen/Elrond scene were well done. Merry and especially Pippin showing off their courage and brains, thus fleshing out the characters, was great, as were Gimli's comedic bits, which were funny without taking away from the character or coming off as stupid. And Legolas, Aragorn and Gandalf were all their old great selves. My personal highlights: the far shot of Gandalf and the Balrog falling towards the water, the final Gandalf/Balrog moments on top of the mountain, Gollum's argument with himself (funny and tragic at alternate moments), Grima saying just the right things to try and manipulate Eowyn, the flashforward to Aragorn's funeral and Arwen walking in dying Lothlorien towards the site of their first meeting, the scene at the Black Gates (and we finally see the full use of the Lorien capes), the cut from Theoden to Saruman falling over, Pippin's reaction to Treebeard and the following meeting with the White Wizard (perfectly done to keep tension up), the way Saruman's and Gandalf's voices are combined together when we first hear Gandalf the White speak, all of Helm's Deep (from just the look of the place, which was down pat, to the preparations to the coming of the elves to the battle to the arrival of Gandalf and the Rohirrim), the ents breaking the dam overlooking Isengard (and I was also pleased to see the young ent set on fire as happened in the book), Treebeard's pause after "we have come to an agreement" and his field mice story. I could go on, but I wont. ***Finally, a few observations. 1) Boy, that goblin who wants to eat Merry and Pippin and gets his head cut off sure sounds exactly like Paul Whitehouse doing his "old Git" character. It's quite disturbing. 2)And how come that old guy who shoots the first arrow at Helm's Deep looks exactly like Anthony Hopkins in that flick he did with Cuba Gooding Jr.? 3)And there are PJ's kids again. With wigs on this time. Boy, from cute Hobbit kids to cute Rohan kids. I'm sure we'll see a few close-ups of them as cute Gondorian tykes in ROTK as well. 4)Theoden saying "so it begins" at Helm's Deep made me and my ex-boyfriend, B5 fans both, smile wryly. 5)I'm sorry, but that orc with a torch going to light Saruman's explosives is automatically giving me flashes to someone carrying the Olympic torch. Flaming torch held high, yelling bunch of people around, forming a gauntlet to run through... I couldn't help but laugh.
-
I liked Sam's monologue near the end. So sue me. It wasn't too sappy and was a great way to connect together all the events taking place then. An excellent bridge. Also, I think it was also helped by the answer to Frodo's "what do we have to hold on to?" not being "each other" or "love", as I feared (which would have brought the speech down to syrup territory), but Gandalf's FOTR sentiment about there being good in the world.
-
Dec 20, 2002 5:28:25 AM CST
THE TWO TOWERS ROCKED!...Here is why..( AND HEY remember those p
by tallscott
In the sprit of these posters who feel the need to waste valuble time and space to say why they did not like the movie I am going to say what made this one of the best DAMN films ive seen in ages. Hopefully without spoliers. Gandalfs fight with the Bulrog was great ane action sequence is one I have never seen before in any way and I was in for alot of those when the evening progressed. Gollum..What needs to be said about Gollum..From the whip marks on his back to him eating a bunny rabbit from the way his hair moved when it was wet, every detail was there in full sight..You cant take your eyes off of this sad creature. He deffanlty has his childhood ID mojo working..He totaly outacted yoda, watto, and jar-jar put together..And he REAL ( for the most part witch is all anyone can ask for ) Frodo and Sam were great. you see the heavy heavy burden on them as if its the wieght of the world ( Well it is) They both did a great Job.. I dont see how the Purists are rasing such a stink ..If you are reading these websites you KNOW that there will be changes..The " Im Shocked! " Attidue is pretty sad.. Helms Deep showed the full scale war that has NEVER been put to film ever. Everything in this move I thought was great..To you naysayers if you think you coulda donr a better job well id like to see you...
-
Dec 20, 2002 5:33:51 AM CST
I may see it, I may love it, but I still stand by the fact that
by theginger twit
-
I saw Harry sitting on a bench, and i said - hi Harry. And everyone got angry beccause it wasn
-
First,I like how we are brought right back into story.Its at that point we are brought back to one of the most emotional parts of FOTR,Gandalf battling the Balrog.It was like I was in the same theater at the end of FOTR.From there I was taken into Middle-earth again.I will not comment on everyone's performance,which I feel all the actors nailed(yes even Farimir) but there was one thing I did not expect,my emotions for Gollum.I never thought that I could be so ridden with repulsion, and then pity on him.There were several moments where I hated him and then in almost the same moment have the utmost compassion for this creature.It left me almost sick.There was a moment of horror too,not when Gollum attacked,but when Frodo looks at Gollum as a mirror in himself,that stopped my heart.It also made me think,it can happen to anyone,it could happen to me.Helm's Deep,if there has ever been a more jaw-dropping scene in a film,I don't recall it.I found myself wanting to grap a broadsword and start to slay as many Uruk-hai as I could before I died.I have to see it again.
-
To all those SW geeks and Lucass Buttkissers out there: if you really think that AOTC was a good film, you need your pea-sized brain examined. Never in my life have I witnessed a more expensively produced snorefest. Good Lord almighty, how can you say that Lucass is a better director than Jackson? Lucass could not direct his way out of a paper bag. His actors just stand around and read their lines from a card right beside the camera. I mean, this Annie Kin... isn't he just the most stiff jerk you have ever seen? The boy does not emote at all. A turd is more exciting to look at. And don't start me on the "jokes" by that excruciatingly unfunny robot. His lines are not merely lame, they are the epitome of lame. Lamer than this is simply inconceivable! It hurts physically to listen to him speak, to hear those non-jokes coming on for miles and miles and miles. Incredibly lame. I just cannot get over it.
Yoda's big fight with Count Docker was unintentionally laughable. All I saw was two coloured light beams flashing over the screen, with a superball bouncing around as if on steroids. And when the fight is over, Yoda needs a cane. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was such a bad moment that I did not wait to see the rest of it.
Special Effects: that planet-city at the beginning, SuckMyCunt, with all those space ships flying neatly in streams... where are all those people going to? It would be nice if you saw five to six detailed space ships fly over, just for the heck of it, but the way it is done now it is just an endless stream (or better, several endless streams) of moving white dots. Get a grip, guys. AOTC sucked a Big Hairy Monkey's Ass. I take your own word for it that it was better than TPM. Boy, am I glad I missed that one if this is the better film.
Out. -
To the small band of people on this talkback who are NOT trolls and who genuinely disliked TTT, I say: there is nothing wrong with us not liking a movie, and there are plenty of valid reasons for not liking this one. And personally, I am quite happy to point out the parts of this movie that work, ie. Gollum/Sam/Frodo; the opening shots of the Misty Mountains with muffled echoes; vision of Aragorn lying in stone; the successful use of dialogue straight from the books; the portrayal of Faramir (works fine for me); Gimli as comic relief.... But these good parts are just totally overwhelmed by the negatives: incoherent AOTC-style narrative (cross-cutting bizzarrly between too many different sub-plots: now we see why Tolkien decided to tell each story separately: to let the stories breathe - also: see Pulp Fiction, Amores Perros, to see how this should have been done in TTT); tedious, repetitive battle scene assembled from random footage...; the underlying assumption that the audience are imbeciles (clubbing us over the head with repetitive speechifying, EXPLAINING the perfectly obvious over and over); use of tired and pointless cliches (Aragorn 'dies' and comes back to life - er, just like Gandalf - and to what purpose?; humble, defenceless homesteaders attacked by hell-raising baddies - just like in StarGate, Conan The Barbarian, Waterworld, The Postman, Seven Samurai, Mad Max II, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, every Western since the beginning of cinema, probably every episode of Xena Warrior Princess, many episodes of Star Trek TGN etc etc....); pointless hanging around in Helm's Deep before Orcs arrive - er, tension? Drama? Nope - we've got to string the movie out to three hours so it fits in with the last one; illogical plot holes (Faramir suddenly decides to let Frodo go: why?....Gandalf can't remember his name? Why the hell not? He must have had it shouted at him a dozen times when he met Merry and Pippin a couple of scenes ago...; Uruk-Hai are a bunch of Billingsgate fishmongers 'avin a bit uv a larf (" 'Ow 'bout, an oliver twist in the boat race, me ol' mucker?") Makes no sense whatsoever! That's all that springs to mind right now - I spent half the movie cringing in disbelief at what was being passed off as an 'epic movie! All of that is to point out that we (the naysayers) have genuine problems with the movie and are not neccessarily trolls...
-
Regardless of how you feel about the movie overall....there should be one scene that most everyone should agree on. The conflict of Gollum....the duel between slinker and stinker. Never in my years of watching many many movies have I ever seen such a drastical change of emotions on the audiences part. From laughing at what is perceived as a comedy break into horror at the reality of the situation. Literally going from laughing to crying (well, my wife did anyway) in the space of seconds.
Regardless of the movie around it, this one scene is worth any price of admission and deserves some form of special recognition. -
0007: the reason most of the northern Middle Earth places we've seen are akin to English/European designs is that it is a mythology of England! We do see more Asian/African/Middle-eastern designs in some other nations (like the troops passing through the Black Gates), but the sites we've been to so far are supposed to be English or Northern European. Thus, the designs. And for the record, Gondor is essentially Byzantine. Just check out Boromir's outfit in FOTR or the designs of the houses in Osgiliath or during the Aragorn funeral scene. And as for Gandalf being more cold and powerful, could we please get the facts into our heads! Gandalf the White is SUPPOSED to be colder and more aloof and powerful than Gandalf the Grey. It's so in the books and its so in the movies. ***4-LOM/Zukkups: agree with you (and some of the other TBers who have brought this up) on Faramir and how he is in the books. I think this was one of my main disappointments in the movie. Honestly, he seems more dark and obsessed than Boromir in FOTR! WTF!?! This from the guy who essentially says that if he saw the Ring lying on the road, he wouldn't pick it up? This from a student of Gandalf's who is pretty much more versed in Gondorian and other Middle Earth history than anyone and who probably explained to Boromir what "Isildur's Bane" meant. As I said previously, I might somewhat like the characterisation if they removed the two worst lines: "The Ring will go to Gondor" and the "a gift from Faramir" bits. If those two were removed, we could still somewhat see Faramir in the movie as his character is supposed to be. He would take Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath because his troops have to leave NOW and he hasn't made up his mind whether they're lying spies of Sauron and whether they had something to do with his brother's death, so he has to take them with him. That way, we'd still get them in Osgiliath to carry out the "Sauron thinks the Ring is in Gondor" plotline, but would have a less evil reason for it. ***Also, I don't know whether they made Faramir more obsessed to show off Aragorn's excellence and his relation to the kings of old. But if they did, I think it was dead wrong. To my mind, Aragorn and Faramir are shown in the books to be the closest two to the kings of old that still exist in Middle Earth. In a sense, they are mirror images, or alter egos of one another. They're both fighting against evil as royal heirs and as rangers, they both have mental powers, they both are great leaders who are also close to nature and the old tales. If anything, the similarities of the two characters as the two remnants of the greatness of the blood of Numenor should be emphasised, not the differences. ***jollydwarf: Gandalf says he and the Balrog fought all the way to the top of the mountain as we see the final confrontation play out. People, listen to the dialogue! ***Le Mu Bai: I don't think the Gandalf/Merry/Pippin thing is left too unpursued. Sure, we don't see the three of them chatting, but I wouldn't want to, because that way the mystery of the "white wizard" is kept up. And afterwards, Gandalf does tell Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas that they instead of going to meet the hobbits, they have to go to Rohan because of Saruman's plans ("you must begin a new phase in your journey" or whatever it is he says). ***Starbuck1975: I think the Galadriel speech has more meaning than you give it. Sure, it sums up the plot. But it also brings up the idea that the Ring will try and corrupt Faramir twice as bad to get into human hands. This emphasises the importance of Faramir's final decision. He has triumphed over the Ring's designs, and that one decision has averted the destruction of Middle Earth, at least for a moment. Also, I think some lines in the speech (about Elrond knowing about the sacrifices of being a ringbearer) hint at his ring of power. Actually, I was hoping we'd see a glimpse of it during the scene, but alas no.
-
Sorry for being a nit-picking fool and all. But this is bugging me. Seen the film twice. It rocks. Sags just ever soo slightly in the middle as I think the melodrama gets just ever soo slightly too much - I could have done with more Fangorn forest instead of everyone being sullen and arguing - Aragorn (being sullen, arguing with Theoden (narky), Legolas (ticked off) and "dying" flashing back and dreaming of a female demographic. So I suppose, I had a few problems with it, much like I did with the original version of FOTR (which I now love). I want the extended edition now, which I am quite sure will sort those out - i.e we'll see more Merry, Pippin and Treebeard (well more Ents in general - I want to see the start of their assault on the Wizard's vale) and Faramir who seemed a little shafted in terms of screen-time and characterisation. Though it won't sort out those two children on that horse and the fact Haldir is the campest elf this side of the sea of Ruhn. How people are comparing Yoda (and even Dobby to Gollum is beyond me) Yoda's impressive and all, but he rarely attains the physicality most CGI creations usually lack, his skin looks like its over animated, his character is pretty badly written this time out - waay too liquid and his stupid pin-ball attack at the end should never have happened. You shouldn't have people laughing (which happened then and throught ATOC - and that's AT the film, not with it) - you should have gasps of amazement. That happened at TTT.
-
Dec 20, 2002 6:58:14 AM CST
Sorry about the missing and misplaced parentheses and poor spell
by toshlines
I meant to say Yoda's skin looked way too liquid (or fluid), not his characterisation (which just seemed off). That and the laughter in AOTC, not ATOC, was throughout and at the staggeringly inept acting, writing and direction. Sorry for not making a better go of posting first time out. Wish we could edit these things.
-
It was similar to that at my theater also. Gollum once had sort of a crazed look on his face, almost comical, and some people began to laugh. But then the coolest thing happened. Suddenly Gollum's face would change to anger, or disgust, or torment, or fear, or mercy, or delusion, and everyone immediately stopped giggling and there was silence. It was either pity, or awe, or wonderment, but I distinctly noticed it & at that moment I knew what an impact Gollum as a character had already made on the audience. I can't seem to review this yet. Sensory overload, must see again. By the way Miami Mofo, what's the best theater in our neck of the woods in your opinion to see this?
-
This just proves that how good fx and cgi a movie has, it will be crap whitout a good story. TTT has a good story, only PJ han not used it.
-
Dec 20, 2002 7:38:27 AM CST
Harry's reviews are becoming so much redundant cheese log for th
by mattdub
You know, I love this site but Harry starts to wear on my nerves after a while. Every movie he loves(and there are millions of them for some reason) are reflected upon with a sappy reverance along with obscure Dennis Miller-ish references to other movies that frankly never held that much emotion for me. It is not that this particular review was bad or that TTT was bad, It is that I have waded through so much of this pink bullshit to get to the meat of the review so many times that when It might be true, I dont care anymore. We know you can write Harry, we know you've seen lots of movies. Sometimes I just wanna know what you think about the movie. I knew this review was gonna be like this as soon as It was'nt out the next day. Like Harry was looming over the computer like a composer. WHatever.
Good movie, not like the book. Changing the book without need. Jackson thinks he can be God. Movie was so good, Jackson may be right.
OUT -
General Idea&AncientSatyr,that is exactly what happened to the crowd when I saw TTT!Most thought that is was comic relief,then that quick turn,...dead silence,a shock.I have never felt that when watching a film and I do not think the crowd did either.Brilliant.
-
Playkins wrote earlier in the TB: ((("It took a few viewings of both Ep2 and FOTR to finally realize just how incredibly human the LOTR story is. There are precious few other movies that make you care as much for the characters"))) For me, that really sums it up well. I can't help but think back to the original Star Wars trilogy and remember how I actually cared about what was going to happen to the characters. And then it dawns on me that with all of the technology and resources that Lucas now has, I have yet to be moved by any of the characters in EP1 or 2. I must admit to myself that I really don't care what happens to any of the characters in the new Star Wars movies... but then again... why should I? They are after all, just movies. Besides, now that I'm older, I know better than to take fantasy films so seriously that I get caught up emotionally... right? Perhaps Star Wars didn't change... but instead I did. And then there's Lord Of The Rings. After having now ingested both Fellowship and Towers on the big screen, I'm happy to say that I have, in a sense, returned to my childhood. I never would have believed I could get caught up so emotionally in this day and age of cinema. I know the books, I know the characters, I know the eventualities, and yet, as I watch it all unfold on the screen... I care. The same excitement and wonderment I felt in my youth has returned... and perhaps even more so. Thank you Peter Jackson and company!
-
Dec 20, 2002 8:03:48 AM CST
I *was* gonna do my full review thing...but it seems, I'd be bet
by xthecrovvx
I'm not going to waste my time trying to preach to the trolls anymore....not when for every troll, there's a dozen intelligent people with valid arguments out there...so, this is for them...and solely for them....so, for started, this whole Star Wars versus LOTR thing: Now, let's get this perfectly clear...I AM a Star Wars fan. It's never been necessary to choose a side in my head....I love both these series immensely.....but there's a world of difference between what Peter Jackson is doing and what George Lucas is doing....Lucas is making great movies. PJ is making an EPIC. Lucas treats his series with a child's eyes, looking to tell a cool story while building a universe. PJ, for all intents and purposes, is treating LOTR like he's filming the Bible. And judging from those godly-fucking-incredible shots of the Rohirrim and Gandalf riding head on into a field of Uruk-Hai, i dont think thats too inaccurate a comparison....Harry hit the nail on the head there...that sequence reeks of Italian Rennaissance paintings from end to end, and like a lot of scenes, it nearly brought me to tears to see(key word: nearly)....more on that little issue later...but the point is, people, we dont have to fight about this...my friends, we are in a GEEK Rennaissance here, film-wise....we have ass-kicking franchises coming out of the woodwork, with SEVERAL more to come....if you cant just sit back and enjoy without factioning everybody according to their respective favorite series, then maybe you're just not worthy of such times in the first place. Although, i'll admit, i seriously doubt we'll be seeing "Who da man? Smeagol da man!" commercials next year.
Speaking of which...the whole Yoda vs Smeagol thing(and let's be clear...Moriarty was right....its extremely hard to call the poor bastard Gollum anymore)....I think if anything, what these two characters represent is the new force in CGI, where its becoming important to not only create impossible characters on a computer, but to give them as much of a life, a soul as(ironically) humanly possible. Now, granted, on the whole, Smeagol's the better character, simply because he has more emotional material to work with, and much more of his performance is actually Andy Serkis.....however, Yoda impresses as well, because they managed to pull an actual physical performance out of, really, nothing. There was no motion capture involved here, just old scenes from Empire Strikes Back to work from. On the whole, i believe that if the Academy doesnt create a Best Computer-Generated Performance category next year, theyre off their fucking rockers. There's more, but since i know people HATE too-long posts, I'll come back to this thing later. Revolution is my name. -
Dec 20, 2002 8:23:22 AM CST
"this is the first film of the modern age that dares to dream a
by minderbinder
Back this up? I've seen mentions of Demille, Kurasawa and Lean in a number of major reviews (chicago tribune included). I would have thought that it was just hyperbole if it hadn't been repeated by so many diverse reviews.
-
Ah Gollum's big scene. So dramatic! In my theater, people went from laughter to... more laughter. Throughout the whole movie. You're supposed to feel pity for him? As near as I can tell, Gollum WAS a successful character... a successful Jar Jar. Lucas needs more Gollum, he's a laugh riot! People laughed at him through the whole movie, even the very end. When the movie ended, a good portion of people were pissed off about the ending or some other thing. Me personally? I didn't laugh OR cry at Gollum. But at least he was less annoying than Elijah Wood and Sean Astin.
-
Harry the riders of Rohan are called the Rohirrim or Eorligas (sons of Eorl) NOT the Rohan!
-
Dec 20, 2002 8:32:07 AM CST
Give it up Ryalto, you pissed away all your credibility with all
by minderbinder
"This movie will suck!" "See, I told you it would suck"? So if you KNEW it would suck, WHY did you go and see it opening night?? ANSWER THE QUESTION.
-
i am starting to feel sick...my stomach hurts...i have no interest in anyone around me...i am moody...i have no desire to do anything but lay in bed...omg i am having withdrawal symptoms...so i am starting to read the books again very slowly to ease the pain...just 1 year is all i tell myself...but i am scared something will happen to me & i will not be here next year...just 1 year...i can make it i hope...just 1 year until it is finish...god just let me make it to see ROTK
-
I didn't think it was possible but Hackson has actually made a film that's worse than FOTR. My problems with FOTR - 1/ The dialogue. OH MY GOD HOW AWFUL IS THAT DIALOGUE!? "Hence, go forth into the firey chasm of murder and vanquish the evil, terrible, dark, threatening, creature of the deep!" Pleeeeeeeessseee. I was praying that it would be better but some the dialogue in this movie is actually more popous than the first. 2/ The characters. I simply couldn't give a damm about what happened to them. The Hobbits are whiny, cry-babies with absolutley NO likeable qualities. Aragon has NO charisma and Gandalf came across as a creepy old man. In TTT we get a new bunch of characters to not care about! Yeeeeaahhhh!!!!!!3/ CGI. If you are going to rely on CGI then you better make sure it's goo. Too many times in FOTR I was taken out of the story by shit CGI and it's the exact same here. I mean, that shot when Legal Ass grabs the front of his horse and swings onto it? How bad was that!!! It looked like something you'd see in a mummy movie. I went to see TTT hoping that it would get me into this trilogy but quite frankl it has made things worse. This trilogy has no soul or heart and in the end it looks like it will just be considered an action story which I am told by fans of the books, that it's not meant to be.
UPDATE----------------------- I really can't believe how bad that scene with Legal Ass on the horse was.
-
anyone that stands here & tells me they think the LOTR movies are stupid or ATOC is better, well i would never trust anything else you said about a movie. none of you have posted any reasons for any of the lOTR movies being bad that actually stand up. just haters & people with egos bigger than their small penises. i remember what my philosophy teacher told me 'never open your mouth unless what you say you can back-up by reason'. well i guess then alot of you need to keep your mouth shut.
-
Don't know if anybody here cares, but just to let you know, Sony Image Work (the same company behind the first Harry Potter movie's quidditch sequence and this year's cartoony Spiderman FX) also handled some of the FX chores (along w/ Oktober films). They might be the one who screwed up the blue screen (just like Digital Domain did w/ the Ford sequence in Fellowship). They might also be responsible for the unusually rubbery Cave trolls and the seriously cartoony digital stuntmen (e.g., Theoden et al. riding out to battle the remaining Uruk Hai forces, long shot of Helm's Deep with guards on patrol). Take that for what you mind. Anyway, have a good one.
-
I breezed thru this talkback, so I'm not sure if someone answered this already. If memory serves me correctly, a running W was a wire stretched very low to the ground in front of the stunt horses' path, causing him to trip when he crossed it in order to simulate a fall. A more enlightened age caused moviemakers to come up with a humane solution to the problem of simulating horses falling over, tho what that solution is escapes me. And re the TTT, I'll see it tomorrow, thereby amazing myself with my extraordinary will power.
-
I think it's time to get your diaper changed...Does baby want a bottle?
To say that the elves at helms deep ruined the movie is just retarded. How the hell can it ruin the movie??!!
I'm a big fan of the book and films, and I didn't bat an eye when the elves showed up! I thought "Hey, cool, elves at helms deep, this should be interesting."
And Frodo going to osgiliath is the same thing! Who cares!! It was cool!
Now, if they did something drastic to the storyline, like Gollum stealing the ring and they have to get it back, then I would understand your complaints. But to bitch about something that has no effect to the overall story is just childish. What I mean to say is: Get your nose out of the book, and enjoy the movie. This is the best adaption we're ever going to get, so you BETTER enjoy it. -
One comment though to all those assholes who "work in the special effects industry" etc who declared that the shot of Frodo holding Sting to Gollums throat released a few weeks back just couldn't be CGI. Had to be a silicon model. Strange because when I saw the movie, er it was CGI. Guess you experts are all fucking idiots then.
-
Dec 20, 2002 9:18:13 AM CST
I REPEAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH PETER JACKSON AND TEAM!!! YOU GUY
by palantir
-
First of all, I am a huge Star Wars fan. I HATE it when people compare LOTR to SW because they are both completley different things. But the Tolkien zealots won't leave it alone so now I'm joining in. I enjoyed FOTR. I didn't love it because the characters were boring. I went to see TTT and the effects ONCE AGAIN took me completly out of the story. SOME OF THEM ARE AWFUL. Gollum is great but isn't perfect, but some of the creatures and the sets are just downright awful. AOTC broke new ground in every way and once again WETA are struggling to catch up. IN TEN YEARS TIME YOU WILL LOOK AT THESE FILMS AND CRINGE BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE EFFECTS.
-
Why was this guy acting like Peter Jackson at an awards ceremony? i.e telling jokes and acting foolish when no one else thinks it's funny?
He wasn't like that in the first Lord Of The Flies movie. -
I felt absolutly NO CONNECTION with any of the characters again and the dialogue got laughs when it wasn't meant to. It's really bad.
-
Was that even a review Harry? You're SURE you didn't like it and you're just covering up? Ok, Fellowship was WAY better than TTT. The Two Towers was a mixed bag for me.....tons of great moments that were pure cinematic genius. But there were just too many literal fuckups that any Tolkien fan should be pissed off as hell about! Sorry, but I just don't see the need to change so much stuff. Why did Arwen, Elrond and galadriel even need to be in the film!?? That was a waste of 10 minutes that could have been used to show Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff!!! Elves at Helm's Deep was unnecessary and goes against one of the strongest themes of LOTR...the age of men is rising and the other races are fading away. Besides, Lorien, Mirkwood, the Lonely Mountain were all besieged and could not send any help! The Warg battle was cool but Aragorn's supposed death scene was retarded. WE KNOW HE WON'T DIE SO WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?? Why wasn't Eomer at Helm's Deep? Why was Gandalf reduced to a cameo role? Why was Faramir a clone of Boromir (until Sam's cheesy speech) and why did he take them to Osgiliath?? I just do not understand these changes. Oh, the PJ fucked up the Entmoot too...he contradicted Treebeard big time. "Oh yes, we take a lot of time to decide things...we aren't going to help you. Wait, there's a few dead trees. Off we go to take down Isengard!" CONTRADICTION! I don't see how so many of you supposed Tolkien "fans" can agree with ANY of these changes!! FUCK THAT SHIT! Anyway, Gollum was great....best SFX ever. Andy Serkis should get an Oscar. The cast was great as expected, though I miss Sean Bean and Ian McKellan! The editing was.....jarring. I couldn't get comfortable with it at all. What was the point of cutting back to Merry and Pippin for one minute and then back to Aragorn? HAVE LONGER SCENES PJ!! Helm's Deep was great in the wide shots but again, too much closeup fuzzy action shots. Massive is very impressive indeed. I can't wait for the Battle of the Pelennor fields and GROND and the death of the Witchking. Oh baby. I liked at least how PJ hinted at what is to come with Shelob and Gollum's treachery but still...Shelob could have made her way into this film if Pj had been more faitful to the book. Anyway, this is certainly a great movie and a true epic but I wish Harry and Moriarty would stop referring to these films as the best ever made! They aren't by a long shot. They still haven't beaten Empire Strikes Back! There is no way Jackson or any other filmmaker is going to beat the books. Tolkien was a literary genius and PJ's changes have NEVER been better than what Tolkien wrote on the page. So....WHY MAKE CHANGES?? It doesn't make sense! I think Harry and Moriarty and a lot of you guys are giving jackson way too much praise....LOTR IS NOT HIS STORY....IT IS TOLKIEN'S! PLEASE REMEMBER THAT! Anyway, I'll have to see it a few more times before I make my final decision but right now....I give this movie a 9.5 out of 10 as a film. As a translation of Tolkien, it gets a 5 out of 10. Yeah, I know this is "PJ's version" but his version sucks compared to the books. Sorry, but that's just the truth. Fellowship was better because it was more faithful. Bombadil was an understandable cut. The changes in Two Towers are heinous crimes!
-
Jerking us all off with eye candy, horrible acting, cheezy dialogue and fooling the public into thinking it was anything more than a long, slow, ass rape.
-
I suggest if you have a problem with the concept of a few hundred + elven archers vs. 10,000+ orcs, you should read up on the battle of Thermopolae, during which only a few hundred Spartans killed more than 12,000 Persians. It was a similar situation, except the Spartans had no shelter - the pass of Thermopolae was just a narrow mountain pass that was essentially the gate to Sparta.
Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield. Read it. -
I didn't know Ralph Bakshi was still making films. When did this come out?
-
I've posted here before as I am a HUGE Tolkien fan. But I hated FOTR. I thought he took too many liberties and completley failed to capture the magic of Tolkiens world. He made a hollow action movie that failed to capture the heart of non-Tolkien readers. And I say that because most of the non-Tolkien readers I know, who saw the film, didn't like it and aren't going to see TTT. The ones who did like it, liked the "Cool" effects and "awsooome" action. Not the characters or the intimacy of the story and most of them couldn't even name a character! And so I walked with dread into the theatre, hoping that Jackson would FINALLY stick to the story. but NOT A CHANCE! HAS HE EVEN READ THE FUCKING BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!! The guy should never have been allowed to touch these books. No wonder Tolkiens family are trying to distance themselves from it. There are too many changes to mention but I will try later on. The biggest one is the whole Arwen affair. BLOODY HELL!!!! As if casting the awful Liv Tyler wasn't bad enough but he completly re-writes her story, and come up with some incredibly cheesy scenes. The script is awful again. No wonder people are giggling in the theatre at some of it. My biggest fault is that Hackson treat the viewers as if they are complete morons. Forget about the MASSIVE holes in the plot of the action because there is even worse. In FOTR he showed us a close up of the ring every five minutes. Why? Did he think we were all stupid and we'd forget about what the film was about? In TTT during Helms Deep he consistantly shows us, ariel shots of the battle. Why? It was totally inapropriate. I kept waiting for the documentry voice-over to say "and now the orcs approached from the left". Hackson has a complete contempt for Tolkien fans and the intelligence of the audience. He's a fat, smug little man who should never have been allowed to touch Tolkiens masterpiece.
-
Well, I could waste time specifically addressing Fucker Crunchman, but I'll take the higher road in replying to Mithril, who at least addressed my post with a little civility. (Jesus, this TB has got me in a bad mood! I just want to hurt somebody. Breathe...) Anyway, Mithril, I HEARD the dialogue. I just thought that it wasn't evident from what we SAW and HEARD how they got to the top of a mountain from thousands of feet below Moria. Remember, the Balrog became his only hope of getting out, as it knew the way around. Just a simple "He then led me to the Endless Stair..." with Gimli saying "So it does exist" or something would've been fine. Maybe it's just me, but they could've done a little better job explaining the circumstances to what was impossible in the eyes of the rest of the Fellowship.
-
WETA's effects were great, certainly not poor. This is not a comparison of LOTR and SW, as that is old and tired by now. To say that WETA's effects were poor is just ridiculous. ILM's effects were phenomenal, and I didn't even like AOTC. I found it a lot harder to discern the CGI characters from the CGI background in AOTC than it was to see the "flaws" in Gollum in TTT. But, Gollum NEVER existed in a 3D world. He had to placed right alongside the live action heros in a live action environment through the entire movie. It was a hell of an undertaking. But, really all we're discussing is compositing. If you compare the animation in Gollum's character to ANYTHING out there today, nothing can possibly match up. It's the most convincing character in the story... moreso in my mind than some of the human ones. I'm afraid here WETA is breaking the ground and ILM will have to catch up. There are always going to be places where we say "oh, hey, that's CGI," because we are LOOKING FOR IT. We know it's fake. We're not stupid. But WETA did a phenomenal job with the undertaking and it will only get better for ROTK. And I applaude Peter Jackson for not totally overusing the CG element. I think Lucas could learn something there. Let's hope both the ROTK and Ep. III are well worth our time. --d
-
There is going to be a whole new generation of people who grow up with HACKSONS version as the true LOTR and that makes me very very sad.##### I know people who haven't and have NO intention of reading the books so they will grow up thinking that HACKSONS story is the real one. They'll think that all of the characters are underdeveloped and that the LOTR is an action story. They'll grow up thinking that the Hobbits are idiots and Gimli and Legolas are comic relief. IT'S A FUCKING DISGRACE! AM I THE ONLY FAN WHO'S WORRIED ABOUT THIS!!!
-
I like TTT, but is anyone else worried that there is no way that PJ can cover ROTK in addition to two chapters each from books 3 and 4, in 3 hours? Man, the Scouring must be cut. I don't know about everyone else, but I was excited the first time, I read the book and saw that there was much more after the ring was destroyed. I just think that the story of the hobbits wont be complete without it. Is the movie really gonna end with Aragorn being crowned because the story is much more about Frodo and Sam.
-
Why, I think you lifted your EXACT SAME POST from another talkback and dumped it here, to sound, yet again, like a total moron. You comment on poor camera choices for the ring and battle sequences and a bad casting choice with Liv Tyler. Fine, they all might be decent points. But then you show your stupidity by sleighting Peter Jackson. No, not his directing capabilities... instead you suggest that he has "contempt for the fans" and even go far as to call him "fat and smug". You are being foolish. If your goal was to insight some response, well kudos. You've already had a successful day. --d
-
I am not a Star Wars gusher who hates Lord of the Rings. I've read the books 7 times in my life (I'm 20, first read it when I was 12). I've seen Fellowship about 14 times (7 at the theatre, and 7 on DVD). But I still ENJOY watching The Empire Strikes Back moreso than watching these first two chapters of Lord of the Rings. I agree that TPM and AOTC don't come anywhere NEAR the quality that Jackson has put into FOTR and TTT. Lucas has lost it. What bugs me is that if Jackson had really followed the book more closely with minimal changes (like FOTR), TTT could have been a fucking masterpiece. But it's just a mixed bag. Call me a "naysayer" and a "cynic" but fuck all of you. These books have sold over 100 million copies and there's no way that a faithful adaptation would make LESS money than this "LOOSELY BASED UPON" version that Jackson has made. It's great, yes, but he has pissed off a lot of Tolkien fans. Oh, to the guy who mentioned the battle at the Pass of Thermopalaye. Arabs (the Persians) aren't warriors man! Fucking Arabs are cowards, always have been and always will be. :) :) Anyway, I didn't like how Jackson's version showed only 300 Rohirrim and 200 Elves could hold off 10,000 Orcs. Tolkien had at least a 1000 or 2000 Rohan warriors at Helm's Deep, not 300. And what the hell was with showing 10 year old kids with weapons? A 20 year old woman is more effective with a sword than some 10 year old kid. Yeah, PJ, way to go for the over dramatisation eh? I hate when film makers so deliberately and obviously go for tear jerking scenes. I can see showing 14-16 years olds...but LITTLE kids who can't even hold a sword!??!?! Get stuffed.
-
...remember that he eats babies. No, really. It's in the book. sk
-
I was reading an interview with some box-office guy and he started going on about how TTT is the second biggest wednesday ever, behind The Phantom Menace. He then said that it was the second biggest sequel to open this year behind Attack Of The Clones. THEN he said that LOTR was this generations Star Wars. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
No no no, Star Wars is this generations Star Wars. And Lord Of The Rings is this generations LOTR. Why do you always have to attack everything else to try and convince people that LOTR is good? -
To this I ask, "Why?" I own the books. I love the books. I've read the books a countless number of times, almost to the point of obsessivness. And when I'm reading them, I have my own film playing in my mind. When I go to the theater to see these books brought to the screen, I don't *want* to see my version of the film. I want to see someone else's vision. Someone else who loves these books as dearly as I, to expand on the world and take the movie to certain places that the books only hinted at (re: Osgiliath), and to stray from the path a bit to go beyond what's *already* in my head. I don't want a carbon copy of Tolkien's material. I can stay home and read the literature to create the same effect. PJ and team are to be commended. Given the almost blasphemous time frame of a mere three hours in which to tell this hugely complex tale, I found the film to be a complete success. Like every movie ever produced in the history of cinema, it had its faults. I mean, Pippin and Merry wouldn't of reminded Gandalf of his name? It had its moments that made me go, "meh". But despite those faults, we still have a film that, as far as I'm concerned, stands proudly with FoTR as a remarkable second chapter to a single amazing story. This is one Tolkien fan who is quite far from pissed and quite anxious to get into the theater to live the experience again, and even more anxious for RoTK.
-
have gone up 1000% since Fellowship Of The Ring hit theaters. Just think of how many people would never ever have experienced the wonder of Tolkien's creation in it's printed form had it not been for PJ's incredible film adaptation. Once again, thank you Peter Jackson!
-
Gawd,you people are just too funny!So many people bashed this film before it came out,spending all that time posting and posting and posting.Then they go spend their hard earn wages to see it!HAHA!!It gets better,then they come back to TB and bash it again and post and post and blah,blah,blah!ROTFL!!!Life is way too short.Thnaks to all those folks who calmly discussed the film either positively of negatively.:)
-
POE-TAY-TOES....................
If that scene doesn't show everything, I don't know what does. Humor, heart, seamless effects, of herbs and stewed rabbits, sam's love for frodo, the nature of gollum(gives it to uss raw), AND BY THE WAY IT'S ALL IN TOTAL SUNLIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!you big bunch of dorks. As a kid star wars broadened my imagination, as an adult LOTR is broadening my soul. I feel for anyone who can't relate to the downfall of smeagol.simply put, IT COULD BE YOU. -
I don't understand all the whiners. They all complain about this little detail or that and exagerate the flaws. IT's not a perfect movie. But it's a very good movie, I'd say it was great. I think a lot of the posters are suffering from what Siskel is suffering from, selective memory of a text. I know a lot of hardcore Tolkienites who loved the move, I know a lot of non-tolkienites who also love the movie. I suspect all of the critics here are 14 year olds who want to look cool by insisting that they have some deeper insight into tolkiens books. Her wrote a book on the courage of small people, a book on the follies of blind pacificsm, a book on the corruption of good by power. He didn't write a perfect novel. The book has flaws too but it's got so many great parts that all the flaws are forgiven. The movies are the same.
Ps. Doesn't much of the peace movie resemble king Theoden. For Evil to prosper good men must simply do nothing. -
Take heart. Especially those who feel the books are a lifeline. Where all deviasions are gutwrenching. I did not completely fall in love with Fellowship the first time I saw it. I did not completely fall in love with The Two Towers the first time I saw it. It's the second time that ropes you. I'll tell you why. Again, this is more geared to those who find Jacksons liberaties distracting. The first time I saw both films, I sat through the entire film apprehensive. Noticing each turn that was different from the book. Each time these turns happened my mind went into "what-if" mode trying to picture the scenes as they were written in the book, trying to understand why the turns were taken, and trying to figure out alternate routes they might have taken in the course of the film. It was a heavy distraction throughout. I was not able to relax and truly enjoy the film for what it was, a film, a film adaptation of a story I truly love, until I saw it the second time when I knew exactly where everything was going. I had had time to digest the changes. The same has happened to me this second time around with Towers. The Two Towers was a wonderful ride and a splendid addition to Jackson's presentation of Lord of the Rings. I can hardly wait for the conclusion. I hope some of you can get past your misgivings and hangups about your perseption of what the film should be. It would be ashame to miss the ride. I think Harry's right to a certain extent. The impact and weight of this/these films are sure to impact the film industry. Think about what the little man from New Zealand is accomplishing here. I am truly honored that Tolkien and his books were the subject of this accomplishment. Great books should become great films. One last note, the cry of bad cgi is misplaced here. There are a few questionable shots throughout the "3 hour" movie. Mostly involved in the warg attack and the march of the tree-ents. Both of these lasting only a matter of seconds. The remainder of the film was spot on and as close to flawless as you can get these days. In addition, the amazing work on Gollum and the Helms Deep battle should more than make up for any doubts you might have had for the WETA effects department. What an amazing job. Gollum is without a doubt the most amazing cgi character ever created. Helms Deep is without a doubt the most amazing cgi battle ever simulated. So what's the problem? There's a few seconds that you notice the cgi. Big deal. What film had perfect cgi? It's not attainable. But I got to say that this film has come pretty close with the majority of its work. Much more believable than any other film up till now.
-
A movie is supposed to ENTERTAIN you from beginning to end. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF MAKING ONE. The only star wars flick that entertained me from beginning to end was a new hope. LOTR, I practically fell asleep a few times. I haven't seen TTT yet, but it will undoubtedly do the same thing. ANY director out there should realize that keeping the viewer engaged in EVERY SHOT is the first priority. Jackson's camera work and storytelling is pretty average. I personally think that Indiana Jones was one of the most engaging movies of all time, and some German flic I saw years ago, about family reunions and other crap that built to the most emotional climax I've ever witnessed in a theatre. Everyone walked out devestated. Now THAT'S movie-making. What's the point of this trilogy? If that's not clear, then Jackson hasn't done the job.
-
Dec 20, 2002 10:04:58 AM CST
"there's no way that a faithful adaptation would make LESS money
by minderbinder
Um...it's pretty easy to imagine a "faithful" version that would tank. "Who's this crazy dancing forest guy?" "Why did Aragorn marry some chick who I don't even remember from the first film?" "Why do the characters keep waiting months and years before they get off their lazy asses and do something?" "Why do the songs last longer than the battles..." Sorry, but there aren't enough "purists" out there to make a $300M project profitable.
-
I'll set up my GL1 and Sennheiser, I'll put on a nice smoking jacket and sit in a nice, plush mahogony chair in fron of a fireplace, I'll open my collector's edition final revision LOTR and I'll start on page 1. I'll even read in an English accent. And then I'll burn the whole thing onto about 40 DVDRs and mail them to you. Then you can have a perfect, Tolkien accurate film version of LOTR.
-
I don't really like a lot of the modern arab culture, but Arabs aren't cowards, not back then. Remember they did kick medevil Europes ass in the crusades in large part because they had better horses and better swords. But you have to remember that the Orcs/persians were fighting with a very poor tactical position. They had to assault a fortified position. The orcs had to attack a fortified keep, with archers and many soldiers. Seige breaking is exstremely costly and the orcs should have waited them out, until they had no food. The whole reason behind the contruction of fortified castles is that they are very difficult to take even with a few men. There was a fortress in France during world war 2, one unit of french soldiers held off an entire battalion of german soldiers for months. And the Germans had already breeched the gates. They fought inside the fortress.
I know many arabs, most are as much like you and me as anyone, I also know poor arab immagrants who resemble the charachature of vulgar and violent men, I think this has more to do with poverty than being arab. Don't judge a whole culture on the actions of a few exstremeists. -
The Battle of Casine, during which German troops holed up in a monastary, required something like 14 bombing raids to take out. The 100th airborne lost 150 of 180 men to a few dozen Germans holed up in the monsatary.
History is filled with defeat when attacking a fortified position.
Tolkien, being a WW1 vet, surely knew this, and incorporated his military knowledge and experience into the battles. -
Do you people live in your own little world? I was just at the movie and people were clapping and going crazy. The Tomatometer is at like 98% positive reviews, it is on tons of critics top ten list and yet it is a disappointment? You are all impossible to please and for the most part it sounds like half the people here posting are just stiring up shit. I am not saying that you can't have an opinion but come on. Your expectations are insane. I am sorry if it did not turn out exactly like the book, but they never do. This does not mean that the movie is bad. If PJ set out to destroy the book do you honestly think he would have given a decade of his life to it? He loves the books, but at the same time he has to make it commercially viable. A studio is not going to give 400 million dollars to someone if they cannot make a movie that appeals to the masses. He had to amp up the action. If he had made the movie with only literary scholars of the trilogy in mind it would have flopped. Unfortunately people want to make money on their investment, sorry
-
Loved that anecdote about Harlan. And you're exactly right about criticism (Harlan just gets his yucks from shitting on things too damned much.) Hope to hear more from you IN DETAIL about TTT. I agree with you completely about Gollum/Smeagol. His interaction with Sam was some of the best dialogue of the film; it showed more and more of his ingrown personality, as did his inner debate. By the way, just what are you licking in your latest animated baanner on AICN? Are we going to see a TTT animated banner soon?
-
I asked this yesterday and didn't get an answer, so I'll ask again. I've now watched 2 LOTR movies and still feel like I no nothing and simply don't care about any of the characters. Is this Jacksons fault or and the characters in Tolkiens book this 1 dimensional?
-
I read someone say that. WOW! I can't believe how badly this film is being recieved. My personal feeling is that Jackson undid all the good work he did with FOTR. My LOTR fasination ends with this movie. I simply don't care anymore.
-
Dec 20, 2002 10:26:51 AM CST
You Have To Love A Review That References Bela Lugosi as Ygor
by padmesloveslave
I agree with Harry on this one, TTT is a supreme cinematic achievement and probably the best film of 2002. I'm pretty amazed at some of the negative reaction this is getting from LOTR fans, I hope this won't turn into a "Jackson has raped my childhood/adolesence" thing, because filmmakers have a right to make a film the way they want to and not be beholden to narrow minded people who only want to see something predictable and "comfortable" as opposed to challenging and stimulating.
-
Perhaps it's neither's "fault" and you simply don't care for the story? There's plenty of popular fiction that I don't care for, but I don't blame the authors. They're just not my style. And obviously the books are going to contain a good deal more interesting character moments and development than the movies will, no way around that. But if you didn't feel any emotion towards the films, I see little reason that you would enjoy the books.
-
Dec 20, 2002 10:30:38 AM CST
And Does Anyone Else the Similarities Between Dourif's Grim And
by padmesloveslave
His facial expressions, his hair, even his spidery descent down the stairs of Theoden's castle seem to be patterned on this great silent cinema performance.
What a rich film TTT is, I can't wait to see it again and again! -
Sorry!
-
similar to last years FOTR TB. I also notice that most of the TTT bashers seem to have seen it the day it was released....hhmmmm....that's interesting....
For all the Tolkien purists who say that PJ should have done it exactly as the book, think about it for a bit...would you really want to sit in a dark theatre for that long? What may be interesting to read would be boring as hell to watch. It wouldn't make any sense, since alot of the book is description of various people/places, and the characters in the movie would be doing things for no apparant reason. This movie is as faithfull to the book as it can be, and still be entertaining.
Oh BTW, if you didn't like the movie and you're not a purist, please spare us you childish dribble and go back to your Star Wars message boards... -
...As someone once pointed out in a TB long ago, not even THAT "version" of LOTR--a seated English-accented gentleman reading the unabridged trilogy in front of a camera--would satisfy the Purists. Because, for God's sake, man, only Tolkien Himself should be reading the book to us. And sadly that is no longer possible. And that is why LOTR is truly unfilmable. ....So, does anyone else get the feeling that a lot of people who come to AICN these days don't actually like movies? They like their franchise or genre of choice, but that's pretty much all they can enjoy? What happened to the Film Geeks? It's 90% Faction Geeks around here now, the worst of them being functionally adolescent Faction Geeks for whom everything else--especially a perceived "rival"--is "gay" or "retarded." Milhouse: "It used to be about the [movies], man!" Rockstar Bart: "Slag off!" [hurls whiskey bottle]
-
Dec 20, 2002 10:35:03 AM CST
Ha ha! Greenmonkey! That's the funniest thing I've read on a TB
by orson w
Okay, I'll take you up on your offer. Send me the forty DVDs. If you could draw pictures as well, I'd appreciate that. At last, an auteur who's prepared to make a faithful dramatisation of LOTR! How much money do you want?
-
TTT is going to go top of the IMDB because of a handful of Tolkien zealots. How can anyone claim that this is a GREAT MOVIE and keep a straight face? It has nothing on Indiana Jones. It's a mess of gigantic proportions. It looks like it was edited by a 5 year old.
-
Dec 20, 2002 10:39:50 AM CST
The movie was spectacular. 007 your arguments are idiotic, your
by jamboreech
Jackson is a most excellent director, heck he could do ten times a better job directing a Star Wars movie than Lucas ever could. The best Star Wars movies weren't directed by Lucas. The worst in the series were. What does that tell you? TTT, is a fine example of what Attack of the Clones failed to do. It did everything completely right. And it's why its nominated for Golden Globes and soon to be more awards and 'Attack of the Clones' isn't.
-
I've said it before this is what dreams are made of, "sugar plums dancing in my head". No I don't wnat to wake up, I want to hit the snooze...I want to rib the cord right out of the wall and return to Middle Earth. I don't want it to ever end. This movie brings back my childhood imagination, when anything was possible. The person I went to the movies with said, "Wow, what if a place like that exists someplace." Yes, this is what dreams are made of.
-
Did anyone see 2D TV last night? They had this great scene where Rudolph, sorry, Gandalf was fighting in a toy shop with Harry Potter over who's merchandies was better. They really took the piss out of both. They kept zapping each other and Potter would turn Gandolf into a Gandolph Special Edition Mug and stuff like that.
-
I don't know why people don't like Liv. She looks gorgeous and luminescent and her acting is fine. I think she is great in this picture. You can see how a white girl could fall for her.
-
(pinkie at corner of mouth).
Let's ee... It's what, 1500 pages, including appendix, right? I can read about 50 pages an hour, so that's actually about 30 hours, give or take...
Mini-DV is 60 minutes in SP, so I'd need at least 30 tapes. A pack of five is about $16, so figure $256 for tapes. A DVD holds about 88 minutes (round to 90), so figure at least 20 DVDRs, at a cost of about $3 each, that's $60.
Nice mahogony chair, about $300. Smoking jacket - who knows? $100 sounds reasonable. Pipe, about $50.
Then you have my time. I charge about $150 an hour for production. Figure 30 hours just reading, plus at least another 10 in post (all those tapes have to be edited, and I'd need to get several more HDs to store it all, so figure another $400). So my rate for the filming would be $6000.
So I'd do it for $15,000. You can paypal me the money...
(I was joking, BTW) -
I won't be going to see ROTK because Jackson has clearly dropped the ball. People I was with were fucking bored! Peter why the hell did you make so many changes to the book? It makes no sense.
-
Faramir. What the hell was that about? And the Arwen/Aragorn cheesy, cliched, hooribly acted love story! It makes me sick.
-
TTT, from the reactions from people leaving the theatre, was a hit. I feel that you cannot, and are not meant to, view TTT as a stand alone movie. Just as Tolkien created LOTR to be ONE book, so must the movies be seen as one movie seen in three parts. Together, FoTR and TTT are beautiful and thrilling and well-paced. Sure, there are some flaws, but the greatness surely outweighs them. Another thing-- I really don't think you can spit out a review based on one viewing. The world of Middle Earth as Tolkien created it is immense. Even though P. Jackson condenses the narratives as much as possible, the movies are still quite complex as well. I have seen it twice, and I am still unfolding the experience in my mind. Some didn't like the Arwen scenes. I wasn't sure if they were necessary at first, but after thinking about it, I am very glad Jackson put these scenes in. This entire trilogy is moving forward before of sacrifice for the greater good. ALL of them have things to lose. For Aragorn, it's Arwen. There's nothing her loves beyond her (except for his honor). Without putting something about their relationship in the movie, we miss out on a large part of what's going on in his heart. That's why so much time was devoted to portraying the Shire in FoTR. We see what the Hobbits have to sacrifice. The Elves (including Legolas) are sacrificing immortality. The Ents sacrifice their lives of peace and separation. ALL of Middle Earth fights the same fight for the greater cause. Though the fellowship is broken, they are still together in that aspect-- the singular goal of saving Middle Earth from Sauron. I hope people don't take the LoTR movies at face value. You really need to think and invest for this trilogy to work its magic. ----thanks.
-
We were really hot the first time we saw it. Sweating, nasty smells... it was bad. The theater itself was great (brand new), but since it was a midnight showing, at around 1 am they cut the air, and it quickly because a Turkish torture chamber.
I didn't like it as much as Fellowship. There. I said it.
Initially, talking with a friend, I didn't really think I had any problems with the changes made to the story. Now, after rereading some of the book, I'm pretty upset that Faramir's character was changed so much. He essentially became Boromir, when he was supposed to be a gentle, thoughtful, student of Gandalf. That didn't make a lick of sense. I didn't mind the trip to Osgiliath, because it was actually under siege in the book, and it gave Frodo, Sam and Smeagol something to do during the last hour. But why did Frodo almost give the ring to the Nazgul?
And why did Aragorn "die" during the Warg attack? Was he just unconscious? Did Arwen revive him, or did she reanimate him? I didn't mind the Arwen/Aragorn story, since almost all of it came from the appendix. I just didn't see why Aragorn had to almost die and then come back.
I also understood why the elves participated at Helm's Deep. I kind of reasoned that maybe Tolkien just didn't think of it! I mean, it makes perfect sense. But why no Huorons? That's how the battle was suppsed to end, with the Huorons wiping out the orcs. I REALLY wanted to see that, cause in my mind they're so FREAKY!
I wanted more of the Ents. No entwash! And wasn't there a young ent that Merry and Pippin made friends with who convinced the other ents to go to war? Quickbeam, right? I guess he didn't want to introduce too many characters that really looked alike. Less confusing.
Now, I LOVED Smeagol. It was a combination of Serkis' performance and the eyes. Smeagol has always been my favorite character in the book. He's so tragic - you can see the possibilities in him. But in the end he's just too twisted and ruined. Lucas put a lot fo Smeagol into Vader, huh?
The battle was amazing... The competition between Gimli and Legolas was perfect! The scope. The hopelessness. Occasionally confusing (are those the good guy, or the orcs), especially the aerial shots.
My biggest gripe though was the lack of real character moments. There were a few good moments betwen Frodo and Smeagol, and Sam and Smeagol, but that was about it. Otherwise, it was all very businesslike.
Gimli was very straight in the book. He's very grim and humorless. I didn't mind his "comic relief" too much, since it never became a bad joke. He actually reminded me a lot of Sulla from the Indy movies. Go figure... I also didn't mind him too much because the movie needed a little humor. It's so dark and everything is on the edge of defeat, I think it helped the mood. In the end, it has to be entertaining. I don't find the book all that entertaining. It's fascinating and engrossing and beautiful, but there are LONG stretches where nothing happens. Just speeches and walking and endless descriptions of the terrain.
No, my main character gripe was Faramir. You're supposed to see him as everything Boromir was not. He's also a MAJOR hero in the next book. Don't he and Merry fight together at Minis Tirith?
I did really like Eowyn. Maybe cause she's hot! And Theoden was about perfect.
Jackson's direction was a little more solid, too. Fewer gimmick shots than Fellowship (I still hate the Uruk Hai march when they're tracking the fellowship, and it's all in jerky slow motion. Blecch...), and his scope was wider. He used every inch of the screen.
I guess it just suffered too much of the middle-movie syndrome. Empire will still remain the most perfect sequel. It had the character moments, development, surprises, excitement. Empire is perfect, in my mind. I've seen it hundreds of time, and I can still enjoy every second of it. TTT is not perfect. I was bored a few times, I cringed at the dialogue a few times, I was confused occasionally, and I actually took issue with some of the changes. Where Fellowship was a 9.5 out of 10, I think TTT is about a 7.
Maybe it was surprise and joy (cause we were all hoping Fellowship would be great - and it was), as opposed to anticipation. Our standards were set for this one.
So, just slightly let down, but it was still about the best movie I've seen this year! Going to see Adaptation this weekend! And dreaming of the day Kaufman and Gilliam do a film together! (BTW, can you imagine what would have happened if Gilliam had directed LOTR???) -
Dec 20, 2002 11:10:29 AM CST
Heck I won't even bother anymore, you know the negative posts ar
by jamboreech
It's kind of amusing if you think about it. See they do a little research about how the movies were made on the net, in New Zealand and such, and then they act like hypocrites saying there shouldn't be landscape and CGI used, when 99% of their fetish is a bunch of puppets, digital effects, glued model kits, Tunisian desert, sets, studios, but since they can't seperate 'real' world from fantasy, they assume that it's all some kind of magical world that is real, and that Jedi are real and that the force is real LOL. Now they think themselves incredibly smart, when in reality they're incredibly not, and THINK they understand the mythology of other fanbases, for example how Tolkien's tale should be told WITHOUT EVER having ever read the books, without going into the movies with open mind, and without negatively comparing it to stuff they've seen before. So they basically come in here spouting BS about how they believe a story (which they have no idea about by the way) SHOULD be told to people who UNDERSTAND the story well. LOL look at some of these ridiculous comments, why it should have myths in other places or that it's battle scenes are too short. Trying to pass off intellect they don't have, then compare it to stuff it has nothing to do with like 'Attack of the Clones' and 'Indiana Jones', both Lucas ventures (see a pattern developing here?) I won't even get into why they don't understand things why Helm's and what the stakes are, why it's such an important battle and it has TO BE shown. So in actuality they don't understand anything, but they like to pretend that they do, say they're open minded, but go into the movie hating it and come out with purpose only to diss it's fanbase. Anybody who loves movies and isn't a DIE HARD LOTR PURIST can go into TTT, and come out feel like they've watched something special and one of a kind.
-
I'd also have to compose music to accompany the songs. And I'd have to research the pronounciation of the words. Let's add 30 hours. $25,000.
I'd do it for $25,000.
Ehhh... Let's make it $30k. I want a new 350Z. The track model with the Brembos, limited slip, ASC, and TCS.
: ) -
That scene where he jumps on the horse was just shit, shit, shit, shit.
-
I suppose my main purpose in posting here is defending the movies. However, I will try to resort to doing that without resorting to any name-calling that both sides in this little debate cannot seem to help resorting to. (not to mention the never-ending LOTR vs. SW fight)
Okay, Fellowship was absolutely wonderful. I loved it. I had not, however read the books when I saw it. That changed, I can assure you. I went and read all three books, as well as any other Tolkien I could get my hands on. And not because Tolkien is a great writer. Well, let me rephrase that. He is a great writer in the same sense that Herodotus or Thucydides were great writers. Not in the sense that say, A.S. Byatt or even Philip Pullman are good writers. Tolkien was a professor of philology, not writing or English. I loved LOTR for the history involved. I felt like this was a real lost European continent and that I was reading the one of the greatest histories ever written. Thats what it reads like. For all you naysayers, read Herodotus' History. You'll see.
With that, I'll admit that some of PJ's alterations to the story of The Two Towers are a little extreme. But I trust him. For he seems to me a true fan of the books. And as a true fan of the books, I belive he has a responsibility to himself and to all the other Tolkien fans out there to make the best movie that he can, to inspire other people to read what he loved as a child. You can call him a lot of things, but don't imply that he doesn't like the books, and doesn't think he's doing them justice. What makes you think that your interpretation could be any better? Just because you stuck to the holy word of Tolkien? If you ask me, that was what was wrong with the Harry Potter movies. Columbus seemed to scared to deviate from the word of Rowling because he was afraid that a bunch of rabid nine-year-olds would crucify him. And the movies ended up being soulless peans to the books. I think that Jackson respects Tolkien fans a lot more, that they have the maturity to deal with some of the changes he, Fran, and Philippa made. For its not the little things that matter. Okay, yeah, Frodo and Sam never get to Gondor, and yeah, I think it may have been more interesting if Faramir wasn't a clone of Boromir, but seriously, just trust him.
On another note in this petty SW/LOTR debate, I feel like most of you are losing track of some things. Can people honestly look me in the eye and say the the dialogue in Episodes I and II were really all the good? (And even in Episode IV for that matter) And even if it wasn't good, you'd think Lucas could pass it off as believable. I got the impression that Lucas didn't care enough about his actors. Don't get me wrong, Lucas is a visionary and a great man. Just maybe he should stick to the roles he created for himself in Empire and Jedi. In many ways, I think he is a victim of technology. I think A New Hope and Empire showed how much you could accomplish with minimal special effects. If A New Hope had been made today, the room where Tarkin blows up Alderaan would have been some huge cavernous room and we would have been forced to endure tons of computer generated wides shots of it. Matte paintings and miniatures seems a whole hell of a lot more convincing that wholly computer generated sets. But thats just me.
-
You just say it was shit or awful or boring or trite, but you never give a reason WHY you think that.
It almost seems as if you're bashing just so you can seem outside the sphere of pop culture. You're either mad because you see this movie as a threat to whatever franchise you pledge allegiance to, or because you've memorized Denethor's Lament and written music, too boot.
Whatever.
You guys are why I don't pay any attention to the internet. -
Hmm.."You either get it or you don't" "It's just part of a larger story." Hmmm. Look, I _liked_ it, but compared to FOTR, this movie has serious issues. For one, how much time are they killing here, just so it'll be 3 hours long? I think a trim of 30 or 40 minutes would've been welcome. The cutting as it is is frenetic and hard to follow. I read the books 5 times, and I was _still_ confused in the first hour. Changes and added crap that did nothing but pad the running time. What _exactly_ did the Warg attack add to the film? About fifteen minutes, and not much else. What dramatic reason for the changes to Faramir and the trip into Gondor? To pad the Sam/Frodo/Gollum storyline, which, frankly, went nowhere, very, very slowly. How many times are people going to "die" and be back 20 minutes later? The largest sin, truly, is that we have learned _nothing_ new about any of the characters from FOTR. They have not grown or changed. FOTR was a brilliant, brilliant film, stately and elegant. TTT is like it's ADD cousin that you could enjoy the company off if he didn't keep finding reasons to stay and natter on. He's interesting, but has a hard time getting to the point of it all.
-
Dec 20, 2002 11:23:22 AM CST
Treebeard's scenes were BUTT RAPED.... PJ screwed with the ENTS
by lordweymont
Still loved Streebeard, but I wanted the book version of Treebeard... I wanted more!!!
-
are fucking stupid. Sure, you're entitled to your opinions, but why the hell do you put up post after post describing how much you hated it? It is moronic. I didn't care much for AOTC, but did I come on here bashing it to high heaven? No. Why? Cause it just wasn't worth my time or effort. If you didn't like it, fine. Now FUCK OFF. Make one post saying you didn't, and FUCK OFF. I'm tired of reading 5 different posts of hatred from the same IDIOT.
-
This piece is not a review, but a tribute to the beauty of cinema. I got the chills while reading it. I appreciate your simple testament to the greatness of this trilogy which will live on for all time, a trilogy that is beyond the realm of greatness and reaches into perfection. Thank you again.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't SW and LOTR completely different types of movies? LOTR was nominated for best drama. SW would never be nominated in a drama category, would it? It's more action-adventure. Yes, I know LOTR also has action and adventure!
-
Ok I have a serious problem with everyone bitching about Faramirs changes in the movie. Have you people forgotten about Merry and Pippin. They were changed big time in the movie to become rather stupid characters who we all know will become great warriors in the 3rd film. But all I'm trying to say is they changed Merry and Pip to have a better character progression then Tolkien had. They started off differently but end up the same way. So people just relax and have faith in PJ. Faramir will turn out just fine.
-
So the moron hobbit fucker who claimed that TTT had the biggest opening of the year. YOU ARE VERY WRONG.
-
And cheap at the price! Especially compared to the $300m budget Jackson has. I'll buy it! Oh, but could you do a Grrenmonkey LOTR exhibition where you display the jacket, armchair etc? Oh, and a few collectable replicas molded in plastic would be groovy too. ***** BTW Tolkien was furious when he heard a radio recording of LOTR and angrily claimed that he himself could have played the characters better. A claim not exactly plausible if you hear the reading he did (which I found on the net somewhere) of the Stewed Rabbit scene. I'm afraid Andy Serkis and Sean Astin deliver a better rendition....nice try though, JRR.
-
Can a photograph capture the total essense of a human being? Of course not. The point of a still camera is to capture a memory, and memories are never true to reality (see Solaris). Now I'll ask you this: Can a film recreate the workings of the mind, the imagination of the writer and the reader, or the image CREATED by the mind's eye while reading a piece of literature? Again, the answer is a resounding "No." The purpose of an adapted film is to capture the essence of the book. It is truly impossible to re-create a book on film, because to do that, one must trap and re-create human imagination, and who but the individual can ever truly grasp his or her own mind? It would be wrong to try. So quit your bitching.
-
The problems many people point out (the plot holes, coincidences, etc) seem to illustrate the inherent flaws in Tolkien's "masterpiece".
Let's face it - LOTR is an amazing achievement, and astounding work of modern literature, but it is not the end all, be all of fiction.
The films illustrate this. I think Jackson actually realized some of these problems and attempted to fix them, to varying degrees of success.
IT'S A GOOD MOVIE!!! If you think AOTC was great film, we're not going to see eye to eye anyway... -
Anybody even mentioning Kurosawas name alongside this piece of Hollywood trash should be shot.
TTT is just one big epic dud. I'be read many people talk about laughing in the theater about the dialogue and I had the EXACT smame experience. People were giggling, sniggering and moaning about some of it. It's probably the most badly edited movie I've ever seen. It was an incoherent mess. Always jumping back and forth for no reason and any time Jackson looked like he was building up some excitiment he cut back to two Hobbits that did absolutley nothing!!!!!========================================= The action scenes are just bad. JACKSON CAN'T DIRECT ACTION!!!!!!!! SOMEONE PLEEEEEEEEAAASSSSEEE TELL HIM! He doesn't build up any suspense and what we end up with is an confused muddle of arms and legs. We don't know what happening and that's because the DIRECTOR has no idea what's happening!!!!1 All those fucking quick cuts and shaky camera work. It's a film for the MTV generation and no different that the type of shit that Micheal Bay produces.=============================== Why has John Rhys Davis gone from a serious character to a comedian? ================== What is the point of the love story, other than to get teenage girls into the movie? I mean, does the love story actually matter to the overall story? Not that I can see. It's just a cheap marketing gimick.========================Why do the Orc have Cockney accents? Are they extras from a Guy Ritchie film?==================Why is the CGI(Golum apart) so bad? =======I could go on and on and I will at another time but as for now TTT sucks. -
Ok, I had some problems with this movie. I fully expected, with all the great source material they had for the second movie, and especially after the first movie was done so well, that I would be blown away by TTT. Instead, I am left with that same kind of "groping for explanations" feeling I had when leaving the theatre after TPM and AOTC (not to say TTT wasn't better - it was). The Gandalf/Balrog scene was good, as was Helm's Deep, as was gollum, as was the acting by Bernard Hill and Elijah, but these were offset, in my opinion, by a series of questionable decisions by the filmmaker: 1) Why make Gollum a complete schizo? I understand that there is a duality in his character, but in the book this was subtly done, whereas in the movie they bang it over head like Sam with the frying pan. 2) The Sam/Frodo scenes at the end smack a little of the homo-erotic angle Jackson said he was trying to avoid. If he wants to play that up, fine, but it is generally agreed that that is not how Tolkien viewed their relationship. 3) The cheesy hero-shots. That shot at the end with Gandalf atop Shadowfax rearing up into the air brought a "Dear God" to my lips, and not in a good way. Why so over the top? They have such a powerful story as it is, why cheapen it by going for goofy hero shots like that. The same goes for when Shadowfax is first introduced. They have this great sweeping music...and it's just a horse. I mean, for Godssake, its a horse! It looks like every other horse I've ever seen (how could it look different?), and to have that cheesy hero music attributed to the horse was just silly. Why bother? Gandalf throws out a line about how this is king of the horses, or something like that, but it would have been better to drop that part altogether, as it doesn't further the story at all (they keep out the backstory about how Gandalf got Shadowfax from Theoden, and that was part of the reason for the king's dislike of him), and I imagine people not acquainted with the books are going "What the hell?" I mean, maybe if Shadowfax had racing stripes along its flank, but really... 4) The ents. For one, the CGI was very apparent here. Treebeard sounded just like Gimli. And they cut out all the fury of the Entmoot. Treebeard goes to great lengths to say how long the ents take to decide things and then - bingo! - as soon as they see Isengard they go nuts; no discussion, no talk at all. It totally contradicts what Treebeard just said, as well as contradicting what were really great parts of the book. Bad. 5) Faramir. I thought the whole point of Faramir was to prove the valour of men and of Gondor, how he was not like his brother. They changed the book to make him more of a bad guy. Why? What purpose does this serve? The only thing it does is make that whole scene with Sam and Frodo and Faramir at the end absolutely ridiculous. Faramir, who moments before was ready to hand a "great gift to his father"(Good God!), now, after hearing Sam's cheesy soliloquy, is suddenly ready to forfeit his life? What?! I mean, talk about stretching credibility! In the books Faramir understands the danger of the ring, in the movies he's swayed by Sam's speech like a pre-pubescent girl (I'm sure he would have loved the Shadowfax hero shots). 6) The soliloquys. Jesus, I think every single character has their "passion moment". Sam's was the worst, although the scene with Merry berating the Ents was nearly as bad. Then we had Aragorn berating the king. And legolas berating Aragorn. And Pippin and Merry having their own "Sam/Frodo" moment together, weepy-eyed over the shire; Eowyn's soliloquy, it goes on and on. And in each one, cheesy dialogue that does a disservice to the books, the sweeping hero music that goes on and on ad nauseum - where was the haunting music of FOTR? - the music for TTT is so over the top, a perfect complement to so much of this film. 7) The overabundance of CGI. I don't know if this should be a complaint, because I don't know how else they could have done so many of these scenes. That being said, however, many of the scenes were very obviously "effects" shots, especially the close-ups of the towers (though I know these were models, not CGI). Whereas in FOTR I felt the special effects were integrated, if not seamlessly, at least well enough so as not to distract from my enjoyment of the movie. In TTT that is not the case. An exception is Gollum who, while obviously a CGI creation, was so well portrayed (despite my earlier comments, he was beautifully acted by Andy Serkis), that you didn't notice so much. 8) Gimli. Gimli used as comic relief is not a problem. Gimli used exclusively as comic relief is a problem. While the first couple of jokes with him at Helm's Deep were good (especially the one where he can't see over the ledge), the just keep coming. And coming. And coming. He never f-ing stops!!! It's like he was getting ready to go on tour or something. For a major character in the books to be turned into a recurring gag was very, very poor. 9) While Helm's deep was good, the way it ended was again, very poor, the moreso because they had a perfectly good ending already described for them in the books - why change it!? Why add the elves? Why have a host from Rivendell led by Haldir, from Lorien? It don't make no sense! And why did all the elves move like robots? Unnecessary. Are we supposed to believe that the ten men left in Helm's deep were able to cleave a path through the thousands of orcs between them and Gandalf? What?! How are we supposed to believe that? I thought Peter Jackson wanted these films to be grounded in reality. That was totally off the wall. And where were the ents? I was really looking forward to watching the leagues of Saruman, driven between Theoden's forces and Gandalf's, march into the forest of trees that sprung from nowhere...and then disappear forever. That would have been great! Why change it for the worse? They seemed to have taken all the strengths of FOTR - the intimacy of the characters, the beautful, haunting score, the adherence to the books, the restrained performances, and jettisoned it out the window. I was disappointed with the result, moreso because I had so thoroughly enjoyed FOTR. I can only hope that we see a return to form from Jackson and his crew in Return of the King.
-
Dec 20, 2002 11:54:41 AM CST
I cannot fucking believe all the fucking retards...
by lord darth wolfy
...who think that this movie was shit. Please, people, quit nitpicking over every litle goddamn flaw. NOTHING IS PERFECT. Christ...If I had a dime for every single negative remark I have read and heard, I'd have enough to do MY OWN FUCKING versions of LOTR. Episode II doesn't compare to TTT....it just doesn't. I have been a Star Wars fan for nearly 25 years now, and when I saw TTT yesterday, my opinion started to shift from SW to LOTR...there is much more substance in LOTR then anything GL has done with the SW universe...INCLUDING the effects. I've been a ILM fan forever, but Gollum blew me away.....Yoda was good in EP II, but, The realism factor that Gollum had will always be tops in my eyes...there is no way that you can deny that Gollum didn't leave in impression on you....the torture...the fact that when you saw his eyes, there is what appears to be a soul....it's incredible what they did with Gollum....Harry is right...there should be a achievment award for Gollum.....he is that damned good. YODA WAS NOT.
As for all the diehards out there, there is no way that they could have made these movie WITHOUT changing a couple of things...also, the movies would have been 12 FUCKING HOURS LONG EACH if they were to be exactly like the books.
You should all be happy that we are getting the oppertunity to see these movies at all....Jackson, or anyone else for that mtter, didn't HAVE to make them....so why don't you all do us a favor and leave your FUCKING IVORY TOWRES and get off your FUCKING HIGH HORSES and appreciate the fact that you are seeing these movie AT ALL on the big screen, instead of COMPLAINING THAT THEY AREN'T EXACTLY FUCKING PERFECT AND UP TO YOUR FUCKING EXPECTATIONS. -
Listen....I did not hate it and I did back up my argument. As a FAN OF THE BOOK, this movie fucking pisses me off way too many times. And to the idiot who said this version is better, you really are fucking brainless. Sure, you can't film the book as it is...some stuff must be cut and changed. That's fine but when you start making ridiculous additions and 180 degree character changes, that's where problems come in. Eomer should have been at Helm's Deep and not been "banished"....no excuse there. Faramir's character was fine until he saw the ring and became a clone of Boromir. Unnecessary change. What was the point of having Elrond, Galadriel and Arwen take up 10 minutes of the movie like that? Any idiot with a brain should remember that Aragorn is with Arwen. Again, time consuming, boring and unnecessary. Elves coming to Helm's Deep...unnecessary and it goes against one of the main themes of Tolkien's LOTR. The age of Men is now and the other races are fading. Legolas and Gimli represented the Elves and Dwarves in LOTR, not Haldir and a bunch of Nazi marching elves from Lorien and Rivendell. Stupid. Why change the Entmoot? Why make Treebeard and the Ents look like subtle, slow in making up their minds about something and then contradict that in one scene where Treebeard sees a few dead treed and hastily freaks out? Why go for tears with 10 year old kids fighting? 10 year old kids would be more useless than 20 year old women. Other than those stupid changes, the movie was fucking great. Gollum, Helm's Deep, the acting, SFX, action sequences were all top notch. I'm sorry but I have to defend the original work, which is where all this hoopla came from, need I remind you all?
-
Has anyone saw this? I just read it on Sky News. "Due to the appaling acting in The Two Towers, the films director, Peter(I've seen Sleepy Hollow too many times) Jackson is re-casting the last film."
Apparently the kid who plays Harry Potter is playing Frodo and Denzel Washington is being brought in to play Rudolph, sorry, Gandalph. More soon... -
Dec 20, 2002 12:05:17 PM CST
The haters immediately null their argument by posting here.
by nordling
At least SPACEHUNTER or whoever he is, who vocally hated the first one, admitted he liked this one. But it seems to me it
-
Shut the fuck up, go turn on your favorite movie of all time: Down to You, starring Julia "Snaggletooth" Stiles and Freddie "I like Boys" Prinze Junior.
-
so was I.
-
$26 Million in the US alone, making it ONE of the biggest openers.
-
All you Tolkien book fans are talking shit on the highest scale. THE FILM IS BETTER THAN THE BOOK!!!!! FACE IT! This is no longer Tolkiens story it's Peter Jacksons and the sooner you accept that, the better off we will all be.
-
while I won't agree that this is the best version, it is the best VISUAL version. If I wanted the book, I'd read the book again. But if I wanted to SEE the story played out, I think PJs version is the best we're ever going to get. The changes that might seem superfluous, actually HELP the FILM.
And velocity, I'm not sure exatly what you're trying to prove. Unless it's to show that you have the intelligence of a retarded monkey. -
Fellowship was a lot better than The Two Towers. Why...because even though it cut out stuff understandably (Bombadil, Famer Maggot), it did not serioulsy fuck with the characters. TTT SERIOUSLY fucks with the characters...Faramir, Eomer, Treebeard and even Gollum to a certain extent. (I loved Gollum though) There is also hardly any character development in TTT...a character is introduced (say Eomer for example) says a few lines and then immediately becomes part of the main plot without the audience knowing ANYTHING about them. Cutting the stupid romance/prologue in the middle of the film would have cleared more room for the development of such characters as Eomer and Treebeard. Fellowship was as faithful to the book as PJ could possibly be and I compliment him for that...BUT...The Two Towers could have been A LOT more faithful, and better as a result. These movies are LOTR for people of a lower intelligence who don't read books and don't know great English (or American) Literature when they see it. If I had never read the books before these movies came out, my perspective might be different. Surely, I would have read the books once seeing the first film like some of my friends (who incidentally say the books are much better). Let's just face the truth...the books are far superior...always have been and always will be. Anyone who thinks Jackson has IMPROVED UPON Tolkien is a fucking retarded idiot who does not deserve to even be discussing Tolkien and his literature. If you want a light version of LOTR, watch PJ's films. That's not to say they're horrible...they're just not as good.
-
I've been swept up in this Talkback crap for far too long. I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts because most are terribly funny. But I've witnessed conversations between religious zealots that didn't reach this level. It's almost as if a huge percentage of these folks tie their lives and their dreams to a movie franchise. It's amazing. The Two Towers is a book. Now a movie. I like them both. I felt TTT movie was worth 3 hours of my time and $7 (yes, smaller town) of my cash. There are aspects of the movie that I'd like to have seen more often, and those I'd like to have seen less. But it didn't change my life. It didn't alter my reality. Is ANYONE here with me on this? It didn't make me want to slit my wrists in disappointment, nor did it make me want to proclaim the greatness of Peter Jackson and the subsequent "death of Star Wars". If Star Wars dies, it has nothing to do with LOTR, but more to do with a certain natural-born-producer playing at director. I really hope these Talkbacks are archived because a year from now it would be hilarious to read them. Oh, and I can't believe I actually AGREE with fettastic on some points. SOME points. I give TTT a 6/10 for storytelling as the pacing really wrenched me around. But, as an artistic vision realized, it's a perfect 10/10. Beautiful. One of the most visually stunning things I've ever seen. So, overall, 8/10. Good time at the theater and I'll own it on video. --d
-
Dec 20, 2002 12:15:16 PM CST
Once again: SPIDERMAN $40 million, AOTC $30 million, TTT $26 mi
by velocity
Spiderman easily outperformed both of them.
-
..for the biggest December one day opening ever.
-
Opening grosses are products of advertising, timing and previous success of the franchise, if relevant. It has nothing to do with the quality of the film. Take a look at the following week's grosses to see if the movie is "good". If there is a huge drop, then obviously the word is out that the movie is not good. All in all, dollars have NOTHING to do with the quality of a movie, as little-known movies are sometimes the best. Marketing and timing are everything. People around here judge movies by their grosses far too often. It's disturbing. --d
-
I enjoyed the film a lot. Not having read the books previously, I see The Two Towers movie as a great piece of action/adventure, a splendid way to spend 3 hours. Gollum is a great character, and a great technical showcase, but I think the "wow/gosh" response to him is distorting the perceptions that people have of the other effects in the film. What I keep reading from some is "Too much CGI! TOO MUCH CGI!!!", but what I've found with these "Rings" movies so far is too much obvious miniature work. In the same way that CGI can look like CGI, so too can miniatures look like miniatures. The spacecam/aerial shots of Helm's Deep look great, the compositing is great, the matchmoving is great, and the perspective looks correct, but the castle still looks like a miniature. The attack on Isengard (please excuse the spelling) - the scene where the damn is broken down reminded me of shots from Richard Donner's Superman, with the camera being overcranked to slow down the apparent motion of the practical water element. It looked very obvious to me. Attack of the Clones had a handful of obvious fake shots, but by and large, the detail was there, as too were all the little subtleties. Shots of the Jedi facing off against hordes of computer-generated battedroids, in a miniature arena set, in a harsh daylight setting hold up incredibly well. Next time any of you guys see "Clones" (well, if some of you ever intend to, I guess) take a look at the scene where Jar-Jar meets Obi-Wan. Stop to consider the fact that the character himself, his clothing (I originally thought that it was real), plus all the little shadows and reflections, are completely synthetic. Or when Mace Windu strolls through the senate. Nothing around Samuel L. Jackson was real at all, from the corridor he's walking in, the floor he's on - even the blue-armored guard standing by the door he walks through (who was composited in later). Heck, even Obi-Wan is a 3D CG model in several shots during the rain fight, and in other sequences through the movie. No doubt The Two Towers will win the effects Oscar next year - and the work of ILM (and many other companies besides) will be ignored. (Personally, I think Minority Report has the best visual effects of any movie this year, combining the wow factor with a great deal of realism. There are absolutely no vfx shots in that movie that completely fall apart. It's a great example of a collaboration between several effects houses really working.) Anyway, I just wanted to bring some balance to the endless gushing of some critics over the effects in The Two Towers. But I'll conclude by saying that in the end, it doesn't really bother me too much (though it might seem otherwise). The bottom line is that more film makers have the guts to bring visions so grand to the big screen. If the technology itself can't quite achieve those visions with complete credibility, then at least the amibition of the film makers themselves has to be applauded. Here's hoping there are more marvels in store from ILM, Weta, DD, SPI, Blue Sky, Cinesite, PDI, and the rest next year.
-
Saw TTT last night. So much movie. I don't think anyone can watch this epic film once and take it all in. There's just too much stuff going on to appreciate. I was not bored at any moment throughout the film. and I am constantly thinking about this film, even as I sit here at work. I can't remember the last time I was gripped like that by a movie. Having only read the Hobbit, and seen FOTR, I was surprised at much of the differences between this new one, and the first film. I was planning on reading the books after having seen FOTR, but I enjoyed it so much as a film that I didn't want to spoil my purely cinematic experience of the subsequent 2 acts by reading the books. To the TBers who mentioned the lack of 'worldly' design, I found the soldiers of Mordor to be very influenced by Eastern Europe/Mediterranean culture. No elephants in Europe, only in Asia and Africa, right? There is truth to the notion that because it is the 2nd act of a 3 act book/film, that this is the most difficult of the 3 to enjoy as a stand alone. There is little to no set up, and it doesn't resolve itself neatly. But, then again its not supposed to. And it sets up the final film perfectly. Just to see Frodo lighten up a bit after the conflict in Gondor was enough of an ending for me. (and seeing the Uruk-Hai flee Helm's Deep, of course) While the spectacle of Rohan was amazing to behold, it was the Frodo/Samwise/gollum's story that really drew me in. If there was a flaw in the film, it was that I wished there was more of it. (includung some more stuff with Faramir and even Merry/Pippin/the ents.) I think we all agree that Gollum was something great, Pixar level quality stuff taken to a whole different level. As a whole, this film is funnier, sadder, more enthralling, faster paced (in a good way,) darker, more twisted, possibly more confusing, and painted with as big a brush as filmmaking techniques wil allow. This is a movie that must be seen several times to process. Even 2 hour movies, with less plot can require multiple viewings, if they've earned it. How can anyone watch this and not feel the need to respect it by seeing it more than once? Until ROTK!
-
You're pretty much right about the god thing. I mean, think about it. Way back when, religion was the only way to reach people, which is the goal of humans, isn't it? Reaching people, being recognized for their glory? Preachers, profits, they all moved people, made them think, had an effect. They changed things and left a legacy and travelled and were famous and well-known. When you think about it, Jesus Christ was the Speilberg, Hanks, Harlow, Gable, Pitt, Lucas, Jackson, etc. of his time. Then film and television came upon humanity, and suddenly we had a whole new way to get to people, make our mark, become immortal, so the general population ditched that stale practice called religion for this newer, fresher, much easier and more far-reaching medium. What will be next, is my question?
-
To get away from the bashing of this glorious film for a moment, what can we expect for the extended edition? We didn't see Arwen (in the cloak she wore when leaving Rivendell) gathering the shards of Narsil. We also didn't see Arwen going to Galadriel to find out "what [she] had seen". I'm trying to remember any other scenes from the trailer(s) that didn't make it into the movie that might be in the longer cut. Anyone else catch something?
-
I hated FOTR with every fiber of my being... I haven't seen the EE and I wanna give the film another chance but I was bored to fucking tears when I saw it. And no, I haven't read the books and am not going to. And what's the point of seeing TTT if I hated FOTR right? And anyone wondering why I'm bothering to post a negative viewpoint... since when did all views have to be positive on the talkbacks?
-
Dec 20, 2002 12:37:58 PM CST
Why do you keep prattling on about Spiderman? As amazing as it'
by minderbinder
And TTT looks like it's going to make more than FotR. Plus how can you really compare a wednesday with a friday opening? And a movie that's over an hour longer? Only a true fanbitch would characterize the second best wednesday opening and the biggest december opening day as "bad" or even "disappointing". And $26M isn't a final number, let's see what the official one is later today.
-
In my last post, I was not going out to "bash" anyone. I just find it funny how _scared_ people get when the love for something they admire is not universal. I think TTT had problems, in comparison to FOTR, and I'm not comparing it to _anything_ else.
-
[ROTK SPOILERS IN THIS POST.] You bring up some interesting points. First, regarding Pippen, I have no inside knowledge, but I seriously doubt his role in ROTK has been expanded at the expense of Merry. In the early footage, we saw Merry kneeling before Theoden at Edoras. If they've kept that, then it's going to be Merry and Eowyn at Pelennor. I presume Harry was talking about Pippen's encounter with Sauron via the palantir. As for the Nazgul at Osgiliath, it bothered me at first too. But I see a few ways out of it. (1) The Nazgul was blind - it didn't see Frodo. the fell beast did. The Nazgul just went on about its business not sensing the ring. Ok, admittedly, that's kinda lame. But, if you factor in that PJ has said we're going to see Sauron as more than just a flaming eye in the next one...perhaps (2) we'll see the Nazgul report back to Sauron, who then decides that the men must have been taking the ring to Minas Tirith (and Aragorn) and will send the bulk of his armies there. Unless Sauron can conceive of the mission to Mt. Doom (which Gandalf tells us he can't), then it'd be natural to assume the ring is going to Gondor, particularly as he encountered it at Osgiliath. Of course, this explanation doesn't explain why Sauron would think Pippen has the ring...but hopefully they thought about this problem and will resolve it. Lorien elves? Perhaps Galadriel saw everything going down in the mirror and dispatched them early on. Who knows? At any rate, I loved TTT...particularly the second time. But was anyone else annoyed by the immense quantities of preview footage that was not in the movie? (wide-angle Eowyn at Edoras, Eowyn at glittering caves, Gandalf and Aragorn atop the wall, Arwen and Narsil, etc.)Ah well, I expect it'll make it back in the EV.
-
I find it even funnier when people get scared when something they admire is universally LOVED, like it threatens their "relationship" with their beloved, and they start proclaiming to the world that they "discovered" said beloved, or they "found it first," or their beloved "sold out" or one of the many other pathetic lines they toss out of their dismal brains.
-
The people who complaining about the changes in the movie might want to sit down for a second and the think about why P.J. did what he did. Did Jackson say
-
As a frame of reference, the best siege ever filmed is the French attack on Fort William Henry in Last of the Mohicans...you could sense the impending doom...the futility of holding the fort...and the Huron ambush of the British soldiers as they march from Fort William Henry towards Albany...a brilliant, intense fight sequence...and not one digital effect...not one CG implaced character...my second favorite of the same genre...Braveheart...at any time, you felt one of the main characters would fall to an arrow or die by the sword...the heat, brutality and intensity of hand to hand combat was very real and in your face...contrast these with Two Towers...Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, King Theoden and one or two others on horse back ride through a fray of Uruk Hai armed with lances and poles...the sequence had no sense of peril...no sense of impending doom...while the siege of Helms Deep certainly had an exciting aethetic, the actual combat sequences were cliche, predictable and utterly unbelievable.
-
You grossly overestimate the computer's role in CG, my friend... GROSSLY. CG is not some simple act of pressing the right buttons any more than painting is just an act of selecting the right colors and brushes. CG doesn't simplify filmmaking as so many ridiculously stupid filmmakers (and fans) out there seem to think, if anything, it complicates it. CG doesn't supplant traditional techniques, it builds upon them using new tools, new talent, and many, many more people. Instead of puppet-makers and puppeteers, you have clay modellers, scanners, rigging, texturing, research, particle effects, lighting, compositors, and often a slew of new jobs without names. You still need set design, costume design, etc. We still need everything you ever did and more. To say that the computers, and not the artists, are responsible for CG is a disgusting misrepresentation of reality. Go back to the shadow.
-
They have limited imaginationsand are probably anal retentive. My question, why do they try to convince the lovers of the film otherwise? Are they just trying to convince themselves it sucked, but they really do like it?
-
Did anyone else see Peter Jackson & his kids in the movie, like they were in Fellowship?
-
I am not "hell bent" on hating it. I _liked_ it. However, all of us need to open our damn eyes and realize that nothing is perfect. Some people have problems with this movie, and have the right to express it. It'd be nice to have _intelligent_ discourse on the subject, but _some_ people (on both sides) cannot handle that. They have chosen a side, and nothing will sway them. The amazing thing is, usually they can't defend their position. I like to think I have expressed my problems, and why I feel that way. If I have not, you can ask me...nicely, and I'm happy to discuss it.
-
They are talking about making a new oscar for the freak...who would have thought Tolkien's work would have caused such an uproar. Four years ago I was just glad they were making a movie. I can actually remember saying, "another f'd up cartoon?" "No they are using actors." Now I can almost, but not quite say we have the greatest trilogy of all time. All due to a crazed Kiwi. I can also remember when they said the Director would be PJ and I had to go look up who was Peter Jackson. Now most of the world knows. Not only that now a good chunk more of the world knows who Tolkien is. And that is heart warming.
-
Dec 20, 2002 1:33:51 PM CST
I'm probably the 100th or 150th to post on this talk back, so no
by neofromthematrix
I haven't seen TTT yet. I'll probably wait a couple of weeks, until the hype is over, until there are fewer people in the movie theaters. But I must say that, in my opinion, Harry is overstating the matter. As much as I loved FOTR, I must admit that it is only at the seventh position on my all-time favorite movies list, that there are many other modern films out there that are much better than LOTR. The Matrix, The Fifth Element, The Ninth Gate, Unbreakable, just to name a few. I mean seriously, whether a film is a masterpiece or not depends upon how much it affected your life, its an entirely personal thing. Like Citizen Kane. Critics everywhere repeat over and over again that Citizen Kane is the greatest film of all time. But its not. I saw it once, and it was simply long and boring. Personally, I find First Contact to be better than Wrath of Khan, Judgment Day to be better than the original Terminator, and as far as I am concerned, Spider-man is more interesting and more entertaining than FOTR. And I seriously doubt that TTT will make it to my top ten list. But then again, who cares? Its merely my tastes and my life that I'm talking about here. Can't wait for Daredevil, X2, Matrix: Reloaded, Rise of the Machines and Hulk next year! - I know Kung Fu.
-
...And no doubt it will truly kick some ass.
-
I've never posted here before, but I occasionally check out this site and sometimes read the boards... right now I'm having a little downtime, and with my interest in TTT... I ended up here. First off, I'm a character animator in the San Francisco Bay area, but sometimes I have to commute to L.A. for work. As an animator here, you get used to moving around a lot - one year I did work for 4 studios, and still had lots of time off. And that is a sort of standard in this industry - feast or famine, work a month 7 days a week 20 hours a day, and then a month or two off. I have friends that work/worked at ILM, Pixar, PDI, Disney, Tippett, Rhythm and Hues, Digital Domain, etc... and have juggled around these studios. I can remember getting a phone call from a friend in a small studio in Atlanta - back in like '98 -- he was superexcited because they had just been outsourced to do some work on Lord of the Rings. About 4 months ago, I met a guy from New Zealand - friend of a friend - who had been involved in LOTR, and we talked for hours, mostly shop talk. Anyways, I'm not writing to drop names... the point is - I've read quite a few - this character sucks, this character rocked, so and so should learn from so and so ... and in actuality - a lot of the people you are comparing to are the same people, they are just moving around, job to job. ILM will hire for a project, then layoff... and these animators will work for another studio - this industry is a bit incestuous sometimes when I see some of my coworkers resumes. And most of the time when there are discrepancies in quality, its not because of the talent of the animators (there is a ton of talent out there). It has to do with time and budget constraints - I know I've worked on shots I know I could do much better given the time, but powers beyond my control limit things. I've also seen some really great work hit the cutting room floor- to be replaced with rush job fx, because of a last minute studio decision. But right now is a good time for FX and animation, ILM really paved the way, and opened lots of doors- and they are still pushing the envelope. Its also more affordable now, so there is lots of really good work coming out of other studios like WETA, and smaller (I've seen animation at indy fests that are right up there with Disney, Pixar - that were done by a couple of kids in a basement)
-
i took an artist friend to the midnight wednesday showing. she was delighted and enjoyed it a great deal from her artist's perspective. (it will help your sense of wonder to have an artist to pal around with. when they get that dreamy look and start talking about how beautiful the light is, wake up and look around!)
anyway. i was deeply involved in the film. as the film reached it's conclusion, i kind of woke with a start from the long powerful dream this film is. really very remarkable. cases in point: #1 elijha wood's frodo was really right there. fantastic work. i loved how his desperate hope for gollum was really about his fading hope for himself, that he could resist the power of the ring.... #2 very powerful images throughout, the fell beast and ringwraith, the oliphaunts, helm's deep. whew. #3 gollum was done so well. a team oscar, including sertis? #4 good work by the new charicters, all very good.
that being said, let me share a few nit-picks that don't seem to have been mentioned before by others, see what you think. #1 in the passages dealing with helm's deep theres way too much screen time given to tearful shots of women and children huddling in fear and such. jeez, give me a break! unnecessary and not in keeping with tolkien's depiction of the rohirrim as a warrior race. i wasn't buying the shots of the young and old rohirrim hesitantly and fearfully taking weapons. they're a warrior race!
#2 the score was a little weak and the song at the end title was completely useless. i find myself wondering why p jackson didn't use sally oldfield's great tolkien-inspired songs from her album 'waterbearer.' check it out if you haven't heard this album.
#3 the ents and huorns not making it down to horn's deep to help the rohirrim out with saruman's army. real problem there, because they disposed of most of saruman's army. in the film, they're dispatched with just a spoken line from gandalf, 'the battle is over.' thanks for breaking it to us, g, but what about all them dang orcs?
ah well. there will always be nit to pick, yes? what a great film! loved it. -
Hopefully lots of posters will read your last post. Very interesting and straightforward stuff. I'm currently in school working toward a career in character animation. Classmates and I spent a lot of time discussing certain CG shots and we were able to figure that some things were certainly more "last-minute" than others. Howevr, of all the folks I talked with, all believed Gollum was handled very well. What's your take? And... GREAT name! --d
-
ILM did use traditional minatures and matt paintings in both EP1 and 2. And models for some of the spaceships. The biggest complaint I have is that Lucas doesn't build more sets - it's nice to use FX to EXPAND existing sets, but when you have an actor bluescreened in front of a set that's completely fake, it's obvious as hell.
-
Dec 20, 2002 1:49:53 PM CST
I agree that Harry and Moriarty are blowing this way out of prop
by dj tiesto
Like holy fuck....these are the greatest movies of all time??? WOAH NOW!!!!! SETTLE DOWN!! Fellowship and Star Wars are certainly on my list of favourites, but The Two Towers is one of the BEST EVER?? How can you make that judgement yet? It's only been out for 3 days!! Anyway, I liked the movie but how can I say otherwise? IT DID DISAPPOINT ME, mostly because of the unnecessary changes to the text and stupid additions like the prolouge in the MIDDLE of the film and the Arwen stuff. Plus, the character changes were totally uncalled for. But I still liked it...it's just that as a fan of the books, there's a certain coldness that I have when watching PJ's films....because it just isn't Tolkien baby. Anyway, I appreciate the fact that Pj knows how to tell a story. His directing is very good and he chooses talented actors. He's a quality filmmaker but I just question some of his very liberal story changes to a text beloved by millions upon fucking millions of people.
-
I have a feeling that this trilogy's little catchphrase that you find in every film, much like that one from Star Wars, will be, "It is/was a gift." C'mon! Boromir does it in present tense in the first one... and then Arwen says it in, past tense in Two Towers! Seriously, if I find out it was just happenstance that the phrase was uttered during both the first movies and it doesn't show up in the third, I'm going to be bummed. Of course, after I get over the joy of having finally seen the end of the story's finale! :)
-
While I agree with you that LOM and Braveheart had some tremendous, rousing, and fairly realistic sequences, there is always room to nitpick (Wallace *throwing* a sword that spins a few times and plants itself ridiculously in a man's chest for instance).
However, I disagree about the Helm's Deep sequence. The shots of old men and scared boys armoring up, the women in the inner chambers hearing the sounds of combat distorted and amplified, all of these things added to a great sense of atmosphere. As far as the acutal battle sequences themselves go, especially the close ups, I do prefer the Mohicans or Braveheart style (fewer rapid, disorienting cuts); however, many directors of late (Ridley Scott and Spielberg come to mind) have chosen to portray the chaos and confusion of combat in just this fashion. Unfortuanetly, this seems to be trendy. That said, I still maintain that TTT sequences are exciting and do a great job of capturing the scope and mayhem of a siege involving a direct frontal assault.
-
It's in your age, how old are you guys? Those of us who saw Star Wars and Empire in the theatre the first go around know where Lucas screwed up and Jackson succeeds. It's in the sense of wonder. You guys are blinded by garish SFX. Clones looked like a cartoon in the final battle. Throughout the acting was weak by all, the dialogue was poorly contrived and it just didn't achieve the simplicity of the originals. That said, so what if the wargs aren't quite right? They are just a vehicle for the story, just like the matte lines in the original Star Wars didn't matter, or how the x-wing and ties were painfully slow, they were just vehicles for the story. But you guys who love Clones and Phantom menace are blinded by the glitz, you are virgins dazzled by the layered make-up of an aging cheap whore.
-
Some of you people are fucking pathetic.
Its a movie.
Enjoy it.
Have fun.
Smile for chrissakes.
How anyone could get so bent out of shape over such a wonderful film is beyond me.
You guys are all as predictable as the Hollywood crap you despise.
Every week-the same predictable dialogue from each and every one of you.
Star Wars Rocks
Star Wars sucks.
LOTR rules!!
LOTR is unfaithful to the book and sucks.
CGI was amazing
CGI sucks.
Harry is right.
Harry is a sellout.
Do any of you know how much effort and work it requires to make any movie let alone THIS trilogy?.
I can't help but have respect for the man for even having the audacity to make the effort to do this let alone that he pulled it off the way he did.
You are a bunch of whiny punks.
Predictable whiny fanboy punks.
Harry I commend you for just being honest and saying you like it.
Of course people are going to rip on his prose for being poetic and overwrought, but at least he isn't editing and thinking "Oh I better not type that., someone with a clever screen name might make fun of me"
Punks. -
I'll say I liked the movie. Much of the dialog was too much though..Books 2 and 3 are very heavy dialog wise akin some kind of old english shakesperian shit (thou art hath got no nobbler) or something which I would have prefered out of the movie replaced by more comprehensible/memorable wording although its fine for the books. Other than that I had no probs with the CGI, Gollum was better than expected, Ents were fine, music score good, length ok...and er Harry, could you please be a bit critical, there are some problems with the movie, you can't say everythings good, that's the purpose of a review, to be critical...
-
...at which point you let slip somehow that you thought the battle on Geonosis, no, the fucking arena battle was superior to Helm's Deep. WHAT THE FUCK? Are you on DRUGS? Honestly, short of getting a paycheck from Lucas himself, I haven't a clue what could make you say something like that. The battle in the arena was a thoroughly contrived insult to our intelligence. For one thing, look at how Jango Fett died. Boy he just ran right into that, didn't he? Lucas has a serious problem anymore with setting up his villains to look respectable, and then killing them off pathetically. For comparison's sake, I've seen more realistic set ups in recent Star Trek movies! For another thing, the war in Helm's Deep had actual STRATEGY (gee never heard of that). The Orcs had ladders ready, a bomb for blowing apart the wall (clearly presented as a new technology in Saruman's tower), battering rams, and an actual plan of attack! The war of Geonosis was just a bunch of clone soldiers and vehicles riding around blowing shit up. There was no coherent plan or strategy, no reason for it to happen, no hint as to how it started or why this particular place was chosen, just suddenly, hey let's fight with big machines that come out of nowhere! It was an excuse to show a bunch of shit blowing up. That's it. Lucas had a good idea when he did the Battle on Hoth, and some concept of battle strategy. Blow away the reactor with the heavy weaponry. Storm the base with soldiers. AT-ATs are there to protect the AT-STs (although ships with the ability to hover would have made better weaponry.) In short, the Star Wars prequels have battles full of wildly impractical technology that's hit-or-miss in terms of design, and Helm's Deep came across as a very realistically staged siege. If you're gonna attack TTT, at least rent a brain first.
-
I'm 31, and I _like_ the prequels. Not perfect, mind you, but I was entertained. I was there when Star Wars opened, when Raiders opened, hell when Jaws opened. And these kids you bash, I was their age when they came out.
-
Dec 20, 2002 1:59:15 PM CST
I don't care how faithful TWO TOWERS was to the book or not; as
by johnnytremaine
I hope the DVD of TWO TOWERS is a SHORTER version. Too many scenes in the movie were redundant and uneccessary. As a result, the film just dragged on forever.
-
I liked the prequels also, but after Lucas sold out with Jedi it was all downhill. They could be sooo much better. (Just like Berman and Braga butchered the ST franchise)
But kids these days are inundated with MTV, video games, and all the other bullshit, and they sometimes can't see past the hype.
I think you have to look at FOTR and TTT as one continuous film going into the final act of ROTK. Then you realize this is dreamlike movie making on an epic scale. -
FOR THE LAST TIME!!!FOTR/TTT/ROTK ARE 3 CHAPTERS IN ONE FILM!!!DID ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO ANY OF THE FUCKING DIALOGUE IN THESE MOVIES?!WHAT EXACTLY IS PERFECT EFFECTS BACAUSE WE DO NOT LIVE IN THE TIME WHEN EFFECTS ARE!SINCE WHEN DOES A WALKING/TALKING TREE LOOK 'REAL'?HAVE YOU SEEN ONE?DO SOME OF YOU DUMBASSES UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FILMS/SCREENWRITING?!!
....Well I liked them!And the Ents kickass!^__^ -
I find it kind of interesting that quite a few people have posted here saying things like, "It's only one part of a much bigger epic." and "You have to wait to see the entire trilogy, to really appreciate it." But when SW fans say stuff like that about the prequels, they're given all kinds of shit. What about, "Hopefully, the extended version on DVD will fill in some of the stuff that's not in the theatrical version."? So, you're saying I should skip this version and wait for the DVD, next year? Well, I wanted to give myself a refresher on the first movie, plus I wanted to give it a second chance, so I just watched FOTR on the 4 disc extended DVD and was just as bored by it as I was by the theatrical version. Starts out pretty good, and the sound is amazing. But by about the time they form the fellowship, I just wanted to scream at the screen, "Get on with it, already!" Beautiful looking movie, but damn it's ponderous. I'll be checking out TTT on Monday night, supposedly, this one is more action filled than the first, but there are a lot of negative comments on this board by people who enjoyed the first movie, so now I'm not as excited about seeing it.
-
You are absolutely correct about time and budget. Sometimes it comes right down to saying "that's that" and leaving well enough alone. Apparently you missed my commentary on the Ents (or didn't, but you were primarily concerned with the idea that one effects house is clearly superior to another). I thought it was abundantly clear that many of the walking/riding shots of the Ents were rushed, produced entirely in compositing with rotations and such, and generally very fake looking. I think PJ just thought it was more important to invest his time into Gollum and Helm's Deep, which was absolutely the right decision. I just wish the Ents had come out as good-looking, but alas, there's only so many days in a week, so many weeks in a year.... So, on another note... Any open positions in California you're familiar with? I'm stuck at a video production house in Phoenix, AZ and the current over-budget animation project is almost done! I need an out. Feast is over. Famine approaches.
-
quit with the childhood stories of your past.. damn.
-
Firstly let me say that FOTR is my favourite film of all time and I am a man who LOVES films. It simply filled me with wonder and awe and toyed with all my emotions more than any other film has. It simply had more SOUL and HEART than any other film I can remember. Before I saw TTT I must
-
Dec 20, 2002 2:42:32 PM CST
LOL now we have adolescent nerds like theFury who don't even kno
by jamboreech
And I think people who've actually seen his movies like Seven Samerai, and Rashamon would know if TTT compares to it or not. Helm's deep was one of the best battle sequences of medival warfare ever filmed, and believe me I've pretty much seen them all.
-
It's become an accepted film industry std. to take 3yrs between each trilogy's film. Jackson didn't have that luxury, and too many people are forgetting that. Does it excuse some of the minor lapses and editing in TTT, especially if he was working on all 3 films at once? I'd like to see you or any other director tackle that challenge and make it worth Newline's money.
-
I hope after I see it again tonight I'll like it more. The exact same thing happened with Fellowship: the first time I saw it I was disappointed, but after a couple more times I loved it. It does have some incredible moments. One thing that bothered me was the lack of fantasy elements; the first movie introduced elves, dwarves, hobbits, wizards...there was a sense of discovery and imagination. TTT is like, oh, there are humans...and they fight...hmmmm, I've never seen that in a movie before. never mind, I'm an idiot, don't listen to me.
-
was likely a "storm drain". If you noticed, Helm's Deep was on a very steep mountain. If it rains, and they have a very big pit just asking to flood into a 10ft deep pool, you build a big hole, because little drain pipes won't do jack.
-
Dec 20, 2002 2:46:36 PM CST
We......have decided...............that you.........are not.....
by justanotherguy
Best line of the whole damn movie. I don't know why, but it is.
-
Harry, you are my hero. Everything I felt you put into words for me and in such a remarkable way!! I saw the film yesterday and when it started my heart was doing 120 at least. I felt like a fool sitting there with seaty palms, falling into the abyss with Gandalf. I could hardly breath, but wait..my daughter felt the same as I did! I can't say enough about it. When Gollum came on it really creeped me out, but after awhile I felt sorry for him. Remarkable in every way. Geez, we have to wait another year for the rest. Oh man, I won't be able to stand it.
-
Both excellent reviews from Moriarty and Harry. Jackson has upped the ante for all film makers who want to tackle this type of genre. Bring your 'A' Game or don't play at all.
-
It seems to me that most people are forgetting that this was a movie ADAPTED FROM A BOOK!!! Not just any book, but a book which was considered to be a masterpiece when it was first published 50 years ago. While TTT was great, there is waaay too much praise given to Peter Jackson. He didn't create this world or these characters, he only adapted them. The end result, while excellent, is in no way an indication of Jackson's brilliance. How about if he tries an original idea with the same ambitious grandeur and scope of LOTR, and then see if he is still hailed as a genius.
-
Glad I couldve been of some help there. PLEASE let me know what you thought the second viewing!! I have to admit I'm still buzzing from it!! So much so that I'll see it again on Sunday I think. *smiles*
-
Where did you get the money to produce TTT on $300 million? Oh, THAT'S right...you didn't. Moron. You only paid $8 bucks. Yes, PLEASE shell out your $5000 to 'greenmonkey' so you can see how costly it is, then you, too, can have the opportunity of mindless and unsupportive cretins criticizing each and every subjective detail. At which point, of course, we can blame 'greenmonkey' for any flaws, right? (j/k greenmonkey).
I find it amusing that everyone seems to have accepted Lucas as a mainstream director/storywriter, ever since the original trilogy finished sweeping the box offices. And yet, Jackson didn't start off in the same vein or even success streak as Lucas, but here everyone is, now, giving Jackson level odds and comparisons to Lucas. So, does that show how good Jackson got in a real short amount of time? Or just how far Lucas has sunk in quality...? It's one or the other, SW fanboys. -
Dec 20, 2002 3:07:49 PM CST
Thanks, fettastic, For (Unknowningly) Backing Me Up OR... One BI
by jollydwarf
See, I wasn't the only one who felt gypped by the Gandalf/Balrog explanation. To reference Frodo standing right in front of the Nazgul, they CANNOT see the ring, therefore they do not know that he SPECIFICALLY presently has it unless he puts it on. This seems to be a source of repeated confusion. They only know where it was last sensed. But my big SPOILER question is this: Are Aragon and Arwen NOT GETTING MARRIED in "Return of the Je-err--King"? Like, Ohmigod! No, really, that would be an ill-advised deviation. All I know are two things: this has got to be the most mean-spirited, bile-filled TB I've ever read, and I might literally explode next Christmas, what with "King" and "Matrix Revolutions" hitting at the same time. Please don't let me go out like a Spinal Tap drummer. Please.
-
When Gandalf was releasing the king from his spell he fell down on the ground and landed in a totally different place. Then when Gandalf stood up again he was there with the king, and the spell was lifted. Question is where the fuck did Gandalf fall into? Another dimension? Choppy editing? Or does PJ just assume every fucking one of us read all 3 books?
-
What u saw was Saruman being thrown to the floor in Isengard. Its meant to empasise the force with which Gandalf 'removed' Saruman from Theoden's mind. Any clearer?
-
Dec 20, 2002 3:16:07 PM CST
neverwashed, [Spoiler] are you talking about *Saruman*?
by the killer-goat
If you were watching, *Gandalf* was wearing a grey cloak in the hall, ergo, that wasn't Gandalf you saw fall on his back, it was Saruman in his white cloak, who Gandalf 'excised' from his mind control over the king. No, I didn't read the book that far, I just paid attention to the film. Man, this TB is making me grouchy.
-
I'm not sure I understood your response to my post. You said something about Lucas having 3yrs til the next prequel and Jackson not having that luxury. And, "Does it excuse some of the minor lapses and editing in TTT, especially if he was working on all 3 films at once?" Well, Like I said in my previous post, I haven't seen TTT yet. I was commenting on the original LOTR and other people's posts regarding this particular chapter.
-
Dec 20, 2002 3:20:44 PM CST
HarrysAss, ever stood in front of a huge battalion of loyal orcs
by the killer-goat
Neither have I. But I imagine Grima was just so overwhelmed by the sheer number of soldiers awaiting Saruman's command to attack, considering Grima expected them to have a total loss. To him, I'm sure it was just a stunning sight to behold so many warriors en masse, perhaps in his mind, verging on the level of 'glory'.
-
Newverbrainwashed,
That was Saruman--he was "exorcised". -
It makes sense now.
-
What to make of TTT? For over a year now I have been amused listening to the arguments, both here and over at the Internet Movie Database, about if and where The Lord of the Rings trilogy will justly rank among the pantheon of all-time great movies. Unlike so many of the most impassioned reviewers of these films, I had never read any of Tolkien
-
Clearly you are nit-picking in the extreme....instead why dont you ask Lucas how come something as 'invincible' as the DeathStar had such a GLARING weakness as an exhaust port (or whatever it was) that if one tiny little torpedo entered the whole thing would explode. Bearing in mind this thing was a big as a moon!!!JESUS!!! Talk about weaknesses in defenses!!!! Oh and how come the DeathStar was only able to launch barely enough Tie fighters to battle the equally 'massive' 30-odd rebel ships that were sent!!!! A thing that size wouldve contained hundreds...lets face it the Rebels wouldve been crushed!!! Anyway , I digress, what I'm saying that even if it is a plot-device to help the orcs break in, just accept it. By the way, for the record, I dont think the drain is a bad idea at all!!!
-
...you are an idiot.
-
Dec 20, 2002 3:30:39 PM CST
5 drains= 5 openings. How many weak spots would you like?
by the killer-goat
I would assume from the size of the drain that rain is a very prominent pattern. If you want to worry the "storm drain" aspect to death, lets talk LadyHawke, 13th Warrior, or how 'bout just basic military history of countless castles or fortresses with the same issue/problem? It wasn't like anyone knew about explosive mines when Helm's Deep was built. That was the whole point of Saruman's ace-in-the-hole. [Spoiler] As for Legolas not stopping the orc w/torch, it's hard to miss an unarmed orc with a large, fiery-white blaze emenating from a giant torch-- unless you happen to be busy with other orcs up to your armpits. Not an easy shot, and the orc barely made it.
-
I'm sure someone can answer the following questions for me, as I'm sure these type of matters are covered in the books, but the movie doesn't offer much explanation.
1.) Sauron created the rings, right? Forged from the fires of Mt. Doom, etc. Why can't he just make a NEW ring? Why could he only make one? Why does he need the one he orginally made?
2.) I've heard Galadriel has a rather shady past...what does this involve?
Thanks!! -
Dec 20, 2002 3:33:31 PM CST
More admittance from a Star Wars fan, more Gollum issues, and th
by xthecrovvx
OK, first, some observances from the "versus Star Wars" perspectives....i believe it was AICN's own Quint who wrote something to the effect of " Lucas should be taking notes, watching Gimli"...and i agree....One of the things that has continually irked me, even in the ORIGINAL trilogy is Lucas' reliance on BAD comic relief....the difference now, though, is that while Han, Chewie, and a few others in the originals wouldnt put up with C3PO's bullshit more than a few minutes, there is no one to shut him or Jar Jar up....(well, except Padme in that one scene in Ep II)...in LOTR, Gimli's humor seems far more natural. This is how a Dwarf would act in the world of big people, i expected...and never does it go so overboard that it distracts the film, unlike Lucas. Sorry, guy, you write good story, but your sense of humor's a dish best served dry, not tasteless.
Next, just a little observation....i the theater i saw TTT in(AMC Essex Green 9), people were also laughing during Gollum's conversations with himself. But, the third time it happened, i notice something...most of the people who were laughing were CHILDREN, too young to understand really what was going on....think about that the next time a troll tells you either him, or the mental defect(s) he went with to the film say that they laughed during that scene......next, Tolkienism....soo...the Tolkien fans are pissed, eh? Well, let me be the first to cast the stone....I DID NOT LIKE THE BOOKS. To me, the books were a bunch of GREAT moments surrounded by overexpository SHIT...now, for all the trolls' complaints of "walk, walk, fight, walk,m talk talk, walk", this is a complaint i feel applies FAR more to the books. And yet I'm in complete love with the films....the reason, my dear purists, is because Jackson cuts to the chase. His pictures are worth a million words, what he removes, he does so to retain the core of the stories being told, his interests are one of thematic and cinematic quality, not complete accuracy. Complete accuracy would mean a set of 5 films, drowning in non-moving dialogue, and "talking-heads" scenes that no sober director would dare film. Somehow, PJ was able to cut the fat, and streamline the point of every major scene, and even add bits of drama that Tolkien, somehow, with all the pointless words at his disposal, was unkind enough to truly flesh out. To me, the only plot point i miss that was more rounded out in the books was the way in which Gollum found the ring, drowning a fellow Hobbit in a lake, stealing the ring from him, and consequently being ostracized from his village, which led to him retreating to the Misty Mountain in the first place....its a plot point that wouldve brought even greater weight to his character(and made Frodo's near-murder of Sam all the more tragic), and i miss it. But oh well. To make a long story short(too late), Tolkienites are being WAY too harsh. Ask yourselves...i mean, REALLY ask yourselves...would you sit still for 4 1/2 hours of, whenever something MIGHT happen in a movie, the characters sit down, and either talk, or sing? A story without a climax? A story where emotions are cold? I honestly dont think you would. Im going to beg you just once, go back to the film...knowing what's going to happen...without the book in mind....and just see it as a MOVIE....not holy scripture....and see if the rest of us are truly crazy in our love for this film. Well, i suppose my review's kind of a non-point by now....but, I'll still be looking around. Flame away, you troll bastards. Revolution is still my name. -
How many times have u seen TTT now? I've just seen it a second time and its even better the second time (see my post from 14:30 -not far up- and you'll see what I mean)!! Just like with FOTR, it improved 10-fold the second time!
-
...you are an even bigger idiot then I thought.
-
Dec 20, 2002 3:39:35 PM CST
"He didn't create this world or these characters, he only adapte
by minderbinder
Idiot.
-
Dec 20, 2002 3:42:53 PM CST
We need not look to history for examples of the purist form of h
by neutral_density
I can't understand why everybody hates each other. It's a movie. Movies don't mean anything to anyone in the scheme of things. When you die and you are on your deathbed, are you going to be remembering the movies you watched? To fill your lives with such vitriol and hatred can't possibly be good for you. What is it about people who live for conflict with people who they have never even met before? Yet judgement is cast constantly on people, based on what? Their preference of movies. While I did not enjoy TTT, I can appreciate the amount of hard work went into it. The fact that it didn't connect with me is something that is personal. I choose not to make sweeping generalizations of those who actually liked the film. Good for all of you, if you did. I envy you, because it seems as though you have had a thrilling cinematic experience, something that has yet to happen to me since "Blade Runner". But the thing that saves me is that there are many other facets of my life where I can find fulfillment and happiness- family, friends, music, art, nature, cosmology etc. I don't know if many of you have an apprectiation for all of existence and the many facets of your own, but perhaps it would make you appreciate others if you did.
-
****What about the big hole in the wall? Perhaps you weren't paying attention when Saruman explained that the wall had "one weakness" and the camera showed the storm drain, with water flowing through, etc. If I'm not mistaken, Saruman even said it was to allow the flow of water out. *****As for pyrotechnics, A) Saruman was the world's most powerful wizard and a central authority (explained in the first movie), so it's not a terrible stretch to think that he's come across gun powder. B) The chinese had gun powder a thousand years before the Iron Age, so why not a wizard? *****Why did Aragorn insist that Legolas shoot the guy with the torch? It was obvious they wanted him to get through. Anybody with half a brain could see that they were planning something that somehow involved this guy who is running toward the wall, the only guy with a torch or anything resembling one, and the whole fucking army is parting around him. Well no shit shoot the guy with the torch! *****Why did Legolas not hit him? He did! Pay attention, fucker. The guy had a big thick helmet to protect his head, and the two arrows he took in the body didn't stop him! This guy was on a suicide mission anyway, he knew he was going to die, so he just hauled balls in there with the torch. If you ask me, that was fucking excellent strategy. Ditto to hoisting already loaded siege ladders, the groups moving up the ramps with shields covering almost every inch around them, etc. There was a LOT of real medieval strategy going on and some excellent original ideas. Maybe you should pick up a book or two and read. You might learn something.
-
the reason Grima shed a tear for those of you who somehow could not figure it out, is because he realizes Eowyn is going to be part of the Uruk-hai's next meal and he never even got a chance to taste her!
-
ILM still uses extensive models and miniatures...everything digitally inserted into to film started out as a model, digitally scanned, and then enhanced to add that level of realism that pure models just can't achieve...now for the storm drain...there could very well have been a storm drain under the wall...and from the looks of it, Saruman used gunpowder or some magical concoction to make his explosive devices...but this is where it is screwed up...the amount of explosives needed to take down a wall the size of the one in Helms Deep would have created such a blast as to kill half the Uruk Hai on the ground with shrapnel and flying debris...but this magical explosive had the effect of a shape charge even though it wasnt buried, and managed to take out the wall in one blast, with an Olympian Uruk Hai torch runner as the only catalyst needed to set it off??? I used to work as a combat engineer, and this "breach" was pure Hollywood convenience
-
I was responding to your issue that LotR fans were harrassing SW fans for the comment of "wait to see the entire trilogy, to really appreciate it." My impression was that you might be criticizing the lack of film layout in LotR, perhaps on equal terms with the SW prequel flaws. You may be a neutral observer between the SW/LoTR trilogy gangwar, but your stance seemed to imply 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'. I agree, except that Lucas has 9yrs to complete a trilogy to some cohesive and coherent presentation, whereas PJ only had about 3 (I believe). Lucas has had much more time to tweak and edit than Jackson & crew. So it was never an even contest to begin with. I find LOTR a steady pace. Slow for some, perhaps, but more consistent than TPM's and AOTC's ritalin-dosed drama, speckled with hyper-active withrdrawals. But I don't know if we're seeing eye to eye in any case.
-
or watch the film again to see if the explosion DIDN'T kill a whole slew of orcs in the end, because I recall seeing a HUGE explosion with lots of rocks and bodies flying. Regarding shaped charges, it's an option to leave us wondering how Saruman designed the mine structures. I won't presume to guess on the methods, nor will I presume it had to be based entirely or exclusively on our own contemporary knowledge of science, seeing as how there were walking trees and dragons and such. Obviously it bothered you, but I'm also content you simply labelled it as "convenience" instead of "bullshit" or even "complete and utter bullshit".
-
I totally appreciate your kind words. *smiles*
-
...anyone who uses the word 'magickally' is indeed an idiot.
-
...do you even realize what you are writing, as you write it?
That last post is the most hypocritical statement I have ever read. And then says alot when it comes to you. -
You said: "but this magical explosive had the effect of a shape charge even though it wasnt buried, and managed to take out the wall in one blast, with an Olympian Uruk Hai torch runner as the only catalyst needed to set it off???" Read it again, man. "Magical explosive." Saruman was a WIZARD. Just like Gandalf managed to create enchanted fireworks, Saruman created a magic bomb. What's so hard accept? sk
-
Dec 20, 2002 4:09:11 PM CST
I Need A Drink OR... The Whistle Blows, and Fred Flintstone Goes
by jollydwarf
I know that the weekend doesn't really start until 5:00 P.M., but can we here in the States start it a hour or two early? Can we take a good 48 hours off from our full-time careers of frame-by-frame and page-to-frame analysis? No? Well, I know I am. By Monday morning, I expect this to be the TB equivalent of the Endless Stair. Wow, I've never seen anything like this....
-
Dj tiesto: "no changes are better than the book". Hmm, how about the omission of Tom Bombadil, Boromir's sword training that showed his human side and affection for Merry and Pippin, Aragorn and Boromir's final scene or the whole added Arwen thing (without which we'd all think Aragorn was a friggin' ass for choosing briefly glimpsed, sitting-in-the-corner-sewing Arwen over feisty Eowyn)? And although I loathe some of the changes (my ongoing gripe about Faramir is a fine example), I think there are plot reasons for both Aragorn's "death" (and for the record, he didn't die, he was just unconscious) and the trip to Osgiliath. Aragorn being left behind tightens the bonds between him and Legolas and Gimli, brings out Eowyn's feelings for him, and puts Aragorn into a situation where he witnesses the enemy army and can then report to Theoden about it. The trip to Osgiliath is, I think, primarily there to bring about the ROTK plot line of Sauron thinking the Ring is in Minas Tirith. ***Skeletor500: the "aerial shots of the battle" are totally "inappropriate"? Is there a basis for that estimate? Why exactly are they inappropriate? If they had been shot way overhead, you might have had a point, but they were just like high crane shots. ***Rockin Chair: an Indy comparison? No offence, but that's like comparing apples and oranges. Both part of a larger group (movies/fruit) but very different from one another. I loved Indy and SW and LOTR, but comparing three genres is a bit silly. That's like comparing Citizen Kane to Some Like It Hot. Both great, but very different. ***Sejin: good points on the theme of "sacrifice". ***Kerrak: the elves were "robotic"? Dude, they were marching in military formation. If I saw an army marching somewhere and everyone was doing their own thing, THAT would be weird. And as for the Elrond/Haldir thing, Galadriel asks Elrond's opinion on sending joint troops to help (hell, Galadriel could act on her own, but Elrond is the de facto highest ruler of the elves of Middle Earth), so it's mostly Lorien troops, but authorised by Elrond. ***SHU SHU: I gotta disagree a bit on your point. First off, Merry and Pippin aren't that different from the book to begin with. They do show guts and intelligence (this mostly from Merry) already in FOTR, but even in the book are pretty silly in many ways (throwing pebbles into the well out of boredom, anyone?). Faramir's changes from the book are just totally bizarre. He's like Boromir, only even more dark! Although the little detail that he wouldn't touch the Ring was nice to see. ***mattatron: well, PJ's kids were obvious. Didn't spot PJ anywhere, though. Maybe he's among the hillfolk Saruman whips into a frenzy? They were all burly, round and hairy guys. Or maybe he's nowhere this time around. ***fettastic: okay, where do I begin? You complain that there was "no Sauron" apart from one shot in Isengard, the Ring was seen "twice" and Saruman was barely seen? Were we watching the same film? Sauron's Eye was seen a shitload of times, as was the Ring (not as many "holding it in my palm for a super close-up" shots, but still...), and though Saruman could have been seen more, he's still there quite a lot. *For another point, I'm sure we'll see the end of Isengard in ROTK. After all, Gandalf and friends are probably riding to Isengard in their final scene. *As for the reason for Boromir's death and Faramir knowing. I think primarily Sam was pointing out that Boromir's obsession for the Ring probably affected his death (and in the sense of him being even more gung-ho to make up for his wrongdoings and thus willing to sacrifice himself, it's true). And secondly, Sam doesn't know how Boromir died. He probably has some suspicions. Still, the main point is that Boromir became enamoured with the Ring and lost his mind (though temporarily). The Ring had brought him down even if we ignore his death. And Faramir knows because Boromir died within Gondor's borders and was then put in a boat that was sent down the river towards his home. The body has been found. Of course, Faramir first saw it in a dream, but the actual body has also been discovered. *And the colosseum/Geonosis fights in AOTC are cooler? As a huge SW fan I hate to say this, but that's ridiculous. And I also have to agree with empyreal0's points on strategy and intensity (good post, dude!). *the "cloak trick" was "a stretch"? Well, the cloaks are used like that in the books too. They're elven cloaks given to them in Lorien (as seen in the extended edition). They can magically conceal their wearers if used like that. I'd be more upset if they never used those cloaks. *And yes, you obviously were in the bathroom or something. We do see Gandalf going to find Eomer and his Rohirrim. *As for how the elves knew where Theoden was. Well, first of all, if Faramir, hiding out near Mordor doing guerilla attacks can get news about Helm's Deep, I think the elves can too. And secondly, Galadriel obviously saw it in her mirror. She tells Elrond about Helm's Deep and the FOTR talk about her mirror establishes how she knows. *And as for the ringwraith leaving after the Frodo meeting in Osgiliath? Well, apart from the fact that it was surrounded and blind and on a wounded steed, thus making it impossible to stay and try to get the Ring. Hell, even if he had gotten it, he wouldn't have gotten out of Osgiliath with it. He might be impossible to kill by man, but Faramir's troops would still get the Ring from him. And I think the ringwraith thinks it's more important to tell Sauron the Ring is in Gondor. This is major news. His steed's wounded and might not make it all the way back, so he has to leave fast to make sure he gets as close to home as possible on it before it gives out (I don't think it'll die, but it sure can't fly for long). And considering the threat of Gondor and its vicinity to Mordor, the wraith thinks it's essential to tell Sauron the Ring is apparently going there. ***That's it for now.
-
I'm tired of this argument from many who know little about effects that it's "ALL CG. It's all done in the computer!"
What an insult to the many talented artists who use the computer merely as another tool or craft to achieve a director's vision.
Frankly, I love the Rings trilogy thus far, and the Star Wars films, all of them, are visually outstanding.
Do any of you hacks who keep blasting one effects facility or another realize many of the people know each other, maybe SHOCK! they even like one another?
Many of the people at Weta before and today have worked at ILM. Does that mean now they work in NZ they suck? That they have no talent?
Joe Letteri was a great artists at ILM for many years. Now that he worked on TTT does that mean he sucks?
An effects facility is four walls and running water. It's the people inside that count and make the difference.
ILM, Weta, DD, Sony, etc, it's a great time for fantasy and action adventure fans.
Look ove the last year, just the last year at the amazing visuals created by many people around the world.
Inspiration comes in many forms, from many places. ILM is,IMHO(remember humility geek-sheep?)one of many places creating great work, and ILM and the rest of the industry is all the better for it.
BTW, don't know how many know but Centropolis FX(CFX) is shuttering(closing down).
Bad time to be let go. Good luck to those peeps there in finding future work. :)
Okay, continue rant: -
I mean lets face it, in a world where dragons and orks and elves are running around, maybe they do have magical explosive devices...but I felt the storm drain breach was unneccesary, considering that the whole feel of the film is one of taking a fantasy epic and treating it with respectful realism...almost as if Tolkiens work was fantasy...but considering that traditional siege equipment tends to work just fine and the Uruk Hai dont seem to give a crap if they die or not, I thought siege towers, catapults and the likes would have been more true to the nature of a siege...the storm drain was kind of Lucas Death Star convenient in that one explosion at the weakest link in the chain took down the whole damn thing.
-
Obviously I loved the film... its Lord of the Rings, come on. And although some of the changes seem unnecessary (like the new but not improved Faramir), and some parts of the film could have used a little more screen time (namely Merry and Pippin and the Ents), the film on the whole was amazing, and far better than any film released this year. We go to the movies to escape, to live in another world, to forget our worries and let ourselves be lost in the worlds and lives of the characters we love. And that is exactly what TTT does, almost as well as Fellowship did. On another note, the movies and the books are obviously going to be different, because Tolkein is not making the films! Also a film that is a perfect replication of the book would be almost impossible to make in the time allotted. And keep in mind that you still need to keep those that havent read the books from falling asleep with what would be, to them, boring, irreleveant facts that have nothing to do with Frodo's quest and the battle for Middle-Earth. Anyways, I agree with Snake-eyes when he went on to talk about how seeing the movie a second time made him forget his doubts and gripes that he had previously. All these negative reviews made me doubt the film at first, even after I saw it... But I can now say that, after seeing it a second time, it is indeed flim making at its finest, and is truly a story that allowed me to escape in the lands of Middle-Earth. I was amazed when i first saw Gollum close up. I was truly excited when the Riders of Rohan and the wargs ran head on toward eachother. I laughed at Gimli, especially when he was standing on top of the wall at Helm's Deep. A shiver ran down my back as I saw Gandalf and Eomer ride head on into thousands of Orcs, in what is probably one of the most epic clashes I have ever seen on film. I felt the tears swell when Sam (after having, I admit, a somewhat corny speech) reminded Frodo why they are even bothering to try and destroy the Ring in the first place. And I was awe-struck as I saw the flooding of Isengard, which is definitely something that no one has ever seen on film before. All of these things, and more, is what makes this movie magic. Thank you Peter Jackson, for you have given us soemthing that, before, people could only dream about.
-
there's a world of difference between the caliber of intelligence between combat engineers of any human historical age, and the brainless brutes in TTT who were most likely only good for commands like "pull this rope to pull the ladders up" or "stick this metal ball in that hole". Catapults require understanding of pulleys, which aren't so difficult I'm sure, but with so many orcs being sacrificed it was probably a better strategy to keep the assult methods simple instead of edgy. I wouldn't entrust a simple CS grenade to an orc.
-
Excellent!! I'm so glad I'm not alone here. I suspect as well that after others have seen it a second time they to will realise that, as with FOTR, it grows on you the more you watch it. I'm already planning to see it a third time on Sunday now! hehe!
-
>>I mean lets face it, in a world where dragons and orks and elves are running around, maybe they do have magical explosive devices...but I felt the storm drain breach was unneccesary<
-
The reason behind the ease of sharing that effect may stem from Chris Boyes doing sound design for these films. He's "on-loan" from Skywalker Sound(where he's created some fantastic work over the years for Iron Giant among others).
-
Motion Pictures are NEVER marketed for EVERY single man, woman, and child. Hence, the theory of DEMOGRAPHICS. However, since everyone has the right to view them, everyone thinks that they have the right to speak of them as if they actually get what film is about. You don't like TTT? Fine. What does that mean? It means you don't like a brilliant film. Period. And one last note: Smeagol's storyline, with him wrestling with Gollum, is most definately not funny. The performance, coupled with the appearence of the creature, is sometimes humorous. But to say that because most people laughed at him during that sequence that it didn't work is utter bullshit. The fact that a lot of people laugh proves that 98 % of people just don't get movies. This talkback is more proof.
-
I'm glad to see that not everyone here is pretending that the Emporer is fully clothed...I haven't read all of the posts because..well, I have a life, so I don't know if this has been covered, but I'll tell ya what brought down the experience for me.
Not having read the books, I didn't care that "so and so was supposed to be here when he said that" type of thing, but what did bug me is Gollum's voice. I mean he sounded just like "Stich" who sounded like "gurgie" who sounded like the first cousin of Jar-Jar. And Treebeard's voice was hardly different from Gimli's. Very dissapointing that they couldn't come up with something a little fresher. I kept expecting the Rockbiter to show up to join the battle at Isengard, tho.
The look of Gollum changed from the FOTR to TTT. THe eyes now appear to be smaller and farther apart.
How come every perilous step of the way for our heroes is shown in exhaustive detail, yet Grimla Wormtounge makes it from Rohan to Isengard in two scenes? he makes it back to Isengard faster than the never resting army of uruk-ais(sp)and they had a couple days head start.
Theoden is so strapped for soldiers that he drafts 12 year old boys to fight, yet thru most of his scenes he's flanked by two of the biggest and strongest looking soldiers in his army who do nothing but stand there like a couple of big hair metal band rejects.
but that's just me, I could be wrong.
-
Some of the people posting here have to be the biggest morons in the world either that or you are just upset SW fans that Lucas has not been able to meet the heights with his prequels that these classic LOTR films have(and yes these first two films of the Peter Jackson
-
I think I agree on Smeagol's voice abit, I would have preferred the voice from the animated "The Hobbit" Gollum. More gutteral, a little more menacing. Re: Grima's jaunt; "have horse, will travel" (unshown, but likely). He was evil, not stupid.
Theoden wasn't quite 'strapped' for soldiers, but if you noticed all the reactions across the characters, when they learned of the unheard-of tally of almost 10,000 orcs, I would assume they knew a regular 'contingent' army just wouldn't suffice. As for his 2 burly guards: you'd have the President of the United States guarded by 12-yr-olds instead, while all the highly-trained guards were out at Iraq? He's the KING, for gosh-sakes. That's just simple tactic. *****
You're not saying these 3 issues brought down the entire 3hr film, are ya? -
I first read the LOTR trilogy as a twelve year old growing up in Northern California. Part of my absolute love for these two first films is admittedly based on the few good memories I had as a child, reading these books to escape a particularly grim reality. I saw TTT Wed. with my son and daughter-in-law and will see it again tonight with my younger son. What's cool is that their main reason for going (not having read the books) is to share something with me that they know I love. I was mesmerized during the screening of TTT, only breaking my eyes from the action to look at my son in complete wonderment."Can this be real? Am I really seeing this book come alive before my eyes?" He had the same look on his face! These films were made, despite what were tremendous pressures, with such apparent love on everyone's part that it is evident (at least it is to me) on the screen, even to the smallest detail. Harry, ya got it right...what "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" was to my father, this trilogy will be for me. An everlasting fountain of joy...
-
Starbuck1975: the explosion did kill a shitload of orcs. Hell, huge boulders and shrapnel were raining down on the orcs. See, it's not like Saruman is gonna cry over losing some orcs. They're just cannon fodder for him. ***As for the convenience of the storm drain, Helm's Deep is an "ancient" fortress built long ago. The drain was much less of a threat then. Even when the explosion happens, Theoden and the others are shocked because they've never seen anything like it before. ***fettastic: sheesh. I think empyreal0 explained the torch guy very well already. Just to reiterate: Legolas did shoot the guy twice, but the orc kept going, and it's obvious for Aragorn to think something fishy is going on when all the orcs suddenly part and make way for a dude with a big torch running right at the wall. *And it's not like Saruman invented gunpowder in two seconds. His interest has always lain in inventing, a throwback to his relationship with his closest Valar. And he's been bad for quite a while. So he's been making this stuff for a while, gathering his forces. Now he just has a good use for it. *And as for what the Orthanc machines are for. Hmm, how about making armor and weapons for an army of 10 000 Uruk-hai, some goblins and some extra weapons for the people he manipulates? Not to mention the big battle machines used at Helm's Deep. ***Dink meeker: well, I won't go into too much detail (come on Vanyar or morGoth or someone, grace us with your detailed descriptions), but a) Sauron doesn't create a new Ring because he can't. As stated in FOTR, his life force is bound in the Ring. He is weak without it, having had his physical form destroyed at the Final Alliance battle. He needs it back to gain his powers again. And he can't create a new one, since the old one is the one connected to the other rings of power and he doesn't have the power to make one now. b)Galadriel's "shady" past is mostly her rebellion with a group of other Eldar (elves), for which she was banished to Middle Earth, not allowed to return to Valinor. After she shows her strength opposing Sauron and the lure of the Ring during the story unfolding now, she is given the permission to sail to Valinor (though some people theorise she still won't be allowed on the mainland, and will have to remain on one of the smaller islands).
-
In response to Schizzy
-
I never set one off but I got to see one go off up close.
-
I think the reason that the line spoken by Sam "That there is some good left in this world" (or something along those lines)almost made me come to tears is because it speaks to exactly what we are going through today. (It helps that Sean Astin says this line almost perfectly, and thus makes up for the slight corniness found in the rest of the speech.) With all the troubles we face, like 9/11, Iraq, our failing economy, and politics, it is important to remember why we fight and strive for a better tomorrow. We have to hope that there is some good left in this world, or else we might as well have no hope at all. This is also a reason why these movies are now appealing to almost all movie-goers, not just Tolkein and fantasy fanatics. These movies give us something that we all need in this age, something that is mentioned many times by the characters of Lord of the Rings... hope. And although we may not see what hope is left in the lands of Middle-Earth as of right now, when Return of the King finally hits theaters next year... it will be something we will remember for years to come.
-
Peter Jackson destroys George Lucas in every single way, from the staging of action scenes, to dialogue, pacing, effects, everything. Episode 1 sucks major ass and Episode 2 is the biggest piece of cinematic shit laid since Howard the Duck. Two Towers is a fantastic film on every level. At the screening I saw it was given a standing ovation that. Can't say that about either of the new Star Wars films.
-
There are basically two reasons that Sauron cannot forge a new Ring of Power.
The first is that he is not fully incarnated, either in the books or the movie. It is interesting how PJ is trying to show this to some degree.
The second is that Sauron poured a great deal of his power or essence into the One Ring. He is LESS powerful now because of it. -
The Two Towers as a film is such a sprawling, multi-level epic that is seems too easy to just nitpick a few elements and extrapolate on those to condemn the whole. A second viewing seems to do it justice, since I picked up many elements that I missed the first time (but some in the audience did get things-- this seems to vary from audience to audience). *** In the second viewing, I thought the editing and pacing was spot on in the first hour, provided that viewers had seen the first film. All the characters are getting their bearings, realizing they are lost/on their way to Isengard/running out of time, and soon facing greater challenges. The introduction for Edoras was great-- four characters, Theoden, Grima, Eowyn, Eomer just really shine and come through clearly in very short order. This efficiency and economy is perhaps the biggest drawback, since I wanted to linger and see more of these characters. This is why I liked the Extended Edition of FOTR more-- the extra scenes with the Hobbits and Aragorn and Galadriel allow the viewer to soak up more, which is in fact I think closer to what a Tolkien reading involves-- the sense of visiting a lived-in place, with a lot of history and opportunity for joy in discovering great stories, songs, architecture, weapons, and so on. I loved the Anglo-Saxon rhythms in speech (Saruman's speech on industry, and his call to battle to the army hordes of Isengard). That tear on Grima's face was priceless. Criticisms that point to departures from the book strike me as staggeringly misplaced. Look at how many lines they got right. Look at how many details that match the book (and in turn are lifted out of Tolkien's influences of Anglo-Saxon culture and Beowulf). Nowhere else are you going to get this amount and level of loving attention to detail. The themes of courage with little or no hope play so well (I was looking for the lines about "remembrance" and "such reckless hate" and I got them, and they sent shivers down my spine, and seemed to provoke the audience to stunned silence and awe). *** Many in the audience were in tears during Sam's speech in the end, and I grew to appreciate it even more. The theme that all good stories involve heroes who could have given up and turned back, but didn't, really hits home when one surveys the scenes. The Merry and Pippen sequences make more structural sense, and I could hear squeals of despair in the audience as Treebeard took forever to make up his mind while the soldiers of Rohan were being slaughtered. His advice to the Hobbits to go home just seemed to crank up the emotions in the audience, and his bellow at the end over the forest seemed to send everyone over the top. Gandalf's line about "Theoden stands alone" just sent many in the audience spiralling into delirium.(I also liked Eomer calling out "Rohirrim!" -- the correct plural for people of Rohan). I liked that Harry picked up on the detail that Uruk army was outwitted by Gandalf's and Eomer's charge with the sun behind them, blinding the army below. *** For those who wanted to see the villains more, keep in mind the chief villain is the Ring, which holds Sauron's spirit, which means the ring magnifies the wearer's/bearer's desire and ability to dominate others, as well as magnifying the bearer's hatred, malice, and cruelty. Gollum is Sauron. Frodo is falling under the influence of the ring and becoming Sauron. He can only become Smeagol's master because of the ring. That's why Gollum's performance is so crucial to this movie (he's no Yoda, Jar Jar, or Dobbie), since Gollum also has to carry the weight of portraying in a more concrete way the manipulations and depravations that Sauron embodies, and that are gradually ensaring Frodo, claiming his "life" in the end (at least his life on Middle-Earth). *** Cinematically, I always thought that Return of the King will have the more powerful moments. This is also where Jackson's style will go up aginst Roger Ebert's complaint that the hobbits are not the key focus. In ROTK, the hobbits are still the key witnesses, but are elevated by the gravity of what they are experiencing. I'm not worried about the Scouring the Shire not being there-- there would have to be some details about Saruman's interest in a pipeweed cartel and exploiting The Shire's economic resources that might be a bit much. I would be quite happy with references, such as Merry's about the Old Forest (which seems like a wonderful substitute that captures the essence of an extended sequence in the book). The vast majority of the details from the book are in the current films, and where truncations, alterations and economies are made, the spirit is still there. And good God, if Jackson can get this line right: "Come not between the Lord of the Nazgul and his prey", and the rest of this speech in the ROTK, then all other quibbles will be forgotten.
-
Anyone who compares a movie based on the Opening day receipts is a fucking madman... Sure spiderman out preformed it by approximatly 35 percent.....TWO TOWERS was 35 percent longer...making an opening day in the same price bracket as spiderman a near impossibility. I would have to say that TTT was excellent...changes were made yes they were, I assure you if this book or any of these books were made true to the page, they would have been more confusing...and far worst paced.
-
Just saw the movie!! What an experience!! How could I be any happier?? All my worries about it where unnecessary. You where so right Elanor, we can trust Peter Jackson!
I wanted to get back in line and see the next show right away. The last time I wanted to do that was when I had seen Saturday Night Fever when I was 14 years old. I actually did it then. Now my feeling of appropriateness stops me. I was wiser in that sense when I was 14, I think. Now I -
Anyone who compares a movie based on the Opening day receipts is a fucking madman... Sure spiderman out preformed it by approximatly 35 percent.....TWO TOWERS was 35 percent longer...making an opening day in the same price bracket as spiderman a near impossibility. I would have to say that TTT was excellent...changes were made yes they were, I assure you if this book or any of these books were made true to the page, they would have been more confusing...and far worst paced.
-
I don't get it. I just fail to see how Attack of the Clones was any good. It had its good points, mind you. Yoda's battle was fun. The monsters in the arena were a nice Harryhausen tribute. The opening explosion of Amidala's ship was an excellent surprise (even when I knew it was coming). The editing of the action scenes was usually quite good, especially the chases. But other than that, the dialogue was terrible, the acting wavered between moderately acceptable and atrocious, the effects were inconsistent, and the plot really wasn't all that interesting. Two Towers, on the other hand, had a few minor problems. The one that bugged me the most was its lack of progress from beginning to end (something Lucas has down to an artform!). Additionally, there was just too much happening in too many places for the story to really cohere and the editing didn't quite pull it all together. The effects were somewhat inconsistent (VERY strong effects work in Gollum and Helm's Deep, not so much in the Ents.) Apart from the lack of story progress (and no cliffhanger), I'd say I can let slide nearly all the problems I had with the movie considering the amount of work that went into it. Clones had nothing on the level of Gollum's amazing performance, nothing that came close to the amazingly visceral yet intelligent sequence that was Helm's Deep, and certainly absolutely no where near the kind of humor that Gimli provided. C-3PO's lost head was bad. Not funny for anyone over 12. Clones had no spirit of adventure, which it probably wasn't going for anyway but was a staple of the original trilogy, and even then it merely half-assed its attempt at a Shakespearean tragedy which it clearly WAS aiming for. Maybe you see something I don't. Care to explain your feelings?
-
Sorry, Harry, but I have to disagree. Gollum is LOTR's Jar Jar. He's an annoying, shrill-voiced hyperactive source of supposed comic relief. And, for a CGI character, he only looks photo-realistic part of the time; when he moves quickly, he looks like a cartoon. George Lucas learned in 1999 that groundbreaking special effects can still lose the Oscar if they're used to create an irritating character; unfortunately Peter Jackson didn't take notice, and he will learn the same lesson next March.
-
Gollum is an integral part of the LOTR trilogy. His "annoying" behavior is part of the story. Jar Jar, as well-crafted as he was, did not need to be there. He was obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious and it detracted from the film. If you'd like to point out "poor comic relief" in TTT, you should look no further than Gimli. His antics had less to do with the plot. Your comparison is flawed. Furthermore, it sounds as if you're looking for a reason to dislike the Gollum character. If you don't like the character, fine. But don't blame it on the CG work. Most folks who work in the business will tell you that the work on Gollum was some of the most advanced and successful to date. --d
-
Ok,
So you've come the site and read Harry's gushing ode to The Two Towers. Maybe you even waded through a couple dozen talk-back messages, some eloquent, others profane. And now you post something about how TTT sucks or maybe how Star Wars didn't get a fair shake comparatively or maybe how you felt Gollum is being way too overhyped and, in your expert opinion, he's cool cgi but that's it.
Why?
Do you think it's going to change the minds of people who like it or further polarize the people who don't?
Now, if you want to state what you thought and add to a useful discussion, that's great. What I fail to understand is why a person would waste their time proclaiming that something they observed IS or WAS anything.
You observed it. The images & sounds were processed by your minds and stimulated (or didn't) an emotional response. That response, just like an orgasm when you're with your partner, was yours and yours alone. No amount of proclaiming what it was to you is going to change what is was for someone else. If your partner didn't orgasm and you did you can bet they didn't walk away from the experience with the same feeling you did.
We're all individuals. So let's all just share our experience and stop thinking anyone else had the same one we did.
Wyll- -
Dec 20, 2002 6:33:13 PM CST
why Two Towers is better than Fellowship but still not, and neve
by tall_boy
I found this flick very much like the "Empire Strikes Back". Mulitple plotlines (which I'm always a sucker for), character growth that isn't just hitting the same beats as the first flick and just generally an improvement over the first one. I think this film was better than Fellowship. I mentioned awhile ago how the first film seemed too bloody over the top dramatic (which was pointed out in EW review) and self-important, which lessens the drama. Its as if in Fellowship, the filmmakers and the fans seem to keep things so bloody serious and "oscar worthy", etc. etc. that it kills any joy to be had. In Two Towers they actually let the air out of the balloon a bit and loosed up and had fun with it. The interaction between the dwarf and Legolas really keeps the flick from drowing in a bloated sense of self and there's a bit more wacky abandon to it (Aaragon falling off the clif was pretty freakin sweet). Also the "Nobody tosses a dwarf" line from the first movie pays off beautifully. I think this film is much more well-balanced and therefore it makes the film stronger as a whole. Also one of my big problems with Fellowship is, like it or not, the film climaxes after Gandalf goes over that clif. Afterwards it just drags on (for nearly and hour!) and never reaches the momentum that it had in the Mines of Moria sequence. This film was much smarter by keeping the climax at the battle of Helm's Deep which made the ending more stasifying.
Gollum is a great CGI character, and I think seeing both Yoda & this proves that CGI characters can be done if there's alot of time and effort put into them. But it rarely works so far so it should be used sparingly. Still Gollum is a great performance & outdoes a scene that is pretty much the exact same as Williem Daffoe did in Spider-Man. And truthfully, the voice-work & animation on Gollum does it better. his final scene in Two Towers is just absoultely chillling. Great stuff.
Now the flick isn't without drawbacks, and I ain't talkin bout changes from the book. Merry and Pipin spend the whole time hanging around with trees, seriously. And a very slow tree at that. The Aaragon and Arwen romance seems more tacked on in this flick than in the first one (if that's even possible) and just completely left me cold and looking for my watch. (though in its defense I went with my sister and her friend and they were both gushing on the romance plot afterwards). Sir Ian McKellen who was a bright spot in the first film, in TT basically shows up dressed in white, beats an old man with a stick, rides off, then is the deus ex machina at the end. quite a waste of a good character and actor. All of the action is localized to the Aaragon plotline, so don't expect much happening when Frodo hits the screen (but I think Gollum makes up for that). The film still has a jerky-pacing that the first one had, where sometimes you're wrapped up in it and not noticing time passing and other times it seems like an endurance test. The stiffling feeling of self-importance from Fellowship, while toned down in this one, still pops up and points. (the shot of the 4-year old kid putting on the helmet was seriously painfully annoying. And also Aargon's empassioned delivery of "THEN I WILL DIE WITH THEM!!" should have had flashing text underneath that said Oscar Consideration Clip). And did I mention the crappy romance plotline?
I'm willing to write most of those off as nitpicks, though, and nothing too damaging to the film as a whole. Even if you intensely disliked Fellowship I'd recomend this one because its defintely an improvement over the last one. Mainly because I think its key that Jackson & Co. start to loosen up a bit and have some fun with it, which is always a good thing and makes the film more enjoyable for the audience.
-
they are both at the head of their respective fields - jar jar is the worst thing about an absolute shite movie whilst gollum is the absolute highlite in an amazing cinematic achievement. There the similarities end. To be fair though, Gollum is essentially a natural progression in digital evolution. Jar Jar's effects are a few years old now so a direct comparison to Gollum is inappropriate. It was the actual "character" of Jar Jar that got fucked up. Gollum's realism will be eventually topped by movies to come but I'm sure there are few directors, if any, that can give a digital character the amount of emotional depth that Peter, Andy and co gave to Gollum.
-
Do you know why PJ showed the boy putting on the armor? First its mentioned in the books that there were too few men of fighting age at helm's deep. Only "greybeards who have seen too many winters or strong lads who have seen too few." Secondly it sets up events in ROTK beautifully, just brilliant by PJ. HINT:
It has something to do with Eowyn.
Other than that I agree this isn't the greatest movie of all time. The greatest movie of all time will be when ROTK is released next year and all three parts seen together. :)
-
2 TOWERS WAS GREAT AWESOME AMAZING.....
BUT EPISODE 2 WIPES THE FLOOR WITH IT. CHARACTER DEPTH AND STORY TELLING, PACING EVERYTHING WAS BETTER.
FRODO VS ANAKIN I THINK NOT!!!!
JUST WAIT TILL EPISODE 3 -
The brief scene from Gondor does little to comfort me. In the books, Gondor is a city built into the side of a mountain in seven walled circles. The architecture is Numenorian, which is certainly not Medieval-European. If close to anything, it would be Middle-Eastern, with great white spires and domes rising at such heights as to reach the clouds. I know that the locations are all based upon Alan Lee and John Howe's interpretations (I wonder if Ted Nasmith is angry he was not also asked), so they are the ones to blame on that account, going with a more European look even though the book hints otherwise. Although I forgive them because of the way they handled Rivendell...
-
The missed opportunities in this film came at two points. The first is when Gandalf breaks Sarumans spell on Theoden the King of Rohan. In the book the breaking of the spell is far more subtle, Theoden is not so much under Sarumans control as he is given in to hopelessness and despair. Gandalf shows him that things are not as dark as they seem and he's not as old as he feels. Jackson lacked subtlety in his direction of this scene, weakening it.
The second scene was the one where Faramir allows Frodo to continue on. He has a nice speech on rejecting the ring, I'm hoping they move this to the third film when he explains his decision to his father. -
Dec 20, 2002 7:24:04 PM CST
Fettastic - why don't you try cleaning the wax out of your fucki
by i_am_spartacus
Your Balrog on the top of the mountain doesnt get a response because you're a dumbass and no response would change that. If you cleaned the shit from your head you would have heard the narration that Gandalf "chased and fought the balrog from the depths of the earth to the PEAKS OF THE MOUNTAIN. Got it? Just like the Book. Go ahead and hate the movie. That's fine. But you'll still be a fucking moron regardless. Not because you hate the movie, just because you're a stupid piece of shit. That goes for almost everyone who bitches here. I laugh my ass off how in the same post you will complain about deviating from the book, then bitch about a scene STRAIGHT FROM THE BOOK. But then I shouldn't expect more from morons.
-
Why the hell aren't you folks at the movies?
-
Gondor is not a city, its more like a country. The city in the movie that we saw is Osgiliath, not Gondor. The city you are thinking of is Minas Tirith, which we saw briefly in Fellowship when Gandalf read's Isildur's account of the ring. Minas Tirith is the city that will play a major role in Return of the King.
-
but then I know what is to come.
-
I am guessing the scene you described between Theoden and Gandalf would have helped humanize both Gandalf the White (yes I know he isn't human) and the movie overall too. What a shame. As for Faramir, I really didn't get a good sense of him, mainly because I was still in overly sentimental/toxic shock from Sam's speech when he makes his decision. Unfortunately, considering many people have remarked that several chapters from TTT are being saved for ROTK, I won't be able to read it for another year if I want to be surprised by the third movie, so thanks for your analysis.
-
Dec 20, 2002 7:59:56 PM CST
Some SANE concerns about TTT from a NON-PURIST huge fan of FOTR
by geek-in-training
FOTR was the single most amazing cinematic experience of my life. No film has made me float like that before. I have read Tolkien but am not a rabid fan, and while loving his work find him a bit long winded. I am a major fan of Jackson's other work. Ok, understand?
TTT has me currently quite scared for several reasons that are not concerned with departures from the book. The largest is the lack of character moments and intimacy that made FOTR stand above every other epic I've seen over the last 100 years of cinema. I can get my fight/battle scenes elsewhere, what made me fall in love with FOTR were the little breaths in between the action, the interactions between characters, and that's what I find missing in the current cut of TTT, and it scares me to death, because I expected any reaction except that of dissapointment.
The pacing, when watching it (twice already) I get the distinct feeling I know where 5, 10, 30 seconds of footage was trimmed for the theatrical cut, and I really feel it when watching it, to the point of distraction. LOTR was set to be my favorite of all time, I hate this sinking feeling in my stomach.
I pray to God the EE of TTT is all added character moments (how am I supposed to feel about Eomer and Faramir, and how can I cry for Theoden's lost son when Jackson doesn't even set up his life or death? Please, Mr. Jackson, don't add anymore battle or travelling scenes into the EE, just add character moments. I hate feeling so distant from characters I was so close to in FOTR. I just wish the film is not only added too, but also re-edited a bit for the EE. Do others feel the same, or is it just polar responses from asshole Tolkien purists or asshole Jackson purists? -
Dec 20, 2002 8:00:39 PM CST
I would curb Harry ala American History X if that 4 eyed fuck wa
by marcboy
can you geek faggots please not ever use anything connected with Harry Potter ie. dobby, when discussing LOTR unless it is to say how amazingly fucking lame that whole franchise is. thank you.
-
I feel the love and I'll spread the love. God damn if it hasn't been a year for films. A new Star Wars and a new Lord of the Rings. Everyone should be happy as fuck!
Enjoy, enjoy! Don't be haters, just go see the film you like and leave the other alone. Or in my enlightened case I'll go see both and enjoy the fuck out of them. Hmmm... how can it be that a die hard SW fan is open to enjoying the LOTR trilogy just as much as SW new and old? Plus we'll always have real crap like The Hot Chick to talk shit about. Oh yeah and all the Nex-Gen Trek films!
Anyway how can anyone of you think that you're cooler than the other when you ALL like the Matrix, Shadowrun ripoff...cough...Jet-Li does it better...cough! Heh...hypocrit-me to the max.
Feel the love you looser bitches!!!-Az -
Becuase I'm in the middle of a 16 hour shift playing around with ions and electrons. I know where I'd rather be, but I'm paid to be here at the moment.
As for commenting the other stuff: There's lots of ranting about .. well, not much, actually. Some of the complaints that the film doesn't follow the book down to the last hair are amusing, especially when it comes to what bits were in what book etc. etc. Considering that Tolkien wrote LotR as a single novel, your complaints hold no water. The book was split into three by the publisher. Simple economics. So, wait until after RotK before you decide if Jackson was right or wrong.
As for the "character" assassination of Faramir that seems to be keeping a few of you awake at night, there's some discussion on this at http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/board/nest/454678, including some reasons from Philippa Boyens. Now, whether she is mistaken or not can be debated, but at least there is a reason. Still, we have to wait and see.
Speaking of reason(sic), this debate on whether Yoda's better than Gollum is hight amusing, in the light of the fact that most animators working on such projets are freelance and it's possible that people worked on both. Both work. End of story.
At the end of the day, it's what ever floats your boat and, unless you can give a decent argument, it gets boring when you try and tell others how to float theirs.
Have to go... the electrons need some attention. G -
I am going through withdrawl.
-
Dec 20, 2002 8:08:45 PM CST
by electrons, do you mean someone's nuts, and who exactly is pay
by marcboy
here's a website for you electron boy, alt.nerd.obsessive.com.
-
I loved FOTR. I never read the books, but loved the first film. However, I think TTT was a really mediocre film. The editing was poorly done in the last hour. The much ballyhooed battle of Helms deeps was not nearly as impressive as people said it was. At no time during the film was i EVER concerned for the safety of the heroes. The Orc army were a bunch of total wimps. For all the talk of how tough they were, they broke like glass. What tension is there when one hero can take on hundreds at once? Its stupid, bordering on comedic. What warrior in battle is going to keep winking to his pal (which means he looks AWAY from the enemy) and mocking each other about how many kills they each have? This is supposed to instill the tension, importance and horror of the battle? When they are that relaxed, wheres the danger? the threat? The Orcs may as well have been Smurfs. Whether this is Jacksons doing or Tolkiens, i have no clue. Why are the dreaded ringwraiths such pushovers? In the first movie, one dude takes a whole teams of them out in about 20 seconds. In TTT, one of the them sees the ring, has his ride shot with one little arrow, and takes off? Why should i fear these guys? I thought their sole purpose was to get the ring back? Its silly. You set up how supposedly powerful and dreadful these enemies are in words, but when it comes down to it, they run away like in a monty python film.
-
yeah, integra, "IT'S" silly, and YOU are a fucking genius. You figured it out, man! The 300 million people around the world that see and love this movie are wrong, but you and your boyfriend bitches here are right! Goot show ol' boy! And also - shut your pie hole about what soldiers will do or not do, wink or not wink, during a war unless you had your ass in a trench for 6 months. They don't just lay there bitching like you would. Now pull your head out of your ass, will you?
-
If you don't like the movie, fine. If you hate the book, fine. If you still feel you need to come here and type a U.N. sized long ass dissertation on it, fine. But don't fucking tell people the movie sucks, and you are the only enlightened ones that can notice. Perhaps... yes, maybe perhaps, little suzy who.... it just comes down to a little thing called OPINION! So make your dumb-ass opinion (in my opinion), then shut the hell up about trying to pass it off as fact.
-
While Fellowship is a great movie that can really stand on its own, this one really feels more like the first half of a movie. Thus, the storylines in this film feels very unsatisfying. The books are similar. I recently read them for the first time and was able to wait a long time to read the second book. After the second book, though, I HAD TO read the third. Think about this when next you see it, I think it will help if you had story problems. I just wanted more Sam and Pippin. For me there lack of good development was the weakest part of the film.
-
I had to see it twice before even having the START of a solid opinion....that says alot right there.
There was so much to soak in that for that midnight viewing, all I could do is sit back and have all my senses assaulted (now that's NOT a bad thing!)...plus I was with a group of people of varied ages (myself being the oldest at..let's just say 40+ :))and strangly, all of them loved FOTR but weren't horribly impressed wit TT. One friend felt the way I did...he wanted to absorb it for a day or so and come back. The other younger members of our group were either disappointed because (it didn't follow the book" or "it was too much action...not enough character stuff.
After seeing it a second time, I have to chuckle about that second assertion...there is PLENTY of "character stuff". It seems to clock by fast because by the very nature of the story, it's gotta move! As for the first assertion...the not being by the book...well, I personally can't argue with that because quite frankly, I'd fail nerd 101...haven't read 'em. Tried to when I was in school...they were all the rage, but I couldn't pull myself past the "hobbit-speak" and the constant breaking into song while walking and walking and walking, well, you get the picture....
Now that we're two-thirds the way through Jackson's vision for this, I say "Bravo! on his choices...it's interesting that one scene that had the most emotional impact for me probably WAS'NT in the books...the scenes where Elrond firmly but tenderly "shows" Arwen her fate if she chooses to stay behind...simply beautiful & sad all at once.
I'm not maniacal about these films (some friends say I'm pretty close to it with the SW films), but it is an amazing thing when we get the chance to shed our cynicism yet have it so vividly illustrated in a totally fantasy realm like we can with these movies...one of my favorite things about TT is how so many of the parallels that existed in the real world when Tolkien wrote these STILL (sadly) exist today...and Jackson is capturing that perfectly! Yes, it has all the ingrediants of the classic quest story, but that moments that resonate with me are the betrayl of the Ents by Sauruman (just the way we continue to betray the enviroment NOW) and the consquences of isolationism shown in King Theodon's attitude are too much like some country's policies today...
Anyhow...I'll stop rambling and get off the soapbox.
I'll wrap by saying...you gotta see it more than once to soak it in...just like the SW films or any great classic cinema... -
Drop the hype, drop the marketting, drop the book and look at as a piece of cinema. If you look at that way when was the last time you saw something this broad an 'cinematic' in viewing. I look at one of my favorite movies 'Lawrence of Arabia' and the breadth of this movie reminds me of that. I do not think as a 'strict' piece of cinema it as good but I have grown up with images of Middle Earth in my mind since I was a wee hobit. Because of this it has more personel meaning and that makes it all the better. But lets forget that for a moment shall we!! I loved it and will watch it again and again at the cinemas and at home. Of note the scene at the end of the battle of Helms Deep where Gandalf rides in with the banished Rohan was nothing more than breath taking. It did bring tears to my eyes, not because of the story or the meaning but simply because of the way Peter Jackson made that white light a vision out of a 14th century gothic religious painting. If Devinche had seen that scene before painting the 16th Chapel then the Angels decending from heaven would have look exactly like that. A brilliant piece of filming, books aside, marketting aside and hype aside.
-
...but it was a great flick.
-
so you bought that? you think people who are in mortal combat behave like that? were you cheering "GO LEGOLAS GO!!!! YAY!" when he 'surfed' down the stairs and the cheeseball heroic music blared? Gandalf showing up may as well have been friggin mighty mouse swooping in "Here I come to save the day!!!"
Pure Corn. No tension excitement danger. Pedestrian. Dont get so pissy about others opinions? or are you threatened if everyone doesnt agree with the '300' million who 'loved' it. Thats a great reason to like it, because others do!
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH -
Please do not compare these films. I love the start wars series and have watched Attack of the Clones many times and I am sorry but the acting in Clones is just terrible. It is the by far the weakest of all the Star Wars movies. My 10 year old nephew said it best when we walked out of the theatre after seeing attacking the clones. He said and I quote 'What the hell was that uncle Keith, attack of the muppets?' I love Start Wars but what a unmitagated piece of crap clones was. 'Oh I fallen and I can't get up!' pass the popcorn I need something to throw up in!!
-
'People don't act like that in mortal combat?' Is this not FANTASY, just like Star Wars and just about every other movie. If we want to put HUMAN behaviors on mythological creaturs, Elves and Dwarves, I guess if you figure your going to die anyway you might as well banter to releive the tension. I do believe men in the trenches duing WW1 often joked with each other during battles to try and escape the fact they where about to die. So if your going to try and apply HUMAN behaviors to MYTHOLOGICAL creatures in a FANTASY world you should at least either take Psych 101 or read some history! Or perhaps grow an imagination beyond Jerry Springer.
-
Dec 20, 2002 10:10:11 PM CST
Then go sodomize her you fat freak with no imagination whatsoeve
by jamboreech
-
I didn't hear any of you people bitching about gunpowder when Gandalf presented a firework show in LOTR to the citizens of the Shire.
Case Closed. -
I totally agree with Harry's review.
As I watched TTT, I thought back to another viewing experience that moved me: Wagner's Ring Cycle, production designed by Pierre Boulez. It was shown on Public Television in the '80s and is available on video.
Yeah, opera. Yeah, Wagner was an anti-Semite (nauseating).
Yeah, opera and Wagner can be heavy going now and then. Is it worth investing your time and attention? 1,000 percent.
The story line is similar: Good versus evil, the old ways passing away, what is worth fighting for? All set to music that, well, makes you want to pick up a sword and go a-Viking, and then reduces you to tears.
Anyone who is a LOTR fan/fanatic should at least try Wagner's Ring. -
The real brilliance of this film comes from great acting and script. When was the other time you have seen a big budget movie(more than 100 million budget) with such great acting and script. The film is receiving the best reviews for such a big budget film since Lawrence of Arabia. Plus on top of that the movie features the best technical achievements of all time in special effects, sound, etc. And overall the film is directed brilliantly by Peter Jackson. The only slight flaw in this film is that the musical score by Howard Shore does not measure up to the rest of the film's brilliance. Don't get me wrong the score is very pleasant and ocasionally emotional to listen to but I wish Howard Shore was as ambitious as Peter Jackson in breaking new grounds in filmaking. Anyways in short summary the film is a masterpiece of epic proportions that will be remembered for all eternity.
-
Dec 20, 2002 10:35:44 PM CST
"Gondor is a city built into the side of a mountain in seven wal
by chucks888
-
Fellowship is incredible. Towers is a letdown in my eyes. I didn't enjoy it too much. I loved certain parts of it, but there were way way too many changes from the book.. And why did Gimli suddenly become the comic relief character? It just didn't feel as tight and put together like the first one did. Gollum on the other hand is amazing in every way.
-
...um...ejaculation, but come on guys. No matter how much you like them, these movies aren't the greatest creations of mankind. Let's take the circle-jerking down a bit, shall we? Have you listened to yourselves? Peter Jackson is a big fat guy, but he's no Buddha. Please.
-
Not a Tolkien fan, never read the books(want to read them but might wait til after ROTK). Liked the first movie. LOVED this movie. And so damn glad it's finally come out!!(can't imagine how hard you Tolkien fans found the wait) .It's been nearly 24 hours since I saw a late night screening of TTT and I am literally dying to go see it again,probably with my Dad this time as it will be his second screening too and he's a huge fan of JRR(And I'll probably go see it again a third time just inccase I missed anything in the first and second screening or just for the sheer hell of it cos it's a lovely movie haha but anyway..can understand how some people have seen it multiple times). I can honestly say I am HOOKED ON HOBBITS!!!WOW...this is really hard to fathom because right when these movies first came out and I saw the trailers it looked so interesting *different* I wanted to go see it but nobody I knew would come, being a too-weird sort of fantasy epic story I suppose or the long running time I dont know? but now it's like, five of my friends came with me last night and we LOVED it!!! Unfortunately I dont know enough about the books and have only seen the movie once, not enough to go into detail of a scene-to-scene account. Thou judging by the nitpickers on here maybe that's a good thing, seems the purist lot hated it while the majority of the rest of us loved it. For me I found the movie so refreshingly real, I think that's what freaked me out, the irony being it's a movie based on a fantasy book. It LOOKED like a fantasy movie but using the natural scenery shots gave the setting an earth-like perspective, loved that. I've read a lot of purist Tolkien fans are gutted by the liberties Peter took to this instalment,and to a lesser degree the previous. Well, for someone who hasnt read the books...I found the movie quite spectacular. All these amazing scenes, none of you purists liked them?? Galadriel and the water scene(my favorite), and Treebeard, the Ents, Rivendell, Moria, Gollum(so convincingly "alive" my friend and I were arguing over whether Gollum was real, I knew he wasnt but at first I had a hard time convincing her he was COMPUTER GENERATED, hasnt seen many CGI movies so for her Gollum was totally captivating, great job Peter!).Peter Jackson's rendition iof everything in my eyes is simply brilliant and leaves me thinking, shit, how can nobody like his interpretation??? If there's one flaw I found with the movie it would've been the heavy dialogue...a lot of it I found quite verbose and dooms-dayish yet as far as I'm aware that's Peter trying to stick as true to Tolkien's verbal text as possible. Well anyway, I feel really sorry for those Tolkien fans who just couldnt connect with this movie, take heart there are millions of others who loved what the director and his crew have done. They literally transported me out of my theatre seat into a beautiful, mesmerising world full of hobbits, orcs, Hurukai(THOSE SLIMY PLACENTA-LOOKING THINGS THEY SLITHER OUT OF ARE DISGUSTING!!!HAHA)and the Elves(aahhhh..beautiful) the whole thing a figment of imagination yet crafted so realistically as to be believable. You convinced me Peter, Middle Earth exists !! Many times I found myself half-wishing I were Eowyn(sorry if I mis-spelt)or Arwen living in the most breath-taking scenery (that first scene of the snow-capped sunlit mountain ..did anyone notice how super-sharp the edges of the peaks were?...DIAMOND-CUT-PERFECTION...WOW). Another thing I find amazing about this movie is the fact it is THREE HOURS long and there are only three female characters in it with sparse acting and yet, I didnt mind one iota that the movie is mostly full of male actors, even the slimy buggers I found engaging. The men in this movie are infact surprisingly gorgeous. Never in my life did I think I'd find a bunch of rugged, beefy, sweaty, rough and ragged-looking men so damn sexy(and no i'm not talkin' about the UrikHai here!). The presence of these guys FILL the screen and waoh Aragorn's voice is so fine, I just love the way "Le-gohh-lass!" rolls off his tongue!!!so cool. The chivalry-knight-in-shining-armour thing ...these guys played it to the hilt and it was brilliant. In the midst of war they never forgot about their women and children, and Aragorn never forgot his love for Arwen. Chivalric, romantic, lovely. I found the Arwen/Aragorn thing not too bad actually, nice length not too long not too short. And those tears, I thought Arwen handled that scene really well. Sounds like some of you nitpickers have never been in love before , Arwen's love for Aragorn shone thru in those tears, her eyes. Oh well, I thought it was lovely anyway. Everything about this movie was lovely and I cant express enough thankx to Jackson and everyone who made it. I now have a better appreciation for the movie as a WHOLE with ROTK still to come and can see why some are calling it an arguably great epic. Thanx, many thanx...I cant wait til the final episode(LOTR's final episode that is)
-
Gandalf saw the destruction of the trees at Isengard. He could've filled the hobbits in on that info. I wont bother pointing out that it was Pippin who told Treebeard to go south, either.
-
Pippin saw the armies of Saruman leaving Isengard. At the same moment he also saw the destroyed forests. Treebeard didn't watch in that direction and his eyes were below the treetop level, unlike Pippin.
-
Just like the FOTR extended dvd made that movie at least twice as good (and I loved the theater release) just by not having to rush through certain scenes; imagine how good the Towers will be next December.
Then in just two short years I'll be able to watch the entire 12 hour extended trilogy from beginning to end in one sitting, oh my god I can't wait. -
The CGI used for Yoda is much better than than Appendix B in TLOTR novel. This is because ILM know how to use their technology much better than the idiots at WETA. However, WETA did some good in Gollum, who i think is much more realistic than the blurb on the back cover of The Silmarillion and possibly even the Contents page of TTT novel.
-
..And making me laugh my green muppet ass off! hahaha!
-
Dec 20, 2002 11:55:20 PM CST
my 2 cents about TTT (PJ please read this before putting the ext
by big papa
Having seen the movie three times now, I feel ready to give my verdict. This is a good movie, but overall I like Fellowship better. This movie is much bigger in scale, but Fellowship has something Towers does not: a satisfying end. The ending, unlike Fellowship, was just too abrupt. Fellowship ended at a natural place; though the quest was unfinished, it felt like the first stage of it was complete. Going any further into the next book and then stopping would have killed the ending. Towers, on the other hand, does not end where it should. I think I agree with Jackson that Shelob is best saved for RotK (so that Frodo and Sam have more to do), but I wanted to see at least 20 more minutes of Aragorn, Gandalf, and company. First of all, I do not like how Helm's Deep just...ends. There are 1,000 orcs left, and then they are all just gone. I either needed to see the fight go on just a few minutes longer, or I needed to see the Ents show up and "swallow" the last few orcs up like they did in the book. Secondly, like there was at the end of Fellowship, I needed some sort of setup for the next movie. Before Gandalf says "...the battle for Middle Earth is just beginning", I needed to see the last few chapters of Book III. I can wait till RotK to see Shelob, but Saruman HAS to be dealt with at the end of The Two Towers for it to feel complete. After they're done with Saruman and are all separating and going their own ways, THEN Gandalf can say "...the battle for Middle Earth is beginning. Let us turn our hope to the Ringbearer..."************I do not think Sam's speech at the end is cheesy, but I do think it should have been left out. Frodo going mad is enough to get a reaction out of me, and all Faramir needs to see to change his mind about the Ring; but Sam's speech on top of that is overkill. I felt like PJ was trying to FORCE emotion down my throat, and it just didn't want to go down.******************Last of my problems with the movie is the Aragorn/Arwen/Elrond/Galadriel stuff. First of all, this whole section of the movie is hard to follow. What is Valinor? Why is the time of the elves over? Why will Arwen die if she doesn't get on the ship? Why is Elrond giving Arwen that mean look as she's departing? If you haven't read the book, none of this is properly explained (maybe in the extended edition?). The first time I went to the movie, a woman in the row in front of me whispered "where are they going?" when Arwen and the elves were leaving. Secondly, the sequence between Elrond and Galadriel is badly edited to the point that, all three times that I watched it, I felt like I was watching a trailer. "The fate of the world will soon be decided..." Along that same line, I don't like how they keep showing footage from the first movie (with the exception of the balrog at the beginning, as that is necessary for the scene to work); can't they film NEW footage of orcs cutting down trees around Isengard and making weapons?? I thought PJ said there wasn't going to be a recap of the first movie because it was too "made-for-tv-ish"? Well, it is; that can't have been the ONLY night the orcs were down in the caverns under Isengard working on armor and weapons.**********Other than that, I have pretty much the same praises for the movie as everyone else (Gollum, the Ents, Helm's Deep, etc), so I will just leave this post at that. FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING: A+; THE TWO TOWERS: B+ (my opinion about the movie subject to change after viewing the extended edition)
-
I just read the book before viewing the movie, and I have to say, this really ruined a bit of it for me. I really need to see it again, as I DID like it a ton. But so many of the changes almost HURT. The part of Gandalf coming in 5 days, and Aragorn remembering that instead of just going to the window and telling the orcs that their days has come...I missed that terribly. Truly, the one thing I really am disappointed in is Aragorn's presence. He does kick ass, but he's supposed to have this CHOSEN-ONE feel, and I just find that absent. No one seems to really know or notice his place. I think this is really going to hurt the 3rd film, when we suddenly have to notice his placement. BUT, we'll see. I hated fantasy ANYTHING until last year when my wife and I saw these films. P. Jackson has really done it for me.
-
Firstly, I am of the side that thought Towers was good but not better than Fellowship. My reasoning is the same as any other opinions on the matter, assuming those opinions have been read. Fellowship was a very intelligent, moving film that can stand on its own in the long run. Tower, on the other hand, can't really do the same and when viewing it without its proper framework, it is nothing more than mindless entertainment-- albeit the absolute best kind, beating out the likes of this year's Spiderman, AOTC, MIBII, Trek X. It is my opinion that what made Fellowship work so well was the great characterization of the One Ring (who btw was my only favorite character), in terms of how relevant the Ring's motivation and desire were to the plot and also how the Ring's actions and reputation affected the mind and will of the other characters in its universe. Fellowship was a film about the seduction and corruption of power, how these things lead to the concept of Good and Evil. Towers is pretty much a "simple" film about the age old battle between Good and Evil. This, I think, forced the film's narrative focus to center on the characters instead of the Ring. I am all for this, to get more intimate with the characters, since the first film just let you relate to them in a non-too-exciting general level of understanding. The film, however, is too hyperactive in its focus (telling too many stories than required), making all of the interweaving subplots disjointed at best, a mess at worst. Merry and Pippin's adventure with the Ents was dull, uninformative, poorly edited, and lacking. I should have cared about Aragorn's story--his supposed relunctance to reclaim kingship and lead the world of "Men"--but this is not the case, sadly. Nothing of his heroics inspired awe in me. The flashback scenes that were supposed to show us his relunctance overloaded an already loaded story. The Rohan story helped save the Ranger's messy plot line; it was good, but it did lack resolution (Bakshi anyone?). The Gollum, Sam, and Frodo section was the best of them all, heavily shouldered by Gollum. To me, he is to Towers what the Ring was to Fellowship. Unfortunately, Gollum's appeal could not save the fact that the best of Tower's overloaded story threads has faults: it is too short, it is not focused on more intently by the film, and it is ruined by poor editing on Faramir's and Frodo's characters. Again, Towers is the best and smartest of this year's or any other year's crops of mindless entertainment. Yet it pails in comparison to Fellowship. That's very disjointing.
-
Hi everybody! Theres no point in any of us reviewing Two Towers after Harry's excellent, and deeply passionate musings. What I can add is a couple of cameos I noticed at my wednesday morning screening. Spoiler Alert!!! please do not read on if you like discovering little trinkets of joy like cameos for yourself - it is not my intention to ruin this aspect of the moviegoing experience for anyone - particularly not from the finest set of films ever made!
Cameo 1: Peter Jackson; the Kiwi grandmaster of fantasy flicks himself graces the battle at the Hornburg door - clad in a hood of chainmail, Mr Jackson delivers some spear action to the Uruks.
Cameo 2: Billy and Katie Jackson; after their debut as 'cute little hobbit children' in Fellowship, the luckiest kids alive get in on the action as refugees of Rohan hiding in the caves at Helm's Deep (underneath curly golden wigs).
Don't know if mum made an appearance or not - the elusive Fran Walsh is a little more camera shy than the rest of the family, which as I'm sure you will agree, makes it difficult to spot her in amongst the crowd scenes!
-
I just don't understand how all the starwars fans can claim that SW is better than LOTR. For example, in Appendix F (Page 512 of the 1998 Australian paperback edition of TROTK) Tolkien states "Ents were, however, themselves skilled in the tongues, learning them swiftly and never fogetting them." When Tolkien said this - HE MEANT IT. This is the driving factor for the the emotional relationships between the ents and men in TTT, but it also plays a significant role in the love triangle that is Aragorn, Arwen and Eowyn. Surely fans of Starwars can take note of this and realise that PJ pushed the limits of CGI technology in creating Gollum becasue of Tolkiens avid humor and complex realtionship design in TTT. This is why Lucas must re-think his approach to the dialect used in AOTC. This is proof that LOTR is indeed a superior novel.
-
I'm not one of those who think that these films should have been more faithful,scene for scene, to the book. For example, I was fine with the Aragorn/cliff scene because it kept true to the spirit of the character. Wich leads me to Faramir, and Treebeard. Faramir in the movie failed to capture the key points of the character; that he was wiser than his brother, that under different circumstances he would have made a Great leader of Gondor. Kinda the JFK of Middle Earth. Also that he really adored his big brother, like a kid who's older brother is a star athlete or war hero or maybe a rock star. Most importantly, it didn't come across exactly the kind of love, respect and to the death loyalty this guy could inspire.
David Wenham's performance made me think of a guy who'd smoked a couple of joints before a big meeting at work; lots of important stuff going on around him, but his reaction to it all was so slow it made you want to grab his shoulders and shake him. I'm sure it was meant to portray that Faramir thought things through before acting, but staring blankly for 10 seconds before EVERY sentence didn't do it for me.
Also Treebeard was cool in the movie, but due to time restraints they cut his story too short so that it was impossible to get a feel for who he was, as opposed to just what he did. They could have cut out half of Faramir's soulful staring and had enough for the entire tale of the ent-wives! -
I just got back from 13th street UA theater auditorium showing,,, and here is my review:ok any movie that has my jaw on the floor for more than 80 percent of the time over three fucking hours gets my seal of fucking approval. I went in thinking it would be 3 stars (mebbie 3.3 based on these here TB's) but nope, goin all the way and giving it 4. Easy peasy. my brain is still breakfast cereal from what I just saw, but I believe I liked it better than FOTR. Holy shit. And my girl/friend from New Zealand loved it too. She hasnt even seen the first one! HAHA!
-
Who am I? I spend so much--so very much--ENERGY bashing the Two Towers. I either resent changes from the book...or am so dimwitted as to have never read the books and just hate them because I'm fucking Yoda on the weekends and have to stick up for him. But I hate the Two Towers, that is who I am. And even if I wasn't a moron...even if the movie was truly bad, the fact that I waste my time trying to kill it shows one thing...that The Two Towers is peeling my world apart, that all I grew up on is stolen by its greatness. The fact that a movie can do that, on top of everything, is the worst indicator of my psyche...of ALL! Now...where is my puppy...for I dearly need an injection.
-
Hobbits had hairy feet, not hairy palms.
G -
TTT was no Solaris, but TTT could possibly be the best movie I've ever seen. I agree 100% with Harry's take. Thank you Petey Jax.
-
Harry, you seem to be on level with Peter Jackson, so next time you meet him, you should pitch this idea to him. Seing as he's brought fantasy back to life (FOTR & TTT are great and i'm not even scared about ROTK). He should take on the DRAGONLANCE SAGA (This is the only fantasy books that come close to Tolkien's). I've no dount there will be Dragonlance movies once day but i'd rather see them have the Peter Jackson treatment than the D&D movie treatment. Think about that.
-
Harry's review echoed the same thoughts I had (without all of the gooey emotion but with equal awe)about Jackson's influence from from classic cinema.
Jackson has finally built the bridge from the digital age to the classic storytelling of the golden filmmaking days gone buy. I was really begining to think that the epic was a dead form. I was really begining to think that all filmmakers had forgotten how to be true to characters. I was really begining to think that filmmakers had forgotten how to let action follow story as opposed to leaving it behind.
Frankly, George Lucas made me afraid of what the digital age may bring...Cold, lifeless eye candy.
Peter Jackson has removed that fear.
I just got back from the theatre with my 7 year old. His butt didn't wiggle once(however he clearly had to pee in the final 5 minutes). Anybody who has a 7 year old knows that's quite a feat for 3 hours. But you know what? That's what classic storytelling does. Like Harry, thats what films like KING KONG,GUNGA DIN, ROBIN HOOD,EL CID,CAPTAIN BLOOD and etc. did for me.
Thank you Peter Jackson, not only have you brought those movies back for me but you have also done it for my son. -
If you think that's sumthin, let me get my puppy dagger needle. It squirts love.
-
For all of you people out there who went into this movie with your backs up, ready to cry foul at any departure from the original storyline, well I feel sorry for you. It's obvious, as others pointed out, that you completely missed the idea behind the movie. There's a saying for people like you: "those who can't act, criticize." No, this is not the movie to end all movies, but Peter Jackson did a good job and made a movie essentially faithful to the trilogy (for anyone who can't get past that). He co-wrote, directed, and co-produced this movie, and did a good job. It is a good movie. Granted, there are lulls, and the story isn't perfect, or the dialogue, or whatever you all feel like dissing. But you can criticize some aspect of ANY movie. And to all the people who have been bombarded with hate mail for expressing honestly that they didn't adore The Two Towers, I apologize. Anyone who is a fan of the books and enjoyed the movies can be a bit overzealous. And that's where the Star Wars became a bit much for me. The orginal trilogy was amazing -- gripping, funny, imaginative. Phantom Menace, by the same standards, was not AS good. But i enjoyed watching it. Attack of the Clones was disappointing, if only for it's horrible actors. Please admit where it has faults, don't defend it just because you're a fan of the originals. I LIKE star wars -- i'm not a hater! But do NOT compare it to the Lord of the Rings, because they are in two completely different genres. They both have some amazing parts, and they both have some parts that would make any self-respecting moviegoer cry out in disgust. So go see the movie, and justify whatever you have to say about it. If you love it or you hate it, well, you're entitled to your own opinion. If there's one thing that you don't obsess over, let it be special effects. In the grand scheme of a movie, special effects are a SUPPLEMENT. To make a movie more appealing to the eye, and a litle bit more awe-inspiring. If you are completely taken in by the F/X, you are on the same level as the Roman plebs watching the gladiatorial fights. Believe me, there is more than special effects to a movie. And if there IS nothing else, well, it must be an IMAX movie, because they get so wrapped up in how it looks instead of concentrating on how it feels. If you disagree with everything I said, that's cool. But be a little open-minded, please!
-
As far as the hot Ents vs Anakin debate goes, I think the main problem that people are having trouble accepting is the sight of acting wood in TTT and the wooden acting in AotC.
G -
Yeah, dumbass, I "bought it". I also "bought" the book. The movie followed the book. Know what else, needledick? I think you should read my post before you talk shit, or get the gaffers taters out of your ears. I said you can have your own opinion. No problem. You can also "go against the crowd" just because it gets you attention and make you feel smart. But you should realize that your comments here make you look like a dumbfuck. lol
-
wah wah, bitch bitch, moan moan...sound familiar? it's the clarion call of the purist. i LOVE tolkien's work, i've read LOTR and the hobbit in particular several times and adore them. that said, i think that PJ's film (not filmS, film, since this work is really one film in three parts, which so many fail to see) is FANTASTIC!! it's epic cinema at its finest, with all the breadth and depth and scope required. yes the opening 1/2 hour is a bit choppy. that doesn't distract from the overall story in the least! yes there are some story changes. that doesn't detract from the film at all, except for those who were expecting to see tolkien transcribed word-for-word into the medium of film. film and the written word are two entirely different kettles of fish. some things that work well on paper simply DO NOT translate well to film. just because it wasn't what you imagined when you read the book doesn't make it any less fantastic as a film. PJ has stayed true to the spirit of tolkien's work, which is the most anyone can ask of a project this ambitious. this is not meant to be tolkien's LOTR, this is PJ's ADAPTATION of tolkien's LOTR. far from the same thing. and i honestly cannot say that one is better or worse than the other, because that would be comparing apples and oranges. i like them both equally, but in different ways and for different reasons. now, on to my raves...
smeagol: i simply CANNOT call him gollum anymore! andy serkis' performance is sheer brilliance. smeagol's schizophrenic dementia was perfectly portrayed! blame the laughs on umintelligent twits who think that insanity is funny. and ILM has been dethroned. WETA is the new world order (lol). CGI will never be the same!
frodo/sam: absolutely heartbreaking. of the three stories told in the second part of tolkien's master work, this was the one that i was most anxious to see onscreen. and i was not disappointed. frodo's gradual decline and descent into darkness and sam's grim determination to not let it happen are well-acted. the moment in which frodo offers up the ring to the witch-king...AMAZING!
merry/pippin/treebeard: they got time-shafted. that said, watching merry and pip's evolution, especially pip's, from the carefree ale-loving shire-hobbits of FOTR to the tacticians that they will become in ROTK was the second-closest story to my heart, and billy boyd and dom monaghan are giving me what my heart craves. TTT is the turning point for these two, and we see it in fangorn/isengard. fantastic. the ents aren't exactly how i pictured them (they're not quite as stiff as tolkien suggests) but they work well enough.
aragorn/legolas/gimli: god, aragorn's regal air is just becoming more and more pronounced. no mere ranger this...this man is a king. love his interactions with theoden especially. he is, in effect, learning from theoden the true meaning of kingship, and it's fantastic to watch. legolas breaks my heart. let me explain. as an elf (a woodland elf especially, not much on contact with mortals i gather), he does not deal well with death. we see it in FOTR, first when gandalf falls, then boromir. it becomes even more pronounced in TTT, first with the hobbits' 'death' and then with aragorn's. he is, quite simply, devastated. then his argument with aragorn, which stems from his fear that more of those he has come to care about will die. this revelation didn't even hit me until haldir died. after the movie, doing internal review, i imagined how horrible it must be to watch an elf die. it's almost like slaying a unicorn, seeing something so beautiful cut down. gimli's stout heart and quick tongue get to me everytime. plus the dwarf's a little dynamo in battle! cutting down orcs/uruks/goblins/wargs left and right!
faramir: people complain that this faramir is not canon. i applaud that this faramir is not canon. first reason, even aragorn, the great king of all men is tempted by the ring. why should faramir not be? and what most have missed is that faramir has no desire to USE the ring. he sends it to denethor. he refers to it as 'the chance to show his quality'. if you will remember, faramir's desire is for his father to love him as much as he loved boromir. he figures that the gift of the ring will earn his father's respect. i like this characterisation of faramir much better than tolkien's. i may even root for him to attain eowyn's love in this version, rather than my canon view that eowyn settled for him since aragorn was taken.
helm's deep: at the risk of being redundant, epic cinema at its finest! the preparation (theoden and gamling, arming children! tell me that didn't make you gasp! aragorn/legolas argument, elves arrive *yes, not canon, but it made the emotional impact of the battle even more!*), the anticipation (elves and men with arrows at the ready, aragorn leading the volley, legolas telling them where to aim), the tension thick enough to cut with a knife, and then, the most amazing battle that i have ever seen! PJ drawing this out and interspersing it with gimli's one-liners and scenes from fangorn/isengard/osgiliath (and YES i know that the happenings in osgiliath are NOT canon, but that doesn't bug me!) make it even more incredible. gimli's little funnies keep you from just jumping out of your seat and screaming at the screen 'just fight already!' and they are perfectly in-character for him. the desperate last stand/ride by theoden/aragorn and others, gandalf and the rohirrim at the top of the rise...by the time the rohirrim ride down the mountain, with gandalf at the helm and the sun rising behind them, you are exhausted! you have experienced every single emotion that you can experience. this sequence made me want to grab a sword and start slaying uruk-hai! the ents at isengard...FANTASTIC!
special mentions: grima. truly slimy. theoden. so kingly! arwen/elrond. this was my one gripe with FOTR, arwen's presence as part of the story. i don't have a problem with it in TTT, since her scenes have a 'time out of time' quality to them. she doesn't chew the scenery, and she doesn't interfere with the plot *cough*glorfindel*cough*. the scene between her and elrond where she glimpses her future...well done! hill men, southrons and easterlings. i had hoped that they would show them! fell beasts, oliphaunts and wargs...wikked cool.
final thoughts: how am i going to wait an entire year for ROTK?! -
Dec 21, 2002 2:56:48 AM CST
I_AM_ONSHORTBUS... Watch SNL Do A Skit Based On This Talkback...
by jollydwarf
...'cause it's officially the WORST ONE EVER. Maybe show Horatio Sanz with River Cuomo glasses and bad facial hair. Typing feverishly on his computer while roommate Jimmy Fallon and Amy Poehler swap spit on the couch behind him. Yeah, and with each groan from the couple, his voice crescendos and his post (which he reads aloud as he types) gets more and more vicious. Guys, when you get back from Christmas break, STEAL THIS IDEA! And don't think I forgot about you, "Spartner". It's posters like you that fan the flames. By flaming the fans. But whatever. For example, what "fettastic" was trying to figure out, I believe, was HOW Gandalf got from 20 Leagues Under the Mines To the Mountaintop. He and I and virtually everyone else heard the dialogue. But hey, any excuse to call someone fuckface, needledick, shitbrain...whatever the Holiday Spirit inspires! Even if it isn't a valid question or point, your going off like a criminally insane Henry Rollins on horse steroids without a cause isn't what I would call "the appropriate response". But folks, I.A.S. is only a figurehead here. There are so many of you that can't differentiate between constructive criticism/debate and heaving epithets and custom-made profanities (now with 50% more fanboy-slamming cliches!) in rapid-fire combos. I mean, what side of the Helm's Deep wall would YOU be on? Yeah, I know, and you'd be proud of it, too. "Sissyass bitchboy elves!" "C'm'ere, Eowyn, I wanna leave my white mark on yer face...yarrr!!!" Look, I don't mind the venom, but at least try to give it an intellectual underpinning. Be Rage Against The Machine, not Saliva. It really kills me how every now and then we have a quality TB, and then we have film fan embarrassments like THIS. Of course, the benign TBs are for movies like "Almost Famous" and "Ghost World". (In grunting hillbilly voice) "But hey, them's pussy movies." Sigh, I know. It's just funny how the movies I love the most (as a general rule) are the ones that I would least like to be at an AICN screening for. Because when you get right down to it, the more a movie is associated with fanboy-types, the more pathetic and dysfunctional its followers collectively (hey you!--yeah, YOU! Gettin' ready to type a rebuttal. I said "col-lect-ive-ly", got it?) are. And by pathetic, I mean at the core. I could give a fuck how you look, where or if you work, what your sex life is like, etc., etc. It does not matter here. Even though some of you resolutely deny that fact. Well, that's it for now. And "Spart", you might want to head over to the "Jersey Girl" Article. I could've sworn that I read Kevin Smith and Jason Mewes were headed over to your house as I type this. They're just doing it on principal now, as I understand it. P.S. Santa, is it too late to make that wish come true?
-
I loved this movie and series of movies.
What harry has written has completely struck a cord with me.
I don't care if others don't like it, I really don't. Go and watch another movie if you think it sucks...
-
Well, at least you were stupid enough to give more money to a product you don't like.
-
"when you've been trained for four years as a film student" That shit makes me laugh. Good one, man. High five!
-
It amazes me everytime I check this particular TB how so many of the people who have negative reviews always come back to a book-to-film comparison for their complaints. Im going to clear this up for everyone. Judging how good a film is by it's closeness to the source material is fucking pointless. You are to judge a film by it's merits as a FILM not how close an adapation it is. The question is: is this a good picture? It's faithfulness to an old book, no matter how beloved, is irrelevant to it's status as a motion picture. Now, if you are speaking of "TTT the movie"'s worth as an ADAPTATION, then, fuck, go to it about how this shit aint right and so forth. Here is an good example; THE SHINING is an outright pitiful shittfest of an adapation. But, it is a GREAT fuckin movie. Now do you get it? So if your negativity about TTT comes from it's faithfulness to the book, than maybe you should pull your bookworm head out of your bookwrom ass and start reviewing the MOVIE not the quality of adaptaion.
-
Dec 21, 2002 5:23:41 AM CST
Integra and Geek-intraining, you're totally right and you're not
by orson w
I am sad to say it but for some of us fans TTT is a very poor movie. And for the LAST TIME, we are NOT comparing it to the f****ing book! Forget the book! I DON'T CARE what changes PJ has made as long as he makes a good movie! So Faramir is different? SO WHAT? If the whole movie was performed by trained, singing monkeys, I WOULD NOT CARE IF THEY MADE IT WORK DRAMATICALLY. The changes from the book are not why this movie is a dud. And I fear the problems I have with this movie are not going to be resolved by seeing it a second time. A second viewing will not make the cheesy sentiment disappear. It will not remove the audience-are-morons voiceovers and unneccessary explanations. It will not make the tedious battle scene exciting. It will not remove the George Lucas-style storytelling. What happened to the masterful and elegant storytelling skills Jackson displayed in FOTR? In that movie he knew how to SHOW us information without TELLING it. Is he now going to go back and do another version of FOTR, complete with a three-hour running commentary from Galadriel to explain the painfully obvious? ("This is a hooded man on a black horse. He is riding the horse. The horse is black. He is turning his head. He is looking for the hobbits which you can see at the bottom right of the screen. One of the hobbits is Frodo. He was the one who got the ring a few scenes ago. He still has the ring. If he puts it on the black rider will know he's there. He is about to put on the ring. He is REALLY about to put on the ring! But Sam stops him just in time. Now they are running away from hte black rider. One of the running hobbits is Frodo. He has the ring. He is a brave little hobbit. His self-sacrifice and dedication makes us all sad. Now doesn't it? Yes it does......")
-
***** I know I've posted this message already but I think its VERY important ***** Firstly let me say that FOTR is my favourite film of all time and I am a man who LOVES films. FOTR simply filled me with such wonder and awe and toyed with all my emotions more than ANY other film has. It simply had more SOUL and HEART than any other film I can remember. Before I saw TTT I must
-
From what I can gather, you guys are just the sort of people who gripe and moan and bitch about everything. Might I ask what films of late you lot actually think are GREAT if any?
-
Here's one, just for starters: Peter Jackson's Fellowship Of The Ring - have you heard of it? It may have a few faults but I have otherwise HEAPED PRAISE on it on this site and elsewhere. A masterful, intelligent, sensitive adaptation of Tolkien's book and a great film in its own right. The issue here is NOT about griping and criticising for the sake of it. I, for one will openly applaud and congratulate quality film-making - BUT I will refuse to ignore moments of crapness and poor judgement. This is because I am not a blind fanatic who latches onto a franchise and then CAN SEE NO WRONG WITH IT. So whilst I will praise the UTTER BRILLIANCE of FOTR, I will also point out the sorry, cheesy, choppy, misguided mess that is TTT. And just to console you: not ALL of TTT is bad. Gollum/Sam/Frodo is all terrific - and worthy of the quality of FOTR. The opening shots of the mountains with muffled echoes is great. I like what they've done with Faramir (true!) and I like seeing Osgiliath. The vision of Aragorn lying in stone is poetic and brilliant. But THAT, as far as I can see, IS ALL. The rest of this piece of work (I can't bring myself to call it a movie)is just heartbreakingly mediocre.
-
Hmmm...first of all let me say I am not "a blind fanatic who latches onto a franchise and then CAN SEE NO WRONG WITH IT." If I was, I would love TPM and ATOC -like some idiots do on this site! Secondly, there is no way in hell I can believe TTT is a "sorry, cheesy, choppy, misguided mess". You are being FAR too harsh I feel. While I respect your opinion, I just cannot see how you can think so little of this film. You say,......"Gollum/Sam/Frodo is all terrific - and worthy of the quality of FOTR. The opening shots of the mountains with muffled echoes is great. I like what they've done with Faramir and I like seeing Osgiliath. The vision of Aragorn lying in stone is poetic and brilliant. But THAT, as far as I can see, IS ALL". It seems to me that everything you liked revolved around the warm, moving, sensitive moments. You didnt seem to like any of the fast-paced action scenes, Gandalf versus Balrog, the Riders of Rohan attacking Merry and Pippin's kidnappers, the Warg's attack, the battle of Helms Deep, the Ent's attack of Isangard. Because, really thats all thats left after you take away what you actually liked from this film. Lucky for me then that I love both the quiet, sensitive, character-building moments and the fast-paced action-driven moments. I'm curious, what did you make of the action sequences in FOTR or rather what are your quibbles with FOTR? Also did u say youve only seen TTT the once?
-
...and forgive me if my language is a bit extreme - I really wanted to enjoy TTT and feel severely let down. You're right - I prefer the quieter, elegant scenes that just work their magic on you and don't need a voice-over or character explaining what you can see with your own eyes. Yes, I have seen TTT only once and intend to see it again - hopefully I'll feel better the second time - but I really think that a movie has to work first time round. Most movie-goers don't go back to see a movie a second time - especially if they didn't like it the first time! In answer to your second question: you're right - I was not too keen on many of the action scenes in FOTR either. I felt that some of them lacked drama, tension and timing. They seemed to go off with a whimper rather than with a bang and I find the same is true in TTT. My favorite parts of FOTR were (for example): the moth-rescue scene, Gandalf/Saruman in Orthanc (I liked the wizard-fu actually), Bilbo struggling to give up the ring, any scene with Boromir in the SEV, Frodo looking at Bilbo's completed book, Aragorn+Arwen in Rivendell, and many others of the same ilk....beautiful scenes that had time to breathe and needed no explanation or rapid editing.
-
Dec 21, 2002 7:57:53 AM CST
The Naysayers and Trolls must love these Facts about the Two Tow
by tallscott
The Two Towers: Harry and Moriarty give it top notch reviews...Rotten Tomatoes 130 Fresh reveiws 4 Rotten...Peter Travers put it at no 4 on best movies of the year..AFI: In the top ten of the best movies of 2002..Brodcast and FIlm Critics selcts Two Towers as one the 10 best of 2002..9# in just 3 days in the Internet Movie DataBase top 250 films...It is a very good movie ( I say its FAN-Fucking -Tasic but im being fair ) FACE IT!! You dont see me in the Hot Chick talkbacks wasteing soooo much time trashing it do you?
-
I know exactly what you mean when you mention all those scenes being beautiful in FOTR. (I also thought Boromir was INCREDIBLE in FOTR and I sorely missed him in TTT -WHY DID HE HAVE TO DIE!!! sobs). They were magnificent and truly made that film something special! The only exception to your argument that I would make would be the action scenes, which I must admit, I loved in equal measure! In particular that marvellous final act of true heroism by Boromir, which cost him his life yet fully restored his honour, was breathtaking. I also loved the whole Moria scene and also when Aragorn, after rejecting the ring, turns and faces down those umpteen orc in slow-motion with his sword held up to his face....he had a look about him which was awesome!! I suppose in this respect, this is why TTT for me, seemed as good a film as FOTR (after I'd seen it twice). When I saw TTT the first time, I admit that I did miss the moving moments we've described from FOTR and also, to your regret I'm sure, it was heavier on action and faster-paced. Once I heard the criticisms on this site and I knew I had to see it again, which I did. It
-
Bloody hell, in the last 15 minutes its changed direction about 3 times......and my last post ended up in the middle somewhere!!!!!!
-
**** Yhis is being posted a second time cos the talkback order is all screwed up again **** I know exactly what you mean when you mention all those scenes being beautiful in FOTR. (I also thought Boromir was INCREDIBLE in FOTR and I sorely missed him in TTT -WHY DID HE HAVE TO DIE!!! sobs). They were magnificent and truly made that film something special! The only exception to your argument that I would make would be the action scenes, which I must admit, I loved in equal measure! In particular that marvellous final act of true heroism by Boromir, which cost him his life yet fully restored his honour, was breathtaking. I also loved the whole Moria scene and also when Aragorn, after rejecting the ring, turns and faces down those umpteen orc in slow-motion with his sword held up to his face....he had a look about him which was awesome!! I suppose in this respect, this is why TTT for me, seemed as good a film as FOTR (after I'd seen it twice). When I saw TTT the first time, I admit that I did miss the moving moments we've described from FOTR and also, to your regret I'm sure, it was heavier on action and faster-paced. Once I heard the criticisms on this site and I knew I had to see it again, which I did. It
-
...the post-production seems rushed. FX shots that were less than stellar(mainly the wargs, the bluescreen shots of the nazgul atop the fell beast, and some, not all, of the shots involving the ents). Also, the editing on TTT at times was choppy at best. With FOTR, you could tell they took the time to polish everything(fx, editing, etc.) I guess with TTT Weta, Wingnut Prod., & Peter Jackson saw a looming deadline and rushed to the finish line. I have faith however, that Return of the King will be as polished as FOTR. Despite my minor quibbles, TTT is still a damn fine film, and I can't wait to own it in my dvd collection beside Fellowship.
-
Oh, I'll see it again all right - and I hope the action scenes make more sense. Actually much of my problem with the action sequences is due to the fact that these movies are PG rated. Which means the editing in the swordfights/battles appears to have been done by Daffy Duck on speed (to ensure that you don't see the graphic impacts/dismemberment etc). And I must insist that these scenes DO need to be intensely violent to have an impact. Otherwise it tends to look like a bloodless Xena Warrior Princess swordfight and then the whole thing requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. Which is totally at odds with Jackson's stated purpose of making these movies 'historical' and 'real' - like Braveheart (which really does have good fight scenes). Yes, the Boromir death scene is moving - but for me it was spoiled by the fact that you could see he was 'killing' armour-clad orcs without even touching them. This problem was largely solved in the SEV by the way, because they added some really good shots of Boromir (and Merry and Pippin) actually getting in there and cutting these monsters' throats. And it really needed that to make you believe that this was for real.
-
This is in response to the last post by Raider. Yes, one of my problems with TTT is that it does feel rushed. I get the strong impression from this movie that one year just was not enough time for a project of this size. It seems like they didn't have enough time to view and assemble all the footage they had shot - hence the somewhat incoherent structure of both the narrative and battle scenes...
-
I do like the fight sequences in FOTR and TTT but I do agree that I wouldve liked them to be more graphic. Not because I'm sick and twisted, but cos as OrsonW says, it does give more realism to the fights allowing for more tension and drama. Its such a shame that these films were PG and 12 cos a more bloody fight wouldve been the icing on the cake for me. Of course Braveheart and Gladiator and co. were all 15+. Still, if it were made a 15, can u imagine those who would then bitch about it being too graphic or unfaithful, etc. I suppose poor old Peter Jackson was caught in catch 22 and also I bet New Line put pressure on to make it suitable for the kids (which of course equals more $$$$ for them). Still at least FOTR SE had a bit more gore (like with Lurtz licking blood off the dagger for example). Hopefully TTT SE will have some more tension-building violence scenes added.
-
i really really reallly wanted to like this movie, just like FOTR but unfortunatly i was not raised on fantasy or LOTR. yes, i am a geek WITHOUT LOTR. and as an objective movie geek, i have to say there were some tremendous (TREE-MENDOUS G G G!) part and some stupid painful made me shout "BORING" or "COME ON ALREADY" parts. i agree with some of you that you can't analyze and judge everything however you also have to be more objective. many of you, harry excluded, are locked into this franchise and can see nothing wrong. it's jingoism. it's apathy. however, many of you are dieing the be elitest and resist this becoming a beloved movie because your too objective to absoloutly love it.
can't we just all agree that this was just a really really cool movie and get it over with? no best movie ever, no most overrated series ever, just a cool movie -
If they excluded the kids, these movies just wouldn't make the same amount of money. And no studio on this earth is going to give up money just to make an artistically improved movie. As for the violence: Tolkien didn't stint on the gore in the books (an orc getting its head cut in half, another orc shot through the eye, decapitated heads being flung into Minas Tirith). Having been in one of the most horrendous battles in history himself, he knew exactly how horrific real violence was. Personally, I think the fights/battles in Last Of The Mohicans are very well staged and would have like to see the same level of action in LOTR. Having said that.....the battle in the opening prologue of FOTR is brilliant and exciting - perhaps because we're only given a short glimpse of it. As one talkbacker very rightly pointed out, movie battles which are shown more or less in real time can often be quite tedious. This is why I am leaning towards the school of thought that LOTR would have been better adapted as TWO movies instead of three - with highlights from Helm's Deep forming part of the prologue to the second film.
-
thanks for the feedback. Glad most of you liked it.
-
I'm not really Elijah Wood...wahhahah wahhahah..spit, stutter, cough.
-
I had been looking forward to this movie for a long time. It hit fever pitch two months ago and now it has passed into something else. Gratification. I had an aisle seat 6 rows from the front and I thought that the muffled echo scene was very good and it brought everyone up to speed. And just as the Balrog Scene comes up, people late in started to try to pass in front of me so they could sit down. That was really really f**king annoying. I was like "SIT THE F**K DOWN NOW. IT'S F***ING STARTED ALREADY." The Attack of The Rohirrim on the Orcs was beautiful. One one viewing, the image that stands in my mind was the mounted archer as he turns on his saddle and fires his arrow. Classic. The Rohirrim surrounding the three boys was very impressive. Exactly as it was described in the book. The biggest thing I personnally was looking forward to seeing were THE FELL BEASTS. Two criticisms I have from a creative point of view was the way Jackson insulted me by keeping The Nazgul clothed exactly as they were on the horses. I was hoping to see them with their crowns on their heads and not wearing those hoods. Did Jackson think that the general audience wouldnt know who they were. The other thing was that I thought John Howes original concept was brilliant. The metal eye plates with the punched holes in it was cool. The Beasts didnt have them. Disappointing. The Battle of Helms Deep was awesome. The comic moment with Gimli on the Battlements was hilarious. Im running out of time. I loved it from start to finish. Well Done Mr Jackson. I have total faith in you, Fran and Phillipa. Cant wait for the next one.
-
0007: no offence, but that was the point of my earlier post. Gondor is a land with Middle-eastern architecture and style. More specifically, Byzantine (that would be current Turkey and certain other countries in the region). Watch Minas Tirith in FOTR, or Osgiliath and the scenery behind dead Aragorn in Arwen's flashforward: domes and spires. Actually, domes a-plenty. ***Miami Mofo: good to see someone noticing things about Faramir's changes of heart. I'd just like to add a few. I think actually the first moments when Faramir starts to reassess the hobbits are when Frodo saves Gollum's life and when he sees Gollum act schitzo. He has his doubts about the two (why they are sneaking around near Mordor's borders) and about their role in his brother's death. When Frodo saves Gollum, it shows Faramir he's a good person. An agent of Sauron probably wouldn't have given a rat's ass about Gollum getting killed, and would've kept his mouth shut to disguise any connection with the creature. Frodo puts himself on the line to protect Gollum, showing Faramir he might be a good person telling the truth. And when Gollum speaks as if he is two different people, Faramir (especially considering his "mind reading" abilities - which, coincidentally, I think account for his constant staring at people) sees he's seriously fucked up. You can see the concern in his eyes. I think it stays in his mind, as does the possible connection to the Ring, the history of which as "Isildur's Bane" he is well aware of. Later on, the story of Boromir's fall obviously affects him. The thing about Sam's later speech that I think finally convinces him is that he can secretly hear what these two hobbits are all about and is finally convinced they're not lying. In the book, the main reason he plans to take Sam and Frodo to his father is that he's not sure if sending these two to carry out the mission is that wise (seeing as they are not likely to succeed) and that he's not sure whether they are entirely truthful. Now if only those two ghastly lines I've been complaining about all TB long would be removed, we could still consider that his motivation. ***integra: uh, elves don't feel fear (well, apart from a healthy fear of Balrogs and Sauron), so having Legolas compete about who kills the most orcs is not exactly strange. ***silverstar: loved your unicorn/elf death example. Very true. I have to disagree on Faramir though. Sure he's tempted, but being a student of Gandalf and a study of old lore, he knows to rather fear and stay away from the Ring than use it. The more tempted he feels, the more he'd pull away. He refuses to even touch it (even in the movie he uses his sword to get it out). So yes, he'd be tempted, but they went a little overboard with it. He seemed even more determined to use it than Boromir, for chrissakes! I also don't agree on Eowyn "settling" in the book. I always considered it a case of Eowyn, when interacting with Faramir and realising her feelings for him, realising that here is a less flashy, epic type of hero, but a great man she truly loves, whereas her adoration for Aragorn was more a case of infatuation. She realised her groupie-like crush on Aragorn was nothing compared to the real love she felt for the less glamorous, but still ideal-in-many-ways Faramir.
-
The only people who don't like LOTR or TTT I've seen are all here. I haven't met anyone else who didn't like it. I think all the SW trolls here shout STFU.
-
Hey Elanor, cheers for your nice post. Thats another person who, like me, loved TTT even more the second time!!!!!
-
For Christ sake
-
Ho hum. AOTC is better in every way than TTT. Say what? Did we see the same movies? I loved AOTC when I saw it. I loved it for the effects. But let's face it, the story is barely there. And could somebody please tell Lucas he needs to do more than one take of a scene? His younger actors obviously needed more time to flesh out their characters, to try different approaches. This also might have helped some of that horribly wooden dialogue. Maybe now, after seeing TTT, the people at ILM will realize that, yes, a CGI character can have feeling, and more than a handful of facial expressions.
-
Here's my little 2 cents. I;m not a big fan of the books. I like them, but I think Tolkien tends to ramble a lot, and if your not a fan of Fantasy or Medievil stuff, the books can be boring. Thus said, I think the movies are BETTER than the books, so far. Some people have problems with the efx. Please, somebody, name one efx-heavy movie where the efx always look "real". Remember, if this movie were made 20 years ago it would have looked like "CLash of the Titans". UGH! I actually like the changes from the book, except where Perrin and Merry meet Treebeard, which is one of my favorite parts of the book. All the changes were made for dramatic necessity. I LIKE the changes. The end is offsetting to people who know the books because we weren't expecting it. Yet, think about how we will now have a calm before the storm in Isengard. Also, the Return of the King's quest to destroy the ring is SAM's story, not Frodo. Soo, the first thing we'll see is Sam's rise to lead character. It makes GREAT dramatic sense in a 3 act scenario. Trust me, you people will love it. Yes, some of the battles are unbelieveable. 10,000 against 300? Hey, why not. There are plenty of stories in war about small numbers defeating the odds and winning. Besides, would it have been more fun if the Orcs had won? Somebody mentioned Braveheart. HEck, the Scottish would have worn armor, AND there is NO BLUE DYE native to Scottland. Relax about realism, folks. After all, it IS a fiction. Suspension of disbelief, anyone? Anyone?
-
Peter Jackson you pudgy bunny, what you did made more sense the 2nd time around. We all know the bits that are well done; Gollum, the battle, Mordor, etc.
I had a problem with Faramir. I accept, after a second look, that a more active scenario was needed showing Frodo's and Faramir's parting. It also allows a reminder that the greater enemy Mordor is still out there, to be dealt with. Yes it could have been better, but it's fine. Frodo meeting the Nazgul is just the attraction of the Ring to a creature it has affinity with, but which does not have full knowledge of what is nearby and hence cannot take advantage.
I liked to see the elves at the Keep but it's not in the Book! However the elves look good, and yes they started in Rivendell, and picked up a contingent in Lothlorien, and Haldir was picked captain as he was more experienced. And he has to die so that Aragorn will have somebody to give orders to! After all the Rohan will obey only their king. Right?
The intercutting is done as well as 3 story lines can be. And Jackson must care about the book. Yes the elven rope was only in the extended edition, but the film makers were so into the detail, that they show Gollum burned by the elvish rope but forget that the the cinema edition did not mention it. This oversight is because you are so close to the story. So it's not perfect but it grows on you with further looks, and I agree with Harry that Jackson has done it again. -
Thanks Harry, you expressed my feelings just right. Awesome film, one of the best ever. I've read all of Tolkien, including the History of ME books, and he kept rewriting and changing things, and personally, I find many of the changes made by PJ a dramatic improvement, like Faramir is/will be growing as a character instead of being the same from beginning to end. No film is ever perfect, but LOTR will rank at the very top of my list with 2001, BLADERUNNER, etc. The new SW trilogy, or even SPIDER-MAN (which I loved) don't even come close.
-
First of all, to the tosser who said I knew nothing about Kurosawa, hey at least I can spell his name you tit. It's Kurosawa, NOT Kirosawwa! I've seen every movie of his that I can get my hands on from The Seven Samurai to Ikiru and comparing him to Hackson is a joke. Kurosawa wasn't just about action. You actually cared about the characters he created. Something Hackson has failed to do for anybody who hadn't read the books.------Secondly, a lot of people hate this film but they probably wouldn't have bothered posting here if it wasn't for you dickheads. I mean, what did you expect? Since last year you have been attacking everything that doesn't have Tolkiens name on it. I got e-mails from some of you Zealots because I said I was looking forward to seeing Gangs Of New York. I was told "Don't go see that shit", and called all kinds of names. You guys are like fucking Bin Ladens lot. If someone doesn't agree with you and has a different opinion then their lives aren't worth shit. It's soooo fucking pathetic and it's no suprise that a lot of people are savaging this film with such hate. YOU STARTED IT! Check out the other TB's if you don't believe me. Catch Me If You Can, Spiderman, Star Wars, T3, Hero, GONY, you name it and you've attacked it because according to you lot LOTR are the greatest films in history and nothing else matters. You can dish it out but you can't take it. I've got NO PROBLEM with people criticising the films I love. It makes no difference to me. But don't hate other films and the act surprised when lots of people hate the films you like.
-
I'm a big fan of the books, read them all the time, and it's a question I've had for a while. I don't really remember my chronology, but didn't Bilbo get Sting AFTER his encounter with Gollum in the Hobbit? Or was it in the troll cave after the trolls have turned to stone. And did he ever use Sting on Gollum? I don't think he ever drew it. And yet, Frodo says, "This is Sting. You've seen it before." I remember the line from the books, but is it accurate?
-
I'm so sick of all you book fans moaning. LOTR belongs to Peter Jackson now. Tolkien doesn't matter.
-
it is just a MUST!! oohhh this movie just rocks!!! and if gollum wouldn`t get this special category they could at least nominee him for best supporting actor!
-
What the hell has this idiot done to Tolkiens masterpiece? The changes were totally wrong. He took a great story and made it dull, lifeless and un-emotional.
-
Dec 21, 2002 3:38:27 PM CST
Why does Jackson insist on making cool things from the book LESS
by gombi
I figured that TTT was the easiest one of the 3 to film; the hardest part being getting Fordo, Sam, and Gollum right. But boy did Jackson blow it. There are sections from the book that are unforgiveably left out since they explain why the characters behave as they do. There's the passage where Frodo threatens to put on the Ring and use it to force Gollum to kill himself if he doesn't keep his word. Why wasn't it included? I was dying to see the discussion that they have of whether their tale will make a great story told in the darkest of places on the stairs to Minus Morgul. Instead, changed to the much less effective version walking in the woods here. Also, the most crucial aspect of the whole story is to get Frodo and Sam's friendship right. Did anyone get the impression that these two are great friends? They seem to really DIS-like each others' company, not a note of loyalty and trust. The loyal, enduring, stout-hearted Sam from the book has been replaced by this whining, petty, worry-wort, cowardly, wet-blanket in the movie. Ugh.
I have to say I really liked the very beginning of the movie, the chase of the orcs but then it really bogs down. Jackson is obviously more comfortable filming spectacles than telling a story or understanding characters. All the battle scenes are spectacular but whenever anyone opens their mouth they inevitably utter things that are supposed to sound weighty and serious but is always agonizingly pretentious and bordering on self-parody. Whenever it comes to explaining why the characters do what they do my mouth just hung open that Jackson could leave so much unexplained. It just seemed like he has to have the characters say things to get them to the next battle but far too often why any of the characrters decide what they do is left out (with the exception of Theoden who moves the people to Helms Deep for their protection). We're just supposed to accept that they decide to do something without being given any understanding of what lead them to that decision.
I way really looking forward to Faramir's interrogation of Frodo, which just seemed so easy to film because you have the damn book in front of you to show how it's done. Farimir slowly gets the information out of Frodo and Sam that they have the Ring and it's done in a realistic, logical way. The whole section with Farimir was embarrisingly bad. I just don't get it. Jackson could be forgiven if he was creating the story himself and had problems with it but he has the book right in front of him showing how it should be done! Did anyone feel Farimir's temptation for the Ring? Or understand his reason for lettibng them take the most powerful object in the universe, which will spell certain doom for the entire world in the ennemy gets it, into the heart of the enemy's empire? This demands an explanation if we're to buy the movie but Jackson just doesn't have the ability to do it. He's always in such a hurry to show more orcs and wargs and oliphaunts and Nazgul and ents that the whole explanation of the characters motives for doing what they do is lost. Did anyone think that the whole section with Elrond and Arwen could have been left out? From the first movie we are shown that Arwen has made her choice. Now we have to revisit it, find out that she really hasn't made up her mind to renounce her immortality, and are shown all these scenes that supposedly happened int he first movie but we never saw.
There's a thousand things like this in the movie and it's infuriating to see what could have been so great mangled in this way. -
As the film opens, I immediately knew I could leave all expectations from the book behind me. PJ captured the spirit, but took liberties that work for the movie. To begin with, when the Urak Hai assraped Merry and Pippin, I was stunned. Yes, it was hinted t in the book, but to put this in a PG-13 movie took me aback. It works though, but for the next 15 minutes I was catching my breath. The fight with the wargs was fantastic, it raised the stakes for Helm's Deep. The scenes in Rivendell really fleshed out the Arwen sacrifice that's yet to come, and the coming end of an age. Aragorn's fall? Well, feeling that these not deaths are becoming overused in this series, please don't let there be a third one in ROTK. Faramir assraping Frodo and Sam was certainly the biggest departure from the book, but given what had happened to Merry and Pippin, it preserved the established continuity of the films. Faramir was always such a noble character in the book, so I'm not crazy about the departure, but I understand the sybolism. Elves coming to Helm's Deep? All for it. It was touching and certainly in keeping with the spirit of Tolkien's vision. Gimli as comic relief? Still having a hard time with that, but it was easier in TTT than FOTR since the character is now taking on a separate life from the one in the book. I can live with it. No screen time for Ents . . . hmmm. Tougher here, but given the needs for action in a film of this type, something had to give and I'll keep Helm's Deep. Then the schizo Gollum, great! Until the scene where he assrapes himself. At this point I'm thinking, "Gee enough with the assraping already. We get it." Still can't believe this movie didn't get an R rating. No Shelob? No problem. Gotta' have something in the third movie so I can wait.
-
It's official. On 4/15/03, Star Wars Galaxies will be released. Online. You will never see the sun AGAIN. I'm scared. Someone, help me through this proclamation of doom. And should you survive this, know that it is only a matter of time before Middle Earth and Neo's playground follow. So get out there and TRY to live life before you end up resembling the blob vampire in "Blade". No, I mean REALLY resemble a blob. Large motor skills...can feel them...atrophying...hel...p....
-
I seem to remember a time way back when Lucas stated Peter and team could not pull this whole thing off. Well, Lucas was sadly mistaken. Peter Jackson and his crew have done a remarkable job making us believe in Middle Earth. I know that there are millions of Star Wars fans out there, but let's face it: Lucas blows as a director. The Empire Strikes back, which is by far the best movie of the entire series, was not even directed by Lucas. Heck, even RoTJ was better than TPM and AOTC. When Lucas stated he wanted to direct all three prequels, I was very concerned. Look at the results so far........Oh well, that is just my two cents and you can flame away if you wish.
-
I can't wait to see TTT again, really cause I was a little let down the first time and I usually like films better the second time. I also can't wait for the extended edition, which Jackson says has more Gollum. I didn't care for some of the changes, but I didn't like some of them in FOTR either. Aragorn falling and Faramir taking the Hobbits to Gondor annoyed me a bit. The thing that bothered me the most though were the Arwen flashback scenes to things we never saw the first time. The present Arwen scenes worked, especially when we see Aragorn old and passed, and Arwen is walking through the forest alone still young. Great stuff. Again, I can't wait for the Extended Edition, and definitely can't wait to see "her" in ROTK. I'll probably be slapped by a lot of you, but as an equal fan of SW and LOTR.. I'm gonna have to say I liked AOTC better than TTT... but the reason is cause I was just hoping I'd enjoy AOTC, and I was shocked when I loved it. I was expecting to absolutely love TTT and was suprised to be a bit let down.. So it's pretty relative.
-
i remember finishing watching fellowship on opening day and saying that i didn't think i could wait a year to see two towers. however, now i think that maybe i could have.
as the movie started with the lush, gorgeous look at the misty mountains, my hands were shaking i was so excited. unfortunately, it only took a half hour or so for me to start seeing large discrepancies.
jackson's major flaw in the movie was making changes that were entirely unecessary. the first glaring error was treebeard taking merrry and pippin to see gandalf. what? i can forgive that, it wasn't a huge blunder. however, i thought the majority of the merry and pippin story was flawed. i thought that treebeard was too focused. also, he never sang a single note in the movie. there was a definite lack of attention on the ent gathering at entmoot. pippin never had an ingenious moment to lure the ents into fighting isengard. that was purely a decision of the ents, which they might have made had they actually spent more than thirty seconds at entmoot.
i felt that sam and frodo's story was fairly well done. however, there were two major gripes. one was the lack of character developement. once again, i feel that, all though it was better than in fellowship, sam was not done justice. sam is such a strong and important character, and do not feel that such a light was cast on him. also, i felt that the change in frodo due to the ring was too sudden. he went from swaying between, to being evil.
as far is the story is concerned, jackson was doing well until faramir. they ruined faramir. faramir is one of tolkien's most respected characters; for his nobility and courage . . . everything that denethor saw in boromir and not in him. he was portrayed as a dark, greedy, and, frankly, evil man. he never so much as walked toward gondor with frodo, much less forced him to come to osgiliath with the desire to use the ring to help win the war. i'm not sure that faramir will be believable in his role in ROTK now that they have painted him as they did in TTT.
-
What a wonderful film. After having to wait for a later showing due to two sold out shows at 9:00, I finally settled in to watch a tremendous movie unfold. The best way to put this movie into perspective is in terms of opera, specifically the Wagner Ring cycle. Yes the content is quite similar, but it is the way in which the story is presented that struck me the most, and perhaps this is where some critics, especially those going on and on about the length of the movies, seem to have missed the boat. When attending the full cycle, you see the four operas over the course of a week. Seeing the Two Towers was not unlike seeing either Die Walkure or Sigfried. This the middle tale, with profound importance for the entire story, and wonderfully dramatic and captivating in its own right. The pacing was just right, not rushing the progression of the story, and treating the various characters in important ways. Each of the priniciples developed over the course of the movie, and I will explain if some would wish it. As for some favorite moments: Theoden's healing/exorcism (much better represented in the movie then the book). The girding of the young Rohan boys for war. Merry and Pippen's realization that the Shire will not be left alone. Sam and Frodo and Gollum, their interactions are very good, and frankly Gollum is a delight. The audience ached for him toward the end. A much different take then the book. All in all, and I will probably jot down a few more thoughts, this is a movie of great worth, and one that equals FOTR. I simply cannot wait for Return of the King.
-
What a wonderful film. After having to wait for a later showing due to two sold out shows at 9:00, I finally settled in to watch a tremendous movie unfold. The best way to put this movie into perspective is in terms of opera, specifically the Wagner Ring cycle. Yes the content is quite similar, but it is the way in which the story is presented that struck me the most, and perhaps this is where some critics, especially those going on and on about the length of the movies, seem to have missed the boat. When attending the full cycle, you see the four operas over the course of a week. Seeing the Two Towers was not unlike seeing either Die Walkure or Sigfried. This the middle tale, with profound importance for the entire story, and wonderfully dramatic and captivating in its own right. The pacing was just right, not rushing the progression of the story, and treating the various characters in important ways. Each of the priniciples developed over the course of the movie, and I will explain if some would wish it. As for some favorite moments: Theoden's healing/exorcism (much better represented in the movie then the book). The girding of the young Rohan boys for war. Merry and Pippen's realization that the Shire will not be left alone. Sam and Frodo and Gollum, their interactions are very good, and frankly Gollum is a delight. The audience ached for him toward the end. A much different take then the book. All in all, and I will probably jot down a few more thoughts, this is a movie of great worth, and one that equals FOTR. I simply cannot wait for Return of the King.
-
i had the best time of my life on thursday night. Not in such a long time has a film just swept me up and totally enchanted me from start to finish. Peter jackson has reminded me why i, and countless others love cinema and just remember that these films are the ones that will stand the test of time, the ones that we'll all remember where we were when we first experienced them, and when we are grandparents and these films are shown every christmas, we'll be able to tell our children all about it. Think about what a lovely thing that will be. Cheers Peter.
-
i remember finishing watching fellowship on opening day and saying that i didn't think i could wait a year to see two towers. however, now i think that maybe i could have.
as the movie started with the lush, gorgeous look at the misty mountains, my hands were shaking i was so excited. unfortunately, it only took a half hour or so for me to start seeing large discrepancies.
jackson's major flaw in the movie was making changes that were entirely unecessary. the first glaring error was treebeard taking merrry and pippin to see gandalf. what? i can forgive that, it wasn't a huge blunder. however, i thought the majority of the merry and pippin story was flawed. i thought that treebeard was too focused. also, he never sang a single note in the movie. there was a definite lack of attention on the ent gathering at entmoot. pippin never had an ingenious moment to lure the ents into fighting isengard. that was purely a decision of the ents, which they might have made had they actually spent more than thirty seconds at entmoot.
i felt that sam and frodo's story was fairly well done. however, there were two major gripes. one was the lack of character developement. once again, i feel that, all though it was better than in fellowship, sam was not done justice. sam is such a strong and important character, and do not feel that such a light was cast on him. also, i felt that the change in frodo due to the ring was too sudden. he went from swaying between, to being evil.
as far is the story is concerned, jackson was doing well until faramir. they ruined faramir. faramir is one of tolkien's most respected characters; for his nobility and courage . . . everything that denethor saw in boromir and not in him. he was portrayed as a dark, greedy, and, frankly, evil man. he never so much as walked toward gondor with frodo, much less forced him to come to osgiliath with the desire to use the ring to help win the war. i'm not sure that faramir will be believable in his role in ROTK now that they have painted him as they did in TTT.
the aragorn, legolas and gimli story was flawed as well. good job until the rohirrim. legolas never rode a horse with a saddle. c'mon guys, that's a no brainer. also, gimli on a horse by himself . . . never would have happened. on an overall basis, the gimli humor was way overdone. simply because the story darkened, that didn't mean that jackson had to dig deeply, in wrong places, for comedic aspects. more nit-picks, i think we all get that legolas is awesome and orlando bloom is hot. the horse-flip and shield-slide moves were unrealistic and insulting to true tolkien fans. legolas kicked butt, but with believable warrior skills.
i didn't like the golden hall scene. gandalf's exorcism of theoden while aragorn and company carried on a bar fight in the background was hokey.
why did aragorn fall off the cliff? that was unecessary. if it was to play more time on arwen, we didn't need that. personally, i wish arwen would stay her spot as in the books, and not get a role boost because she's liv tyler.
-
i remember finishing watching fellowship on opening day and saying that i didn't think i could wait a year to see two towers. however, now i think that maybe i could have.
as the movie started with the lush, gorgeous look at the misty mountains, my hands were shaking i was so excited. unfortunately, it only took a half hour or so for me to start seeing large discrepancies.
jackson's major flaw in the movie was making changes that were entirely unecessary. the first glaring error was treebeard taking merrry and pippin to see gandalf. what? i can forgive that, it wasn't a huge blunder. however, i thought the majority of the merry and pippin story was flawed. i thought that treebeard was too focused. also, he never sang a single note in the movie. there was a definite lack of attention on the ent gathering at entmoot. pippin never had an ingenious moment to lure the ents into fighting isengard. that was purely a decision of the ents, which they might have made had they actually spent more than thirty seconds at entmoot.
i felt that sam and frodo's story was fairly well done. however, there were two major gripes. one was the lack of character developement. once again, i feel that, all though it was better than in fellowship, sam was not done justice. sam is such a strong and important character, and do not feel that such a light was cast on him. also, i felt that the change in frodo due to the ring was too sudden. he went from swaying between, to being evil.
as far is the story is concerned, jackson was doing well until faramir. they ruined faramir. faramir is one of tolkien's most respected characters; for his nobility and courage . . . everything that denethor saw in boromir and not in him. he was portrayed as a dark, greedy, and, frankly, evil man. he never so much as walked toward gondor with frodo, much less forced him to come to osgiliath with the desire to use the ring to help win the war. i'm not sure that faramir will be believable in his role in ROTK now that they have painted him as they did in TTT.
the aragorn, legolas and gimli story was flawed as well. good job until the rohirrim. legolas never rode a horse with a saddle. c'mon guys, that's a no brainer. also, gimli on a horse by himself . . . never would have happened. on an overall basis, the gimli humor was way overdone. simply because the story darkened, that didn't mean that jackson had to dig deeply, in wrong places, for comedic aspects. more nit-picks, i think we all get that legolas is awesome and orlando bloom is hot. the horse-flip and shield-slide moves were unrealistic and insulting to true tolkien fans. legolas kicked butt, but with believable warrior skills.
i didn't like the golden hall scene. gandalf's exorcism of theoden while aragorn and company carried on a bar fight in the background was hokey.
why did aragorn fall off the cliff? that was unecessary. if it was to play more time on arwen, we didn't need that. personally, i wish arwen would stay her spot as in the books, and not get a role boost because she's liv tyler.
also, since when did elves reinforce at helm's deep? legolas was the only elf at the battle. there was no need to being haldir into the scene. we did not need a tear jerker death at the battle. they could've kept the story true to the book and given the reinforcements that did arrive at helm's deep.
now, because so far this sounds like i'm a complete asshole, there were some bright spots.
the uruk-hai; extremely well done. believable and intense.
helm's deep; phenomenal. i thought it was fairly acurate, and awesome. the visuals were excellent and the combat bloody. the only thing that would have made it better was to lose the gimli-being-short humor. once was good, five times was painful. but, it was well done.
gollum was incredible. quite possibly the best part of the whole movie. he was the part i think i was most looking forward to see apart from helm's deep. jackson nailed the pyschological battle between smeagol and gollum. i loved it. i only wish my fellow movie watchers had not found him so funny. one girl called gollum "adorable". clearly not a fan. frightening, dangerous, scary . . . yes. adorable, hell no. but for my part, i loved gollum. one character they developed precisely. they set the scene for ROTK perfectly. thumb up to that.
on a whole, TTT was a major let down. perhaps i was expecting too much because, i think, we were all spoiled with the FOTR. for now tolkien fans, it will be fine. for true lovers of the books, we all cried a little on december 18. despite it all, i still feel jackson is the right man for the job. i only hope that he does a better job in ROTK. -
I must admit that I have to agree with Ebert this go around in that much of the charm and warmth of the books is tossed aside for one giant chase. Why the fuck is the Faramir situation handled so poorly in the film? In the book, Faramir is the opposite of Boromir and less susceptible to the draw of the ring's power and permits Frodo and company get on their way, wisely. In the film, he does exactly what Boromir would have liked to do and takes the ring to Gondor! By force, nonetheless! None of this happens in the book and completely undermines Faramir's character as written. And what about Theoden? If the king is possessed by Saruman what is the point of having Wormtongue around poisoning his mind? If Theoden is already Saruman then Wormtongue presence is unnecessary. Stupid. And that awful fucking "Interview with a Vampire" transformation from sickly Theoden to well Theoden? Why would Jackson handle this scene is such an unsubtle manner? And although the CG for Gollum is pretty great, so many of the other EFX are slap dash and unconvincing. Did they spend a large percentage of the three films' budget to make the first film spectacular only to short-change the remaining films? I know that WETA didn't create all of these shots and farmed them out but for fuck's sake, is a little quality control too much to ask for?
-
As Bill said to Prendegrass in Falling Down... "what, so I'M the bad guy here???" Ease up, dwarfy. YOU said you felt gyped by the Balrog/Gandalf scene. fine. But that DUMBASS INTEGRA said to the effect that "Jackson ineptly shot the scene, it was undeniably stupid, and that nobody with a brain would buy it". I was responding to his TONE, not the QUESTION, nor to you. I have no problem with a viewer finding the film lacking, confusing, rushed, or even stupid. I AM SAYING I DO HAVE A PROBLEM with those posters stating the same as indisputable fact, not opinion. Personally, I also would rather have seen Gandalf chase the balrog up the mountain, and when the Balrog fell, "smiting the mountain with it fall", I would like have had the mountain actually smited, not a rather tame fall a few feet and barely perceptible puff of snow rising. I would rather have had treebeard take the hobbits to his home. discuss things. Rather have had the whole Grishnag thing. Gimli telling Eomer to stick it with his "sorcerer of the woods is evil" comments. etc. etc. etc.... but hey, we cant have everything we want.
-
Quit your bitching. It will never BE real because it's NOT real. You said you NEED to believe it's real and Jackson failed. Know what, moron? It's called SUPENSION of disbelief. YOU suspend it. Deep down in that peanut brain of yours you still BELIEVE it is just a little movie. No orcs. No Wargs. No oliphants. But you suspend it. Give it a try. AND TO THE OTHER POSTER THAT SAID "cant we all just agree it wasn't the worse of films, nor the best of films, just a cool film. NO, WE CAN'T. It's called opinions, and everybody's got one. Some will think its the best movie ever made and they will be right, for them. Others will think it sucks - also true for them. Got it?
-
I'm not even a fan but I did read the books, and I must say that this movie was so entertaining, deep, and intelligently crafted that there was nothing that I can say was corny or ever made me cringe like in so many movies. The screenplay works so well (even with the many changes). It was edited so perfectly and the special effects (besides a few shots) were breathtaking. No movie has ever gotten my heart beating like it did during the Warg riders scene, the battle of Helm's Deep, and the desctruction of Isengard. The action is so widescale yet personal at the same time; I believe only Peter Jackson could do this magic as well as it was done. The story of the books works MUCH better on screen than in the words of J.R.R. Tolkien; his imagination was amazing but his writing lacked physical detail. I have not one complaint about the movie and I don't see why anyone else does. The first movie set the characters and this one still continues building on them perfectly, despite what many may be saying!! This is the best movie I've ever seen! I've seen it twice and I'm gunna see it many more in theatres.
-
You ask why people come here and rip the film? Why did people come into the AOTC talkbacks and tear that movie down? I love both equally and never rip down either, I just state my opinions. And it seems that TTT doesn't have the universal love from the fans that FOTR did, and I agree. I didn't like it as much as FOTR either, but I still liked it a lot. You ask why people are hellbent on ripping it down? Well, why was it okay when people came into SW talkbacks and tore that down? It's just that it's your film that's getting the flaming. And other stuff now. I also noticed that Gandalf never said "Sauron is not so mighty yet that he is above fear. He fears you, Aragorn, he fears what you may become." There was also no scene with Arwen approaching the shards of Narsil. Or what about Eowyn standing at the top of the stairs in Edoras with the camera swooping back that was displayed in the trailer so prominently? One of the main things they shouldve done differently in my opinion is Treebeard's voice. Why use Rhys-Davies for that? He sounded exactly like Gimli and it was kinda distracting because of that.
-
Hi...i have read these talkbacks for years and never posted just because of the hate that's always on here. But i registered to post just to post this. I LOVE films. They are my life. Films and music. I LOVED FOTR. LOVED it. TTT was the biggest dissapointment i have ever seen. And yes, i've seen it twice just to be sure (i didnt really LOVE FOTR until the 2nd and 3rd viewings). THis has nothing to do with the book. My dad read the books to me when i was little but i dont remember much except the big things (like GAndolph isnt dead and those kind of things). Yes, Gollum is amazing. Helm's Deep is probably the best battle i've seen on film. It's technically great...blah blah blah. FOTR was great because of the sense of wonderment, because of the storytelling, because it was movie making bliss and inspired, passionate film making. TTT is drawn out, boring and mediocre. And i thought this was just me, but NINE of my friends thought the same exact thing...some of their 2nd viewings as well. THis is the very first time where a review of a movie in PEOPLE magazine was right on the mark..."TTT...is about marking time". NOTHING of importance goes on in this movie. THere is about 2 hours of film that just doesnt need to be there. THe story begins and ends in the EXACT same place. NO character development. And it was slow and boring as all hell. Now slow and boring dont mean the same things to me. Solaris is slow....not boring. Very interesting. FOTR is slow in parts, but there is always that sense of wonderment thar keeps us wraped up in these characters. We are lost in the movie. In their world. Wacthing TTT, i couldnt wait to go get something to eat. Aragorn's fake death (i guess this was not in the book...but i dont know, im talking about the movie) was NOT NEEDED. We got to see more of him riding around in the mountains. Cool. Great. Way to much time spent sitting around deciding what to do before going to helm's deep. Flashbacks to Arwen and what we already know. Frodo walking around in a daze. Sam being a jerk and annoying, which is not how i remember him. Speeches from most characters, including a pointless on from THeoden, which does NOTHING for an already Flimsy story. Marry and pippin conversing with a slooowww talking Ent...and walking.....and talking...and walking....but all the talking has nothing to do with the story. "oh i've never heard of hobbits...yuo are orcs" blah blah blah. OH OH and then Cate Blanchett's speech, where they could've just said "in case you werent watching anything up till now, this is the story". NOT NEEDED. I read a talkbacker somewhere say that this whole movie could've been summed up at the starting of RotK....EXACTLY. THis movie is, in essence, "marking time". I know RotK will be amazing, and we are witnessing movie history....but this fil is just average. Nothing else. I am tired of everbody saying it's amazing because it's supposed to be. I know it sucks, but admit it...you're all in denial. Ive done it too. It's sad...but it's true. even the soundtrack wasn't as good as the first. Oh and i think that the biggest let down was talk of all this "action" and what not, and there was more in FOTR. At least, it felt that way sitting through the first 2 hours of the movie. Anyway, im very sorry this is so long....but im very ket down and kind of bitter that none of you can see that this just isnt great like yuo all think. THAnks for reading if anyone still is.
-
You're bitching about pretty much everything, i'm expecting next people will start complaining how the pop-corn was too buttery. This movie is the greatest thing i've seen since the original Star Wars. When it ended, it made me want to see it again and it gives a great perpective for 2003 cause I know i'll have the conclusion during that year. Come on people! Are you all film makers? Do you actually go see movies and look at it or you look at it with pencil and notes just to rip at it afterward. Cgi looks fake!! Gimme a fucking break! Yeah they should have hired 10 000 extras so they could film that scene, that would have worked great (sarcasm). It looks fake when Spiderman swings from one building to another! Yeah sure, I think you should go and propose yourself for the next one, so if you swing between building it should be perfect! Star Wars looks fake! Sure we all know how faraway planets and foreign space civilization look like, how come Lucas seems to be the only one who doesn't know (sarcasm). No wonder none of these movies ever win anything, how can the Academy do right choices if even you nobodies are always bitching. I think is mostly a rebellion againts main stream media, it's cool to bitch and moan about big movies. If you find more pleasure in obscure independant productions, you should do us a big favor and keep away from all the corny main stream movies. So this way we'd be able to enjoy good movies without having miserable people ruin the experience for us the "uneducated" moviegoer. I know zip about cgi, I know squat about frames & effects, but I know a good movie when I see one! And TTT is the best thing this year since FOTR & AOTC.
-
...is sort of pointless. It's like comparing TTT THE BOOK when it came out one year after FOTR THE BOOK, in the 50ies. "that book isn't quite as good as the first book..." etc, etc. LOTR is one single piece. The division between books -- and films -- are abitrary. A lot of the criticism I see directed at TTT THE FILM may just as well be directed at TTT THE BOOK. Now if you feel that the **ADAPTATION** isn't quite as faithful, you're right. But that's not the same thing. In fact I recall reading somewhere that TTT THE BOOK (the middle book) always (& bizarrely IMHO) sold less than the other two (in the Ballantine edition).
-
It's impossible for them to make the movies exactly like the book, otherwise the movie would last six hours! I'm sure these movies would have been sucesses if all the songs had been included also! As it is, people are complaining it's too long.
-
The whole funeral scene with an aged Aragorn dead and Arwen in mourning was a premonition of how her life would be if she remained on middle earth. Elves are immortal, their lives are eternal and Elron was reminding Arwen of the fact she would outlive Aragorn. In other words he was urging her not to be such a stupid lovesick bitch and get on the boat with the rest of her people LOL. Did you not see FOTR? the scene where Arwen and Aragorn are standing on the bridge she hands him her necklace and says "I choose amortality" that was her sacrifice to their love, she would rather give up eternal life in the elven afterworld(where the boat was going)and remain on middle earth with Aragorn,even thou she knew,they both knew, she would outlive him. It sounds like you didnt see FOTR before you saw TTT. You need to see the first before watching the second,that's the natural course of things and that's the way Peter Jackson made the movie.
-
I admit you have shit for brains. Do you even read what you write? You said "but im very ket down and kind of bitter that none of you can see that this just isnt great like yuo all think" (sic). So, those think it is great, really don't think that they think it's great, they only think that? WTF? You also said "admit it, you are all in denial"... why? because you were? Because you feel left out? Don't want to be alone in your self pity? According to you, Treebeard talked tooooo slow (no shit, sherlock, that's what he DOES)... According to you, Sam bitches about Gollum (yeah, because he hates and fears him with good reason, but Frodo feels an association with him because of the ring... get it?). WHAT YOU DON'T F*CKING GET IS THAT THIS IS THE MIDDLE PART OF A MOVIE! The greater character developments were already created. The set up was already there. THE MIDDLE OF A MOVIE CAN JUST FOCUS ON ACTION, STORY MOVEMENT, AND CREATE A SETUP FOR THE FINAL ACT. Get that through your damn skull and you'll know some damn thing.
-
Dec 21, 2002 8:04:25 PM CST
Go to last year's FOTR TB and its the SAME people saying the SAM
by metsrulein2k
Here is how it is, if you hated the movie, fine. Don't see the next one. I feel a great amount of pity for you though as these are 2 of the greatest films ever made in my opinion. I also feel bad for GONY because it didn't do that well at the box office this weekend, which means scorcese's career may just be over. Anyway, TTT is by far the best movie of the year, if you can't appreciate it, get the fuck out!!!!!!!
-
cheers!
-
I am finally emerging to join your company and proclaim that, yes, TTT is an ENTIRELY different experience at the second viewing(which will, I am sure, lead to a third and a fourth...). FOTR peaked for me on about the sixth viewing, and lost no ground thereafter, as there were always fresh details to explore. Lest I completely reverse some of my private e-mails, I still think there are more problems with TTT, many of which I think will be addressed in the SEV. These mainly involve editing and not nearly enough time spent with Frodo. And it is also quite true (as Elanor pointed out) that many of TTT's most stunning visuals have been spoiled for months - or we have been led to expect different takes which never appeared. Imagine, for example, how awe-inspiring Edoras would be if we were seeing it for the first time with Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas and Gandalf cresting the hill? I missed some shots from the trailers, as did we all. And I am still not as emotionally overwhelmed as I was by FOTR, even the first time through. I WAS moved by Arwen at Aragorn's tomb, at first viewing. At second viewing, I was moved most strongly by Merry and Pippin's realization that they will lose the Shire itself if the great war is lost. I was also very moved by the Elves' arrival (those gorgeous banners!) and Haldir's death. ***Frodo, though, is the heart and center of the film for me, and I BADLY more time with him and Sam and Gollum (for which I would gladly sacrifice Aragorn's non-death - though I love his horse!). My sister and brother-in-law and I were in agreement afterward about how utterly BRILLIANT Elijah Wood is and how under-appreciated by the same critics that praised him as the "finest young actor of his generation" until he dared play Frodo, and now seem merely compelled to comment on his blue eyes or stop with saying how well he anchors the film. (There HAVE been a few that have singled him out for eloquent praise, and I hope there will be more this time next year, as I think he deserves every accolaid he can get.) He was perfect in every scene. ***As was Gollum, when I had adjusted to his look and (occasional) too-weightless movements, though his dialogue scenes were amazing. Of all his scenes, I most liked the one writhing against the wall of the cave, being interrogated by Faramir. ***The most awesome shot in the movie (for my money) is not at Helm's Deep, Frodo and the Nazgul. It has the ultra-clarity of certain pre-Rafaelite paintings but the gravity of the true Renaissance, beauty and horror combined so as to be indistinguishable: that small figure with his almost transparent cloak billowing behind him, the enormous, hovering beast; the ruined city.... There are no words. And then Frodo's face, with that look of darkly beautiful possession.... It is just amazing.
***The downhill charge against massed pikes still bothers me. Those horses would have been IMPALED. Wonderful apocalyptic imagery, though. (By the way, does anyone else here know the great medieval painting "The Battle of Issus," which is said to have inspired some of Helm's Deep? I have always thought it was stunning.) ***I loved Gimli. And Legolas. And their obvious bond. ***And I had meant to make this a short post! -
Dec 21, 2002 8:11:59 PM CST
I feel sorry for all you purist Gollums and your "Precious" nove
by lovethisstuff
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest was a great movie...yet I stood in a seminar in Eugene Oregon in 1978 and listened to Ken Kesey tell me why he disliked it and hollywood in general...and he had every right to, but when he was done I said the same thing to him I say to all of you so called purists. The Book was fantastic and the Movie was Fantastic and I for one am awfully damn glad they were both made. Faramir was one of my favorite characters in the book and I admit I was concerned when I heard they were messing with his actions and motivations, but as I watched the film I agreed with the author that in cinema this way was better and in the book that way was better. All I know is that 30 years ago as a teen I was lent a copy of the Fellowship of the Ring and I felt a sense of wonderment and affection for Middle Earth and the characters that came pouring out of those pages and for years I secretly prayed that one day a film (let alone three) would be made of that magical land. As I sat in the Theatre one year ago and watched the opening of FOTR I felt that same sense of wonder and affection. What? Would all of you Gollums rather the films not be made at all? Then don't watch them. Reread the books and bitch all you want. I loved both FOTR and TTT and will most likely love ROTK as well. I also love the books and I will read them again and again before I shuck this mortal coil and love them just as I did that first time 30 years ago. I feel so sorry for you Gollums and your Precious attitudes. Thank you to New Line and Peter Jackson. See you next year in the Theatres for ROTK (after about 3 more times for TTT).
-
Jackson has made a FILM, he aint wrote a book he, this is a film adaption.
A: he has to cram a lot a reading time into 9 hours of film
B: this film has to live up to the dreams of every single person who has ever read the books
C: It has to appeal to all age groups and audiences
D: Jackson has undertook an enormous job and has done it beautifully.
Granted a few characters are not as strong, and granted the CGI of some scenes is touch and go but I dont think anyone has the right to dish shit on such a successful piece of work. All Im saying is that this guy has put his heart into this work like an artist and nobody has the right to take that from him.
Thanks. -
I am neither your sweetie, your honey, nor your sugar and YOU are not my auntie. I am a fellow traveller on this site - in that we both have a deep and sincere appreciation of LOTR, both in book form and in PJ's brilliant dramatisation of FOTR. However, I will continue to express my (carefully worded and explained) opinions on this site whether you or anyone else likes it or not. You have addressed some triffling and peripheral issues with this movie (old man shoots first - that's fine; who cares?) - but you have not even attempted to address my (carefully worded and explained) major problems with this movie. I don't altogether blame you because I don't expect you do unearth all MY posts from this MASSIVE talback. However, the major and glaring stumbling blocks of this movie have been expressed by MANY OTHERS besides me. You have conveniently ignored them (and here, I am not referring to the futile book Vs film complaints). But just to recap, and at the risk of sounding REPETITIVE, here are SOME of the issues we're trying to swallow (if you're even remotely interested): (1) The appallingly fractured structure of TTT's narrative and editing: it's as if PJ took one look at the THREE HUNDRED MILLION feet of footage he had shot, threw his hands up in despair, and hid under his bed whilst setting the editing machine to RANDOM and FRANTIC (a theory borne out by PJ's apologetic remarks about TTT, assuring us that "ROTJ will be better"...) (2) The main plot is informed and driven by the oldest and tiredest cliche in the book - the humble and defenceless homesteaders set upon by nasty fire-raising baddies. This device has been plundered so often as to be meaningless. Here's a list of a few movies where it's been used to death: Braveheart, Dragonheart, Conan The Barbarian, Mad Max, Mad Max 2, Mad Max 3, Waterworld, The Postman, Battlefield Earth, Stargate, Lawrence Of Arabia, Seven Samurai, Magnificent Seven, The Searchers, The Phantom Menace, Attack Of The Clones, Every goddamn western since the dawn of time, every episode of Xena Warrior Princess, every episode of (insert name of TV fantasy show here) and so on and so on and so on.........basically, I expect a little more effort than this. (3) The movie is one hour too long. Not just me who says it - a common complaint here and in the newspapers I've read: Far too much time taken to get to Helm's Deep. Far too much time wasted on the 'Aragorn dies' sequence (and to no purpose whatsoever); Arwen swanning around on a couch for the whole movie, wringing her hands over whether to go to Valinor or not: My answer: Get on the boat, HONEY, you're slowing the movie down, SWEETIE. 4) Blurry, wishy-washy action scenes. Helm's Deep? More like Helm couldn't be bothered coming out to play. WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THE "MASSIVE" TECHNOLOGY???????? Why was it not used? What are they waiting for? - there's only ONE movie left! (5) Lack of script editing - the seemingly unintentional repetition of the same dialogue/ideas over and over again: "There is no hope"; "Hope has abandoned these lands"; "What hope have we got?"; "There is still hope"; There is always hope"; Hope, hope hope hope hope, hope. Is there hope or isn't there? Not for this movie there isn't. (6) The audience are morons. That's why we have to have a character or voiceover EXPLAIN the PAINFULLY OBVIOUS every step of the way. Because God forbid the audience should have to understand the story purely based on a good screenplay and quality performances. (7) Cheesy speechifying and moralising. Not trying to cash in on Sep 11, I suppose? Of course not. Funny, I seem to remember Newline's Oscar marketing campaign was shamelessly centered around exploiting Sep 11. It backfired then and it's backfiring now. Elanor, sweetie, that's just a sample. There's planty more where that came from. Oh, and just one little consolation, Elanor, honey-pie: the old guy firing accidentally is a nice touch.
-
I am shyhoulud. I both know films and have a special place in my heart for all things fantastic. I am also in the British Army, so if you don't hear from me again it is because I courageously fell on some dusty plain in the Middle-East (or some overzealous American Apache gunner took a distinct dislike to how my silhouette looked from a klick away). Peter Jackson made a statement along the lines of -If you deviate from the source material the fans will forgive you as long as you make a really good movie- Well I, for one, forgive you Pete; I cannot say the same for many others though. Jacko and co had, and still have, the gargantuan task of squeezing The Lord Of The Rings into about 9 hours of film. They trod carefully with The Fellowship and managed to wow the public and more than apease the Peoples Front Of Tolkien - or is that Tolkien's People's Front (See 'The Life Of Brian'). They made one hell of a movie and created near perfection on the Extended DVD. Then something happened. Be it big-headedness, pressure from the studio, lack of nerve, a Philiy Blunt or whatever; they lost their focus. THEY FORGOT THE REASON THE LORD OF THE RINGS IS THE 2ND MOST READ BOOK IN EXISTENCE...BECAUSE IT IS SO DAMN GOOD. Here I sit, irony all around. Our own world could so very well be about to be plunged into darkness and yet it is this film, THE TWO TOWERS, which concerns me most. If I had the power to change three things in the world RIGHT NOW AT THIS MOMENT they would be as follows: First I would like WHATEVER event that befell the FOTR editor John Gilbert reversed so that he was able to edit TTT instead of Mike 'no-one will notice' Horton who should be so ashamed of his 'Not quite Ribena' job on the film as to dissapear and join that lonely Jap who still thinks WW2 is in full swing. SECONDLY I would DRAMATICALLY change and shorten the Aragorn/Arwen scenes to something more akin to Braveheart's Will Wallace/Dead Wife scenario. Liv Tyler is a fine actress and, for want of a more suitable phrase, fit-as-fuck to boot. However Tolkien knew what he was doing when he relegated her to the appendices. Even the Arwen/Elrond scene, though very true, sullies the storytelling with its accurate glimpse of the future. LASTLY I would have extended the film by any means neccessary to make the battle of Helms Deep altogether darker and included Huorns (Vengeful trees that move as dark mist and turn up as a big forest outside Helms deep trapping the Uruk-hai, who a forced to run into the forest and are repaid for all the trees they had murdered). Reading it as a young'un they scared the hell out of me and would have made the ultimate to that battle. If i was granted another wish I would banish Samwise's speech which was stupid to put in as it tells the viewers 'Don't worry - A may seem a bit hopeless now but pay to watch the third one and I promise a happy ending as Hollywood would NEVER allow evil to win'. At the end of the day LOTR is dark and melancoly because ultimately life is dark and melancoly; just snatch happiness where you can. Personally I love the film (though I have seen it four times already - just being thorough) and I urge everyone to see it again. Gollum - amazing! Battles - superb! Story - Sublime...if only they had more faith in the source material. I firmly believe they could have stuck closer to the book and made perfection. PJ will have to make amends on the DVD. Life imitating art?...The Fellowship of devoted, adoring fans is breaking; it has already begun. Some love and some loath. Me? I just accept and cherish like a disabled son. My only hope is that i'm around to witness the final act on the screen and that its completion will trigger world peace. You should always hope...always!
-
I saw TTT yesterday, and I have to say that I liked it more than FOTR. There were a few things that really did it for me. First and foremost was Gollum, he was incredible, Peter Jackson has taken a character who was essentially one-dimensional in the book and made him sympathetic. It's a twist on the book that doesn't vandalize the original story. Loved the scene of Gandalf and crew riding into Helm's Deep, that was magic, it really was. Liked the Ents attacking Isengard, very cool. Even little scenes, like Eowyn watching the Rohan flag fly into the wind... they're marks of something truly good. But I still get the feeling that the two movies so far are... cold. They remind me of something that I might watch on a Saturday afternoon on TV when I was a kid, not something that I would go out of my way to watch with, for instance, a group of friends. I don't know why that is. Maybe it's some of the pomposity in the dialogue (which is how Tolkein wrote it). Maybe it's just the overwrought seriousness of these two movies so far... I find myself not laughing much at all during the movies, and not being moved all that much either. Somehow, these movies lack soul, although everyone else seems to think this is the second coming. I mean, what am I missing? Am I the only one who realizes that pretty much everything important which is going to happen in these movies is known? There's just no heartfelt surprise to be had for me. I find myself appreciating the skill in the moviemaking, and I see what people mean when they say these movies are made by fans for fans. Well, then that's what we've got here, two movies made by fans for fans. I think that says something about us diehard movie fans more than it does about the quality of TTT. I think we should realize that a movie can be very very well made and still have little or no soul. And if that's the type of movie we've been clamouring for all along, what does that say about us? On the other hand, movies which aren't cinematic masterpieces can sometimes grip us in the firmest way. Why is that? I still get the feeling that people are trying to elevate this movie into something it isn't. There appears a desperation to do so, as though this is it, FOTR, the greatest thing ever, truth be damned. Even Harry does it, whose reviews always make me wince. I can never figure out before reading his reviews if this one is for "the man" or for himself. Hey Harry, why don't you be a good boy and at least admit that you're on someone's payroll? It seems to me that if a movie's bad, your opinion is convincing--I don't think you have it in you to write a good review for a movie that you truly feel stinks. However, I do get the feeling that every now and then, you write a somewhat forced good review for a movie that is middle of the road at best. For instance, Die Another Day, possibly the worst, most generic Bond movie made in recent memory. Did you really like it, Harry? Or did a little extra swag make you like it enough to write a good review?Stop jerking us around, this is getting kind of tired, and your reviews are quickly becoming irrelevant. I wouldn't even care if you were taking in a little coin from the studios, more power to you, but at least be honest about it. Anyway, back to the movies. A few particular things which really bugged me about TTT. The middle hour was slow and tedious. The movie could have been two hours fifteen minutes easily, losing nothing and gaining a good sense of pacing. Also, I felt like the individual plotlines sometimes vanished for rather large amounts of time, only to reappear at the strangest moments. At Helm's Deep, the olympic torch runner almost made me giggle. How come Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas didn't care about Pippin and Merry anymore after they met Gandalf? How come Gimli has been turned exclusively into comic relief? How indeed did he and Aragorn fend off so many foes at Helm's Deep? Did it really feel critical that they had to take this suicidal risk in defence of the fortress? I understand the need to create an epic feel, but too much is too much. Does anyone else feel that the Eowyn-Aragorn-Arwyn thing is just a set up so that Aragorn and Arwyn have a happy reunion in the next movie? Isn't this all a little obvious? Was anything in this movie as painful as the flashback to Aragorn and Arwyn? I was actually rooting for Eowyn (the lovely Miranda Otto) over Arwyn. I don't know, this attempt to force some romance into a story that didn't have much or any to be contrived and somewhat of a sell out. I understand why Peter Jackson's doing it, but I really wish he'd had the courage to do away with shallow romance just for the sake of shallow romance. Actually, except for the battle at Helm's Deep, everything involving the elves in this movie bored me. I still can't emotionally connect Elrond's thoughts with the Elves actually showing up at Helm's Deep, that whole interlude again felt forced (ie. it was in the movie solely to make the elves appearance at Helm's Deep not too much of a surprise). Did Aragorn really need to fall off a cliff? What did that add? What was the point? Was it anything but extraneous? Was Sam's speech about heroic tales one of the cheesiest, hokiest bits of dialogue in recent memory, sounding horribly close in tone to his little bit at the end of FOTR? Was this supposed to be a flag telling us the movie was nearly over? Can we please see more slow motion of white horses in the future? Can we have more cliched lines like "It has begun" in the next movie? For every hit in this movie, there's a miss. There are flaws. Maybe that elevates the movie, I don't know. I can only figure it was money well spent, for my part. But I can't imagine seeing it again, I don't have that compelling feeling that I need to see it again. I kind of feel sorry for Peter Jackson, actually. Everyone's elevating him and actually thanking him. He's obviously very talented. What happens during his next project, when he has less decent source material to work with? Anyway, instead of heaping all praise on Peter Jackson, maybe some of you could go and thank Tolkein while you're at it, he kinda came up with the whole idea. Remember? How he wrote the original books? How this is an adaptation? Anyway, I don't care a whit for all the LOTR bashers and I care even less for everyone who's defending LOTR like it's some kind of flesh and bone miracle. I saw a good movie yesterday, good despite flaws. Maybe if it's on TV during a Saturday afternoon in the future, I'll watch it again. Yeah, I probably will. Cheers to loving a movie for more than just the moviemaking!
-
Honestly, of all the critiques, I will admit that this one is a bit puzzling. Why is the theme of hope used time and again in the film, because all these people have left is hope for an outcome that none of them can see very clearly. Frankly, I felt that this theme was quite important to the film in that everywhere the main characters turned the circumstances did not look anything but bleak. Look at the main players, they needed something to hold on to, something that would act as a counter to the darkness they were wading through. Thus, the repetition of the theme serves to strengthen the theme for each of the characters, as well as making sure that the audience is getting the message. Then again I may simply be seeing the movie through two particular lenses: One: In the Christian church year it is the season of Advent, the season of hope. (More on that if folks are interested, and no, not interested in simply bashing my faith, thank you.)Two: In times of uncertainty, times that speak to people's worst fears (regardless of political persuasion), hope is vital to the human ability to cope. In a movie such as this, one cannot speak too often on the theme of hope.
-
The pikes of the attackers did not get to hit their mark due to Gandalf unleashing a blast of "light"...it really screwed up the Uruk's day/night. Their aim was a bit off after that. My favorite scene was Theoden King riding out for his last stand. The sight of that Uruk sea being swept aside by his entourage was trully brillant. I wonder where they recorded that horn that preceded his ride...chilling stuff.
-
That's not Gandalf unleashing a blast of light. That's the sun rising in the East, behind the riders.
-
Yes, the sun rises behind Gandalf and Rohirrim. The uruk-Hai are clearly blinded and you can see how some of them lift their pikes towards the sky and some drop them towards the ground. Some of them manage to hold them still, but the wall of pikes is not there anymore when the horses crash agains the uruk-hai. I thought so with my first viewing and my two second viewings enforced this belief.
-
Oh, I forgot to mention some other things I really liked. Legolas getting on his horse with that spin move. A background throwaway bit that fell perfectly in line with his character and did more to reestablish who he was than most of his dialogue. And I read someone criticizing the first shot at Helm's Deep, from the old man. I thought it was great. A twist, something new, something unexpected, in a story that has a lot of cliches in it (a lot of them unavoidable). Oh, and the background fight protecting Gandalf in Theoden's hall was excellent, not overdone at all. I thought it was pretty heroic. Wanted to mention something else I read when reading over the posts. How come it took so many people so many viewing to fall in love with FOTR? Doesn't that seem wrong to anyone? I know stuff sometimes grows on you, but is that the way one of the greatest movies of all time should work? Strange. The movies that I consider my favorites hit me hard the very first viewing and haven't diminished since. I can't think of many movies that actually grew on me. Actually, I hated Starship Troopers first time I saw it, but it's kind of grown on me. -
that the wood elves don't help at all in the whole story. They just send Legolas. "Yeah, we heard the world is ending, is it cool if we just send this guy? He's a bad ass, I swear."
-
Does anyone have any clue how Frodo's cloak turned into a rock at the Black Gate? Was this in the book? If not, why was it included?
-
Dec 21, 2002 11:26:54 PM CST
#1:i loved this movie just as much as the 1st and am looking fow
by legalos lover
ok,first of all,velocity i think you need to get a life.Movies aren't perfect(like ANGELS-EGGS said).So, it didn't look as realistic as REAL LIFE,it was still awsome!Amd Jamboreech you are so right people are just clueless.they don't know a good movie or book when they see it apparently!But anyways,I love legalos!He is hott for one thing and another he's awsome!One of my favorite parts of TTT was when they are fighting and the dwalf and Legalos start counting how many they kill!that was funny!
-
I own both cuts of Fellowship of the Ring (and I've watched them a total of about 20 times), and I have also read the books. In my last post I was referring to the people who *haven't* read the book or seen the first movie a bazillion times. You have to remember that these movies are 3 hours long each; they can't expect people to remember ONE OR TWO lines in a 3 hour movie. It needs more emphasis, IMO. And also, no, IMO it isn't clearly explained why the elves have to leave. No talk about "everything built with the Three will fade if the One is destroyed". I'm assuming that this will all be in the next extended cut (at least, it BETTER), judging from the missing footage I saw in the trailers, but it needed to be in the theatrical cut.
-
As a final note, please please please do not TTT win an Oscar when it comes time for all that. Can anyone out there seriously see this movie win Best Picture? It would be about the same as A Beautiful Mind winning. It's a very good movie, but Oscar? Well, can't see it happening, it doesn't make any sense.
-
I read somewhere today (I think theonering.net) that they (WETA) did a short involving Gollum in an interview and how he tried auditioning for the role of Dobby the house elf...and didnt get it. hahaha I've been laughing over this all day. They also said there are no plans to release it but I wouldnt be surprised in the least to see it on the extended version DVD. That would be great. Any1 else hear or read this? and if its true, I get bonus points. redeemable at wendy's.
-
Anyone who doesn't like this flick is socially and mentally stunted.
-
I don't think any of the films should win the Oscar.. if any it should have been the first one. I do think that Peter Jackson and the films need to be recognized by the academy and honored in some way. Perhaps a thalberg award, which only goes to those who do what others have not, and Mr. Jackson's certainly done that.
-
Now that the elves are prematurely packing up and leaving Rivendell, literally turning the lights out, what have they done with their hobbit house guest? Seems rather rude of Elrond to head a council sending his beloved nephew on a suicide mission with eight carefully-chosen companions, and then make plans to abandon Middle Earth without waiting for the results.
-
just to get it out of the way, grey-pussy . . . the messages aren't identical. one was simply cut short and had to be finished. apparently you didn't read it, so the gravity of your comments and, most likely, your knowledge concerning tolkien's works can be quite easily disregarded.
second, i forgave what i called nit picks, and i hardly stated them as means of drawing attention to a personal attack on myself or on tolkien. those were minor details that would have only made the movie better had they been included. i didn't once put down an entire scene for one nit pick. what i found to be outrageous was the institution of scenes from out of the blue. the only way that they could be seen otherwise is if someone has not read the book. these scenes added nothing to the story and would not have been necessary had the movie follow the book.
taking on the task of creating movies from the greatest works of literature this world has seen is not an easy task. i acknowledge that. jackson, i'm sure acknowledges that as well. however, i feel the true fans were looking for the same things i was. we have read the books, we have loved the books, and now we have the chance to see the books come to life. FOTR was amazing. TTT hardly lived up to the standards set by the magnificance of FOTR. this made me and, to the ones i've talked to, "true" fans mad.
i just got back from seeing the movie a second time (being a true fan i had to give it another shot). it wasn't as painful this time, but the same flaws glared brighter. of course it is not going to be perfect, but this is far from it.
i know that the true fans know what i'm talking about and for those who don't understand, i suggest that you brush up on your tolkien. if you were satisfied with TTT, then i must question your love of the work. -
I just saw "Ebert and Roeper at the Movies". Not a big surprise that Ebert still knocks some points off TTT because he can't remember the books right but that wasn't what scared me. No, what scared me was that Roeper liked it! He actually liked TTT. This is the guy who wanted FOTR shut out from winning *any* Oscar, insulted the film's fans and wouldn't stop bitching about how long FOTR was. And he likes TTT. *AND* he's really looking forward to "Return of the King"... Have I stepped into the Twilight Zone?
-
Get the hell off your high horse. "True fans"? It's nice to see those delusions of grandeur are out in force. Let me try and explain something to you - the only "true" thing you are is "truly" pompous. We have to question our love of the work if we adored TTT? Who made you the ultimate critic of LOTR again? I must not have gotten the memo. You and your group of "true fan" friends should have alerted all us lower Tolkien fans. It can't be that another Tokien fan would disagree with you - they must be pseudo-fans. Maybe pod people.
-
Taters? What's taters?
No but seriously...
What's taters? -
Re: Frodo's cloak. No, while the book says the woven fabric blends nicely with various terrain (being variously lichen green, rock grey, etc.) and thus does shelter the hobbits from casual eyes and flying Nazgul, the cloaks have no "magical" properties other than camouflage. (And they are both light-weight and warm.) The movie captures the texture and colors wonderfully, but goes a bit far with the rock. However, I did notice on second viewing that you can see the seam of Frodo's hood in the "rock." Perhaps we are meant to think that the cloak picked up enough dust from the slope to look rocklike, without being magic. I hope so. ***The Cockney orcs are right out of Tolkien, and I thought, perfect. Loved the line about the hobbits' legs - and the creepiness of the orc that delivered it. In fact, the whole scene was deliciously repulsive. ***Re: Faramir. Yes, I usually love understated, too, and you can just BARELY see his reactions if you look for them, or read them into the pauses, but there are things missing that really need to be there - at least a line BEFORE Osgiliath that orders are to kill all intruders or send them to the Steward as prisoners. Faramir doesn't seem personally tempted by the Ring, but since we have no real sense of his nobility, we don't know why. And if you have absolutely NO backstory about his father or relationship with his brother on screen, the whole thing feels underdeveloped. I think it only works at all because we're feeding motivations into it that we already know, not because the movie gives us anything to work with. When he tells Frodo that Boromir was his brother, you can't even tell whether he loved him or felt anything for him - and it's beyond leading Frodo out (which he doesn't really do). Faramir is supposed to be a beloved figure in Gondor as well as a respected, charismatic leader, none of which is readily apparent on screen. The city is grief-stricken when he falls. I have read references to him as Aragorn-lite and (in his film characterization) Boromir-lite, but my own interpretation of him in the book is that he's more spiritually akin to Frodo - in his scholarly aptitude, his affection for Gandalf (who has also been Faramir's mentor), his gentle nature, his willingness to sacrifice himself for his people - and in the fact that they are the two characters most like elves in their tendency to dreams and visions. Aside from whatever plot changes have been made in the film, it seems we have lost that very spiritual kinship with Frodo which is probably what most draws him to pity and aid him against his father's command.
-
I've never read Tolkien so I cannot compare to the books, however... I thought FOTR was a bit drawn out and a bit on the dull side here and there but I liked it. My only real disappointment was at the end. Saruman is building up this army throughout the entire film and at the end we get this weak battle of a dozen Uruk-Hai against the fellowship and the Frodo and Sam are headed towards the tower.
I was waiting for the big battle scene that was in this movie. But nothing really happens in this movie except for the big battle and Frodo and Sam are headed for the tower of.. wait a minute.. it seemed like the movie spent a great deal going back and forth between the different sets of antagonists contemplating what they should do. Allow me to demonstrate:
"X, I think I would like some coffee."
"Well, Peter, there's some coffee in the kitchen."
"Hmm, I dunno, X.. coffee makes my belley hurt but it sure is good."
--------
Meanwhile in another scene about even more indecisive characters.
-------------------
"So, Pete.. are you gonna get that coffee?"
"Not sure, X. It is bad for me you know."
"You're right, Peter, but are you going to let those coffee naysayers stop you fro drinking one cup of coffee?"
"......"
----------------
Meanwhile back in another redundant scene about even more indecisiveness.
-----------
"Gonna get that coffee, Peter?"
"Well, X.. I'm just not sure.
This kind of thing continues for about 5 more scenes until:
"Man, X! You sure do make some great coffee!"
"Boy, I sure do".
It's just like that. Scene after scene of indecisive character banter, going back and forth until finally the the Rohan king decides to hold up in a corner with no chance of escape knowing the enemy will entrap them because he doesn't want to fight? and then Gandalf shows up to save the day and they jump right to the aftermath of the victory. And I could be wrong because I hardly caught his name but I believe it was Farimir who (even though I did not read the books) had to have been the most underused character poorly represented character in the movie. I didn't expect him to be like his brother, but there is nothing I can say about him that other negative reviews haven't covered. He's more or less the "Go back 10 spaces" card from Monopoly. The dude didn't even try to get the ring!! All he did was set back Frodo and Sam. That was agrrivating. The stuff with Gollum was gold however, but the movie is hardly about him or Frodo. There is scene after scene of just camera pan after camera pan of people walking or riding a horse of the same scene!! I'm not sure about FOTR's length but I am pretty sure that this 3 hour snoozer could have easily been a foot note at the begining of the next one or the missing climax of FOTR with some more decisive editing. I guess Jackson figured that he had to drag out this story for 3 hours to match the other two. I was highly disappointed and I was not expecting a whole lot to begin with. And Gimli was reduced entirely to comic relief. I've never seen the animated versions except for the Hobbit, but I'm anxious to see how it was done now that I've seen this. -
Had to share this sentence from the Charlotte Observer: "Wood delivers the film's best performance, somehow finding new facial expressions for old feelings of inadequacy and fear."
Though I think my personal favorite is the review from Salon.com, where Charles Taylor writes that Elijah Wood's performance is "both intensely physical and vibrating with a sense of spiritual terror." Doesn't that just capture it? -
Dec 22, 2002 2:18:22 AM CST
Saw it again tonight.......ANd the Naysayers and Trolls are full
by tallscott
Im so glad there are people are to tell the AICN Trolls where to stick it..GOOD JOB GUYS!! Keep up the good work..To people who feel the need to post and post and try to convice us that it was a crappy movie..You know your gonna pay to see ROTK..so we have already won..If you want to impress me why not post and repost that you hated TTT and you DID not see ROTK. Watch next year its going to many sbuject lines like this ..I LOVED The Fellowship and Two Towers BUT was dissapointed in ROTK..LOL Mark my words..Hey IF anyone who worked on the prduction is reading this: You Guys KICKED ass! Fantastic Job! ( Even New Line Thank god you guys had the Balls to let PJ do this a round of appluse goes to you)
-
You're concerned for non-Tolkien fans not understanding what the fuck is going on with the Elves leaving??? Relax. In FOTR there is reference to why they have to leave...i'm not sure if it was mentioned in TTT as I've only seen it once and can't remember but I've seen FOTR so knew what was going on when they left. Peter Jackson stated in an interview he was not going to cover old ground in TTT that was in FOTR, the reiteration of events in FOTR would just take up too much time.I'm a non-fan of Tolkien and I picked up on the plot no problem. If others dont get it then I'll suspect it's because they didnt see FOTR first, not because the plot in TTT is confusing or because Peter Jackson failed to reiterate or reference certain events.
-
You get that this was a movie, right? Not a book with purty pictures? You fault the film for not adhering to the book letter for letter. Do you know what happens when filmmakers slavishly adhere to source material? Movies like HARRY POTTER. The plot points are all there but they don't resonate because the spirit hasn't been captured. Peter Jackson is an avid fan of Tolkien's and he's also a gifted filmmaker. As such, when he and his writing team were adapting the novels for the screen they conceived it as a cinematic experience, not a BBC mini-series. He's only got 9 hours to work with. Some scenes will be shortened, altered or cut altogether to make the movie work as a movie. If you want a transcript of the books then read the books again. These films have to not only appeal to you "true fans" (wanker) but to the masses who have never read Tolkien. To attempt otherwise would bankrupt the studio. This is a business afterall, but some good filmmakers such as Jackson are able to infuse a little art into their commerce. Take a step back and see the film for what it is: A FILM. I thought it worked wonderfully in that regard. L8r
-
I hope that there really is a danger of being banned for "being a bastard". You guys got chips on your shoulders the size of Montana.
I'm not suggesting everyone should be of one mind about a movie. Every little minute, every line, the nuance of every performance, well it seems unlikely the entire world will be 100% ecstatic 100% of the time. This movie is just better than any big budget movie of the year, that's all. So pleeeeze. Get over yourself, you cynical posters. As of now, I quit reading Talkback at thise site. That's it. The end. I feel such shame for human nature. Whoever has to read all this, I don't know how you tolerate it. -
Orson: I think you're complaints are mostly badly directed. The first two are problems the book has (fractured structure, siege). The structure is actually better in the movie (at least you're more in touch with the timing of all the events), and the siege has to be there. It's the centre of the book in many ways. And just because it's been done by others (everything has been done by others), that doesn't make it bad. As for the complaint about "moralising", it's an extremely moral story. I wouldn't call it moralising, if a messenger from the gods (Gandalf) or idealistic hobbits (Merry or Sam) state their opinions. They are very moral people and are not going to shy away from saying what they think. And as for the complaint about "Hope". Yes, isn't it terrible when a central theme of the story is expressed in the story. Oh, it's a bitch, alright. ***raged out: the elven cloaks acts as camouflage in any terrain. It blends in with its surroundings. That's why it looked somewhat like a rock (the dust, colour and crumpled surface happen to resemble a boulder). As for needing many viewings to like the movie, I don't think that's the case. I think people enjoy the movie the first time, but are overwhelmed with all the stuff coming at them and future viewings are needed mostly just to take in the details you missed, making the cinema experience even better. It's like seeing 2001 the first time. You might not get everything and miss some stuff. But seeing it another time, you start to understand it a little better. That doesn't mean it's not a great film, it's just that some films need several viewings to absorb everything, some are easier to absorb. ***djscrappie: no offence, but stating what "true" fans should think is like those religious fanatics that say anyone can't be a "true" believer if they don't think exactly the way they do. There's a difference between believing something yourself and accepting others though sometimes correcting others if they happen to misunderstand something, and being the infallible judge of what is right and wrong.
-
It seems that a lot of complaints regarding The Two Towers centres around the loss of the 'magic' that was present in the first film. I have to agree but I do not think that this is a negative thing. The only reason thst this has happened is that this movie is more of a human drama. The scenes of Rohan are things that we are used to. We have all seen films like 'The Vikings' etc before. These scenes are played without a sense of magic. Mankind is in a tragic state, out of key with Middle Earth and right royal pains in the ass to its other inhabitants. What I am trying to say is I tink PJ has done this one purpose. We are dealing with Man, who could not failed to be moved by the tragic clothing of the children for war scene in the precursor to the Helms Deep battle. The magic that permeated the wholre of the first film is there, it is just more prominent when the humans are not involved. I was delighted with Gollum (the highest point of both films), Treebeard awoke the child in me also, and the Elves turning up (infact any scene with the Elves) had lost none of the magic that transported me first time around. Okay so it has a different feel to it, but it is surely purposeful. These films we shot in one go, with some scenes in TTT being filmed before FOTR,; we are not deling with a sequel and the usual problems that arise from them. There you go, thats my view!
-
It seems that a lot of complaints regarding The Two Towers centres around the loss of the 'magic' that was present in the first film. I have to agree but I do not think that this is a negative thing. The only reason thst this has happened is that this movie is more of a human drama. The scenes of Rohan are things that we are used to. We have all seen films like 'The Vikings' etc before. These scenes are played without a sense of magic. Mankind is in a tragic state, out of key with Middle Earth and right royal pains in the ass to its other inhabitants. What I am trying to say is I tink PJ has done this one purpose. We are dealing with Man, who could not failed to be moved by the tragic clothing of the children for war scene in the precursor to the Helms Deep battle. The magic that permeated the wholre of the first film is there, it is just more prominent when the humans are not involved. I was delighted with Gollum (the highest point of both films), Treebeard awoke the child in me also, and the Elves turning up (infact any scene with the Elves) had lost none of the magic that transported me first time around. Okay so it has a different feel to it, but it is surely purposeful. These films we shot in one go, with some scenes in TTT being filmed before FOTR,; we are not deling with a sequel and the usual problems that arise from them. There you go, thats my view!
-
i don't thing that true fans should be satisfied with TTT. and when i say true fans, i'm sure that these people know who they are. my love of tolkien is hardly religious, but the works have had a profound place in my life.
i agree with orions that part of TTT problem does seem to be the #2 in a trilogy role.
rogue, i know it's a movie. i know that it can't be perfect. hell, if FOTR had been, it would have been seven hours long. i also understand that if things were done to perfection that the amount of money it would cost would be outrageous. however, i find that the alterations in TTT were not needed. tolkiens scenes were fine in the book. there really was no need to create new scenes, non-tolkien fans would have followed easily.
i know that pj is an avid fan of the books. and after FOTR, he obviously knows what he is doing. i simply think that he missed the mark on the TTT. although, in all fairness, he did say that he took the most liberties in TTT. it is also obvious that people do not see eye to eye on the film. of course, then none of this talk back would be interesting. after twice, i'm still frustrated with TTT, but i sill can't wait for ROTK, jackson will nail it, i know. -
It is rather funny that Lord Elrond would assemble a "fellowship" to take on an extremely perilous mission to cast the One Ring back into the fires of Mt. Doom. At the same time, he's telling his people "Let's get the fuck out of here!" Elf #2: "What about our guest, Bilbo Baggins of the Shire?" Elrond: "What about him? Fuck him! What haven't we done for that little bastard?! We gave him our food, shelter, armor, weapons. He owes us! In fact, make sure that little fuck is carrying my shit on the way out of Rivendell!" Elf #3: "Lord Elrond, what if we encounter any Nazgul during our travels?" Elrond: "Easy. We'll just point at Baggins and say: "he has the ring". If you'll excuse me gentleman, I must attend to my daughter." The men bow and Lord Elrond enters his daughter Arwen's bedroom chamber. All along the walls of the bedroom are posters of Aragorn, Son of Arathorn. Arwen lies on her bed, wiping tears from her eyes, as she listens to "Rivendell", by Rush, on her Elven CD player. Elrond: "Be at peace, my dear. This really is the only way. By now, Aragorn is probably simmering in an uruk-hai stew pot somewhere. It's over. Besides, I couldn't quite take you & Aragorn pro-creating and gifitng Rivendell with a half-human, half-elf little bastard running around and calling me "grandpa"! Now my daughter...pack your shit, we're leaving." ____________________ The Lady Galadriel shakes her head in disgust at the act of cowardice being displayed by Lord Elrond. She turns to an elf assistant. Galadriel: "I always knew Lord Elrond was a pussy. Send our best warriors to Helms Deep. If Elrond doesn't have the balls to fight, I do! Err..um...so to speak."
-
You guys amuse me.
If you read your posts, it is quite obvious that you are all saying different things.
You have one post decrying how PJ screwed up the Frodo/Sam/Gollum section, a few posts later one of you is exclaiming it was the only good part.
Are there spots I would have done differently if it were my movie to direct? Of course. The same was true of FOTR. If I were making my dream movie, and could stick closer to the books, would I? Of course.
Every substantial change that PJ made was made for a reason which isn't difficult to understand. Simplication. Dramatic tension. Momentum. None made a significant change to the underlying material.
I've seen it twice and loved it both times. -
FOTR was great, nice pace, good balance and passable dialogue. The Two Towers on the other hand was average, the pace was uneven and the dialogue a joke. Yes yes the special effects were amazing and they kick who
-
jesus christ I read it somewhere. I am not trying to spin anything...I thought I'd ask you guys if you heard about it, thats all. Do blow shit out of proportion for you OWN agenda.
-
go fuck yourselves. if you think you can do it better, do it yourselves...then we'll see how easy it is to include every fucking conversation and motive and event and action sequence from more then a thousand pages of a narrative, appendix, a world.
i think PJ did the best job he could to bring one of the best stories ever told come to the screen, and if you look, theres reasons, whether intended or not, for everything. FOr xample, frodo going to osgiliath, big no no, right? Horrible?
By doing this, it sets up a motive for Sauron to send his army and concentrate on Gondor, thinking that the ring is there, and why not, sure the Nazgul sends word that the ring was spotted, not felt, but almost gotten a few miles away from the city it's lord is fighting. this now allows Frodo to slip under the radar. Maybe not what was meant by the scene, but i think it works. -
Dec 22, 2002 10:35:23 AM CST
FD likes Two Towers better than the first one...almost
by fd resurrected
The first movie of LOTR is well-made but it have had its share of flaws that distract my movie-going enjoyment. The Two Towers is somewhat better but it could've needed much more darker elements (there's the unspoken rule that first movie sequels should be darker, i.e. Back to the Future II and Babe: Pig in the City). Seeing Frodo turn berserk on his (allegedly homosexual coughsarcasmcough) friend Sam isn't enough to whet my appetite for bloodcurdling. The only things I really love about The Two Towers are the near-perfect realization of Gollum and Treebeard rallying fellow Ents to invade Saruman's territory. A desperate Ent on fire diving into the rushing water as seen on IMAX-size screen from the bottom row perspective actually made me laugh out so loud and hard I almost broke into tears for less than a minute. A moment of brilliant silent comedy. Dream sequence(s) with Aragorn and Arwen is pure cheese. Think I'll need to hit up the LOTR books when I have spare time. Return of the King next year might conquer all asses.
-
MAY BE SPOILERS HERE!!! Hey Gang: Okay, I have seen TTT three times since its release (including the midnight showing on Tuesday). I'm not sure I would say its better than FOTR, but it is easily as good as FOTR and that itself is pretty high praise. Like FOTR before it, Jackson crams so much material and information into the film that repeated viewings are richly rewarded. I think Ebert said it best when he says that Jackson is a director who loves to "paint in the corners". Also like FOTR, the pacing of the film feels whacked until you see it a few times and (1) get comfortable with the breakneck pacing and (2) start noticing all the little details Jackson sticks in every little frame of film which fleshes out the story. I have no problems with the liberties Jackson took with the story because after seeing it a few times I think he had to. The movie is already bursting at the seams and adding Shelob and the ents finishing off the Urak-hai at Helm's Deep would have been nice to see, but would have ended up short changing everything. (And Jackson knows that you geeks would never forgive him if he short changed Shelob.) So now, he gets to split up the really good stuff from the last two books and give each its due. Contrary to many of the complaints from critics and talkbackers, the movie is FULL of character development. Legolas and Gimli both get more screen time and both benefit, especially Gimli. I always thought (outside of the extended DVD of course) that Gimli was completely wasted in Fellowship. Here he gets to shine. Although he is comic relief, he never comes off cheesy and in fact comes closer to how I always imagined Dwarves. Hearty in laughter, sharp of tongue, loyal to the end and always relishing the heat of battle. In fact, Gimli almost stole every scene he was in. Legolas once again doesn't disappoint and his scene of "despairing" and telling Aragorn he "was late" both showed a real depth to his character with very few words. Aragorn gets the most screentime and is further fleshed out. Frodo's corruption by the ring is damn near perfect in execution. Sam shows why he is the true hero to Tolkien (IMHO) and why he gets the last line in the book. (The main theme being after all the power of friendship). You forget Gollum is a CGI creation about a minute after you meet him and yes, an Oscar needs to be awarded for this performance. By the way, to everyone who says that Sirkis shouldn't even be considered, in an interview I read, Sirkis face movements were also motion captures and they drew Gollum over his face. So really, this is no different than the Elephant Man and any other famous "masked" performance. All the secondary characters (especially Theoden and Wormtongue) hit there marks and do tremendous jobs with the little screen time they are given. (Who wasn't blown away by Wormtongue's tear when he saw what Saruman was up to!) Taking Frodo into Gondor was a shocking deviation from the book, but now I think it was necessary because without it, the Battle of Minas Tirith would be exactly the same as Helm's Deep. I think Jackson had to lay that groundwork here, to show that Helm's Deep isn't the only battle happening so it doesn't feel so much like ground already covered. (Oh and as an aside, Faramir using the map to show the lay of the land and and putting everything in context was a very nice touch and a nice nod to Kurosawa's Seven Samuari.) Helm's Deep does not disappoint and makes that other CGI battle we all saw earlier this year look like a cartoon. Helm's Deep compares favorably with the likes of Ran, Spartacus and Braveheart and that says alot. As another poster pointed out, one of the best scenes in the movie was when Aragorn is inspected a sword in Helm's Deep and it is rusty, pockmarked and obviously dull beyond belief. He throws in down in disgust, knowing that it is useless. Later, when a CHILD is wielding the same weapon, he takes it, practices with it and tells the child that its a "good sword". Very powerful and coveys so much in a single scene. Genius. If there is a complaint to be made, I think that Saruman didn't have enough screen time. After Jackson greatly increased his role in the first movie, I missed Christopher Lee chewing up the scenery as much as he did in the first movie. There were no embarrassing bad choices made here (like Galadriel going freaky when she saw the ring in FOTR). Great movie and Jackson didn't disappoint. - Drakkir Out.... Peace.
-
Dec 22, 2002 10:58:02 AM CST
BEGONE YOU GRIMA-WANNABE TROLLS! TTT IS A CINEMATIC SPECTACLE TH
by butch_mctavish
First off, I urge all of you to see this film on a quality print, if you have not done so already. The first I saw this film, the screen looked fuzzy and the sfx (particularly Treebeard & the Ents) didn't look as convincing. After the movie finished, I walked about the theater complex and found THE PRINT of the movie and bought ticket(s) for this particular screen's showing two days later. Upon seeing film a second time on a much clearer, plush print I knew I was right -- BIG difference! The whole look of the film, every special effect was enhanced to the nth degree (Treebeard and the Ents looked seamless this time around). Really, see this movie on a quality screen/print. It makes all the difference and is well worth the extra effort, albeit the hassle. I suspect this is the future of celluloid -- multiple prints of a movie, but only one of which is really any good. More & more I look forward to digital. ******* My review of The Two Towers, in a nut shell, is... EXCELLENT! Solid A, as was The Fellowship of the Ring, but each for very different reasons. I will say, however, that I left the theater complex liking this movie even more than the first. Perhaps some day I will get into the specifics, but suffice it to say I loved this movie. BREATHLESSLY PACED, ENGROSSING, FEARSOME, BEAUTIFUL TO BEHOLD, PASSIONATE, COMPASSIONATE, AND SPIRITUALLY FAITHFUL TO THE SOURCE. What it lacked in coziness and charm (two strengths the first movie had in abundance) it made up for in awe inspired spectacle. I am still a bit overwhelmed and find myself thinking about this movie from the moment I wake up till... now. I am compelled to convey, however, my admiration of the magnificent rendering of the Gollum character. That alone earns the movie SFX kudos well and beyond anything I've seen recently on the silver screen. I am absolutely floored by Gollum. CGI? OK, maybe if you stop and squint a critical eye. But for me, within a minute of his first appearance I stopped 'seeing' SFX and started watching, listening to as genuine a character as Frodo or Sam. I cannot offer enough laurels for this feat of acting and f/x wizardry except to say that I have never really pitied Gollum till I saw him here on the screen. I know from Tolkien's work that both Bilbo and Frodo pitied him and so spared his life, and that I as reader am to take their word for it, but honestly, for the first time since my first foray into Middle Earth I finally understand what they meant. For the first time, I SAW him and truly pitied Gollum. For me, Jackson has accomplishd an immeasurable task, he has improved upon Tolkien's own words and I bow humbly before this sublime feat. ******* More than anything, I did not want this film to end, I wanted to journey on and witness the wonders that lay ahead with The Return of the King. The critics are right -- this is an epic masterpiece in the making. And to all you fans (and BTW, I've noticed too many fakes are trying, unconvincingly, to sway opinion on this site--not gonna work, thought you should know)... to all you true fans, thanks for keeping the faith. We are indeed fortunate enough to be in the midst of cinematic history; Peter Jackson is setting the precedent by which all other fantasy, science fiction or horror movies should be tackled. I GUARANTEE YOU THAT HISTORY WILL HERALD THESE FILMS AS NOT ONLY MASTERPIECES IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, BUT ALSO THAT THESE LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES ARE THE NEW VANGUARD BY WHICH ALL FORTHCOMING FILMS OF WONDER WILL BE MEASURED. This was true of Star Wars in the '70s and now in this new century of doubt and despair, the Lord of the Rings movies remind us of the same message the books did years before. Middle Earth exists! even if we can't find it on any earth-bound map or atlas. It exists as a reminder of the blessings of friendship, especially when you find youself with your back against a wall and, seemingly, the whole world against you. It exists as an example that love, true love, is worth pining for, fighting for, praying for, even when those near you say "she is too high above you." It exists as a message of reason & tolerance of those whose belief structures may at first seem staggeringly different from our own, especially true when world leaders threaten one another over arms or, perhaps, fuel. It also exists as a primer for those of us who yearn for a simpler if bygone age when it was noble, not foolhardy, to fight for a cause larger than yourself, whether that cause be Greenpeace, world peace, or the peace that comes from working a Sunday afternoon at a local food kitchen. Yes, yes... J.R.R. Tolkien convinced me of all this years and years ago, of course. But, Peter Jackson SHOWS me Tolkien knew what he was writing about. Thanks PJ. ******* Peace to all this holiday season. Good night.
-
First let me say that I like this film. After FotR, I was prepared for Jackson's changes in the story and was more willing to accept them. However, I feel that this is a flawed film in many ways.
It would be easy to draw direct comparisons to the book, and start your ctiticism there, but I think we all realize that you just can't directly translate prose into film. My major gripes with this film are problems that those who never read the books will notice. My first beef is this: Where is Elrond trying to send Arwen? Sure, we understand that he doesn't want her to be with Aragorn, but where is he sending her, and why can't she come back. The truth of this matter is sometimes difficult for people who have read the books, and Jackson does a horrible job explaining it here. This wouldn't be that big a deal, but Jackson goes out of his way to play up the Aragorn/Arwen relationship. These scenes really slow things down. I understand that some of these were shot just last year, so Jackson obviously thought the movie was missing something. I just don't think these scenes were it though.
Why did Haldir send greetings from Elrond? Isn't he the captain Galadriel's guards? I understand that the alliance may have been Elrond's decision, but Haldir should have at least mentioned Galadriel, if only to remind viewers of this character from the first film.
Another minor point, but the one I laughed at the most. ShadowFax. Must be elven for dogfood. King of all horses? You could see the horse's ribs for Christ's sake!!! Shadowfax was of very minor importance. Jackson should have skipped this seen if he couldn't find a suitably impressive horse.
The scene with Theoden donning his armor at Helm's deep. Was the really needed? I can't even remeber what the old man was babbling about, because it was UNIMPORTANT.
I've only seen the film twice, so those were the couple of things that stuck with me. On a whole a felt that the dialog was forced in many scenes, and had a more "modern" feel than a movie based a Tolkien should have had. I felt that the acting was just above average (Andy Serkis as Gollum being the notable exception. Wow! I think he saved the film for me.) The score was average. Or maybe it was good, but it certainly wasn't memorable.
In all I found the film to be good. I will certainly see it again, and buy the DVD. I just love Tolkien and Middle Earth too much to not enjoy these films. They could have been much, much worse, and Jackson really is breaking some ground in film making with thes pictures. However, if you compare them to the great epic films of the past, they don't stand out: make no mistake, TTT is no Lawrence of Arabia. But I think the fact that I am even trying to compare Jackson's work to some of the best movies ever made speaks volumes. My only regret is that I know that these films could have been better. Possibly much better. And that's why I'm dissappointed with them so far, even though I like them. -
Lucas said if they managed to pull out Jar Jar, the film would rule! Jackson probably thought the same regarding Gollum. The result? the creatures are perfect and the films are almost crap. FUCK CGI!
-
I'm probably going to hear about this from everyone 'You dork, didn't you watch the movie? She's going to Valinor with her people.' I know that. However, think about this. Arwen seems to be smiling at her father as she leaves...is this because she's happy she doesn't have to go just yet? Immediately after she leaves, Elrond and Galadriel have their psychic meeting, and he goes at looks at the fresca of Isildur cutting the ring from Sauron's hand, with Narsil in his grasp. For some reason, tonight it just struck me that Arwen might not be going to the Valinor at all, but somewhere to help Aragorn. Thoughts? I know that it's implied that they're leaving Middle Earth, but it was also implied that the hobbits were sleeping in the Prancing Pony, and they weren't. If not this, then how do you suppose they're going to do the Arwen storyline in ROTK? Will she just go AWOL and down to see him?
-
NECESSARY?!?! IT was one of the best parts! What was he saying? He was reciting a poem...one of the poems from the book, albeit an abridged version. It's somewhere early on in the Two Towers, and its not Theoden who says it, but it's a traditional Rohan song. "Where now the horse and the rider/Where is the horn that was blowing..." That scene is so important because that's what the Rohirrim are about...they recite some poetry, and then they kick your ass. Theoden quotes another poem right before the final charge. "Fell deeds awaken/now for wrath!/now for ruin and a red dawn." (in the book it's "red nightfall" and it comes in ROTK, but it's all good). Poetry and Song is supposed to be important to the Rohirrim (well, to all the characters really). Recall the famous line in Tolkien "And they sang as they slew, for the joy of the battle was on them."
So, the Theoden armor scene was NOT unnecessary, it was perfect, in my opinion, and one of the coolest moments in the movie.
The second coolest part would be where Gandalf actually speaks in old english...over the grave of Theoden's son, while Theoden is weeping, Gandalf says "Wes thu hal." "Farewell" in Anglo-Saxon. Any movie that has Ian McKellen speaking old english is alllright in my book. -
for me, watching the two towers was a great movie experience.. just like the first part the three hours went by very quickly.
it also made me think this is why the star wars prequels don't work... (hear me out) the length of star wars seems to be a big deal with lucas, if you hear the dvd commentary he's always saying "we could cut this scene becuase it's explained elsewhere" IMO.. i don't think this gives the characters long enough time to develop and most people seem to think the acting and love story part of star wars sucks big time... give the films more time.. it does work...!!!
i alwys thought that star wars would be my all time favourite set of films but thankfully peter jackson hasn't pointlessly cut his films... lord of the rings is fantastic. no question. -
I only feel ready to comment on the movie after a second viewing. After the first viewing I was only able to get a general sense of the movie, and, being someone who has read the books several times, I was focused as much on the many deviations from the written story as on the film. I am not a purist - I recognize the need to make changes to translate book to film, and I feel that in Jackson's interpretation of the story he has full right to take artistic license as he sees fit. I liked the movie alot after the first viewing, but felt I wanted to take another look. After a second viewing, I am a huge fan of TTT. I love the look and feel of the movie, the way the plot steadily builds to a huge crescendo, both in terms of emotion and action. I love some of the images that stick in my mind - the nazgul rising up in front of Frodo, the ent throwing the stone at Isengard, the ladders rising up against the wall of Helm's deep, the black gate of Mordor, and on and on. I love Gimli's humor. Above all, I am overwhelmed by Andy Serkis' interpretation of Gollum. It's a movie with little flaws here and there - a couple painful lines, a couple scenes where the acting is a little off, and a few things that I would have liked to see done differently. For example, as much as I thought the interpretation of Boromir in FOTR was an improvement over the book, I thought Faramir wasn't carried off as well in TTT as he was in the book. But there were no badly blown scenes - no Lothlorien in this one. I can't say I like it better than FOTR, but largely that's because I went into FOTR just hoping it wasn't a disaster, and I was pleasantly surprised. With TTT, I went in expecting one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. It was up there, but those high expectations had alot to do with my initial reaction after first viewing the movie that I wasn't entirely sure how I felt about it except that I liked it. Going back for a second viewing, I am happier. I love the movie. Of course, now I have to wait for another year.
-
Dec 22, 2002 12:24:45 PM CST
Some thoughts on ROTK (huge spoilers if you haven't read the boo
by devil0509
Top ten things I'm anticipating in ROTK:
10: Theoden's final charge at the Pelennor Fields
9: Aragorn calling the dead to the stone of Erech
8: The bowels of Mount Doom
7: The black gate opening and the hordes of Mordor charging while 8 Nazgul circle overhead
6: Sam seeing the star while in Mordor
5: Gandalf and the Lord of the Nazgul facing off at Minas Tirith
4: The ring going into the fire
3: Frodo claiming the ring as his own
2: Shelob's Lair
1: Eowyn killing the lord of the ringwraiths
And countless others. The pyre of Denethor (hell, the whole madness of Denethor from beginning to end), the charge of the Rohirrim, the black fleet coming up the river with the breaking of the clouds, the crossroads and the king regaining his crown, the black host leaving Minas Morgul, the Watchers and the Tower of Cirith Ungol, Frodo and Sam being captured and taken within sight of the black gates (from the inside), Frodo seeing the Dark Tower as he climbs the slopes of Mount Doom. The Grey Havens (that's gotta be in my top ten list, but what would I kick out?). At 3 hours, that movie is going to be packed, breathlessly paced, and just mounting in action and emotion to a level that I will probably have to avoid coffee for two days prior to the movie in order to deal with it. I am geeked up to a silly level, and its PJ's fault for delivering so spectacularly on the first two movies. Can there be any doubt that this will stand as the best trilogy of all time from beginning to end? Well, we'll wait to see how well ROTK is pulled off before we crown the king.
-
"I GUARANTEE YOU THAT HISTORY WILL HERALD THESE FILMS AS NOT ONLY MASTERPIECES IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, BUT ALSO THAT THESE LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES ARE THE NEW VANGUARD BY WHICH ALL FORTHCOMING FILMS OF WONDER WILL BE MEASURED."
That's great that you feel that way, and I'm not going to say that you should feel otherwise. Here's my take, though, my opinion. No, absolutely not, these are not the movies by which all others will be judged. My god man, do you even remember what it was like when Star Wars came out? Do you remember there being so many naysayers around at the time? You're comparing Jackson's movies to that? Where's the overwhelming sense of glee? Where's the notion that something's been created that's far greater than just a movie? Where's the absolute adoration? It's not even close to being the same. Can't we all give Peter Jackson his due credit without sainting him? Can't we actually for once give Tolkein some credit? God, he's the one that created this stuff, not Peter Jackson. For god's sake... Anyway, maybe we should have a third category on this talkback. We already have the people who believe LOTR is the greatest thing to ever happen--you know, the people who were so relieved that FOTR actually worked that they're now elevating the series into the stars. We have the bashers, who are just causing crap because they want to. How about a category for people who really liked these movies but don't feel they're the greatest cinematic event of all time? Is it okay to be in that category?Somehow, I get the feeling that the 'true fans' are even more burned by people in this boat than they are by the bashers. For once, I have more problems with the irrationality of some of the 'true fans' than I do with those who are putting down these movies. -
I agree, I don't think Arwen is going to Valinor. There are hints of this in the trailers for the film that show scenes cut from the film. One of the scenes is Arwen, wearing the cloak she has on when she leaves Rivendell, approaching the shards of Narsil. I figure she's going to be the one to give Aragorn Narsil in ROTK - he has to get the sword at some point.
-
Best trilogy of all time from beginning to end? It's finally happening, the people who so desperately want to recapture real magic in moviemaking have adopted a surrogate and are raising it into a bastard. This is sick and depressing. At this point, ROTK can be one of the top ten movies of all time and not raise the triology to best ever. Or are we still talking about the excellence of Jackson's moviemaking, the technical details of the trilogy, the fact that he filmed everything at once? None of that makes great movies. Imparting a true sense of passion and wonder and awe to the audience does that, that's why even small non-epic non-special effects movies can capture people. Elevating movies to the perch of best ever just because the director had a monumental task and pulled it off very well doesn't make sense. I'm afraid that history will look back on these movies and see them better for what they are. Very good. And that's all.
-
we cool, we cool, I think everyone should be happy we get to sit through a three hour megafilm for just 10 bucks. Three times. Sure beats Two Weeks Notice!
-
Hey Raged Out, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, so please do not take what I'm about to say that way. You are obviously intelligent and articulate and I respect your opinion. With that said, I have to say that the same "overwhelming sense of glee" when the Star Wars movies first came out is here. I feel it when I watch the FOTR movies. I see it in my wife's eyes when she tells me that FOTR is her FAVORITE movie of all time. My wife is a professional who is most definitely not a geek. She saw the original Star Wars flicks once and has never seen EP1 or EP2 and has no interest to. But FOTR (actually TTT now) is her favorite movie. Not Titanic, Steel Magnolias, Gone with the Wind or any other major "chick flick". And my wife is not the only woman to say that too me. I heard it when every one in my office asked me Wednesday morning how the movie was (I caught the Midnight premier and had to be at work the next day). Nobody asked the day after I saw the midnight premier with ATOC. These movies are having a profound effect on alot of people. Now I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it is what I see. However, objectively, what New Line did here IS historic. They gave $300 to a barefooted zombie flick director to film 3 movies simulaneously, a tremendous gamble which could have killed the studio. Remember, various parties have been looking to make these books into movies for DECADES. But they were always considered "unfilmable". The fact that Jackson was able to make FOTR (and now TTT) and that they didn't suck ALONE was worth an Oscar for Best Director. These are the type of movies that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. You may not be aware, but FOTR has frequently been described as the "biggest budget independent film ever made". Think about what that statement really says. These movies could have very easily been as deep as Indepedence Day, Godzilla, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon and I know this is going to piss a bunch of people here off, but yes... like Attack of the Clones. But its not, even with its flaws (and yes, both LOTR movies have them), Jackson treated the material and characters seriously. The only other movie in recent history that did the same in an Action/Fantasy genre was Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (which IMHO is as close to being a perfect movie in that genre as we are ever likely to see again). Jackson didn't set out to rack up a huge special effects budget just for the sake of doing it (ID4 for example), he set out to make a serious movie that happened to be in a fantastical setting. The special effects served his story (like Alien, Aliens, T2, Titanic), instead of the other way around (like AOTC, ID4, PH, JP 1, 2 & 3). Even in the areas where he may have misstepped, its still a tremendous and I would agree, a historic effort. Are they the best movies ever made? Hell no... I doubt the like of Citizen Kane, Ben-Hur, Casablanca and The Godfather 1 & 2 will ever be dethroned. But these movies are historic for many reasons. - Drakkir Out ... Peace.
-
Isnt BE 2 coming out soon, i am a very big fan of the first one and have waited for the sequel for 3 years.
The adventures of young terl might sound like a good name for a prequel.
Maybe George Lucas can make it or Michael Bay i love explosion and action. No drama.
Roland Emmerich. -
Jerry Fuckheimer and George Lucas can join to make BE2...
it would do justice to them -
At TheOneRing.net -- 6950 votes: 74.2% Oh!MY!GOD! I'm speechless; 16% Good but FOTR was better. That's 90.2% who liked it. *** 3681 reviews posted! Averare rating: 4.5 rings out of 5!
-
I can handle some changes to plot line, I understand the limitations of translating the TTT from book to screen, so I walked into the theater willing to be understanding. But... Fundamental changes to characters(Faramir and Theoden) is another thing entirely. And to kill Celeborn?!?!?! TTT is not some summer potboiler that can be changed at a whim. It carries a wieght that deserves respect. I can only hope these drastic changes will make sense in RoTK, because as it is now, I am befuddled and upset. And lest I be accused of being a Tolkien purist, let me note I loved the FoTR and understood and accepted the neccessary alteration to transform it from the book to the screen. But the changes to TTT appear senseless. Oh well, maybe the extended DVD will unravel this mess...
-
Ok, I am so fucking redfaced, it not Celeborn. Let the well deserved abuse beging!
-
Tiny typo of yours - they killed Haldir, not Celeborn. That wasn't a change I had a problem with. Haldir wasn't essential to the storyline and killing him off made it more evident just how dangerous Helm's Deep was. Even the leader of the elves could be killed. None of the key characters at Helm's Deep die. To drive home the peril, they introduced a new, non-essential key character and killed him. They chose one we were familiar with so they didn't have to add backstory to let us know who the guy was. I prefer the Faramir of the books but I understand why he was changed. They wanted for Faramir to have character growth and so they started him off a bit closer to Boromir. Then in ROTK, when he becomes the Faramir we all knew from the books, there will have been a progression. I don't know if that was *necessary* but I'm not up in arms. If they had started Faramir off closer to Pippin, I might have had a problem!
-
Juat wanted to wish a Happy Christmas to everyone at Aint-it-cool and to all the posters!!!! (even those ass-wipes who slag off great films just cos it seems a fun thing to do -hehe)
-
I'm gonna watch TTT for a third time on Monday (WOOHOOO!!!!!!!) and at the moment I'm in an excellent mood cos I'm just watching a new episode of Malcolm in the Middle (very funny), I'm onto my fith beer and I aint got work for 2 weeks!!! Ahh....I love XMAS!!!!!!!
-
First of all, I'm beginning to change my mind about this movie after hearing some of the arguments; the first time I saw it, I didn't try to analyze the changes as I was watching, I just let the film wash over me AS a film, and enjoyed the hell out of it...on my second viewing, I took the criticisms I had read on this talkback in with me, and didn't like it as much...after reading some of your arguments in defense of PJ's changes, and after dwelling on the movie a little more, I'm beginning to think that my first reaction was the RIGHT one, and that if I go see the movie again I'll probably enjoy it more...which I plan on doing next weekend.*******I don't think I mind the ending as much anymore, and I've also decided that I actually LIKE what PJ has done with Faramir (blasphemy). I agree with what another talkbacker said about how Sauron is now going to think that the Ring is going to Minas Tirith. I like that PJ emphasized the corruption of Man. Some said that, while Boromir is supposed to represent the flaws in Man, Tolkien's Faramir is supposed to represent the GOOD qualities in Man...but I think what PJ has done still works, because the good qualities of Men are already represented in Aragorn.*******Ok, now about Arwen... My theory is that you're supposed to THINK she's going to Valinor, but she's really not. Elrond gives her that pissed look as she's leaving as a hint to the audience that he suspects she's up to something. We all know (at least, those of us who've been following the production) that Arwen was going to be at Helm's Deep but her scenes were cut because the fans were making such a big deal of it. I think she DID step out of line, sneak off, and go to Helm's Deep (with Narsil, maybe, tucked secretly in her bag). If you look at the pictures inside the booklet that comes with the soundtrack, you'll see a pic of Arwen at what looks like it could be Helm's Deep (cuz there is a statue of a human, not an elf). I think there will be a flashback in RotK showing all this.
-
Dec 22, 2002 2:38:03 PM CST
raged out... I'm with you. And a bit on the not-quite-classic L
by dorfer
raged out, I will not address your comments specifically since elanor was kind enough to write over 3,000 words in response. Instead, I'd just like to mention how refreshing it is to read a level-headed post by someone who actually liked the movie but didn't undergo a life-altering experience. I had a similar reaction to The Two Towers. I felt it was one of the most visually stunning movies I've ever seen. But, as much as I wanted to feel moved by it, I was left relatively flat. I enjoyed seeing the movie and will see it again because I know I'll at least enjoy the sensory experience. Perhaps a second viewing will inspire more of an emotional response to the characters. ******* The relative ease by which people are elevating the LOTR trilogy to "best of all time" status (before it has even concluded, mind you) is hilarious. The greatest of movies were not simply born. They had to withstand several viewings over time. They had to remain somewhat socially relevant over years so that people would still feel the need to return to them for some reason. Will the struggles within the LOTR still be accessible to the viewers for years to come. Will future films be compared to the LOTR's cinematic scope and storytelling? That remains to be seen. Personally, I think The Two Towers fails in some storytelling categories. Many critics panned Blade Runner when it was released. Now it is a movie to which so many sci-fi movies are compared. It takes time to build a classic. --d
-
"... BY WHICH ALL FORTHCOMING FILMS OF WONDER WILL BE MEASURED..." is the exact quote I used, I believe, "FILMS OF WONDER" being the distinction I stipulated. Please, do not let rage cloud your otherwise thoughtful criticism. And, of course, I remember Star Wars. I was there in May of '77, Menlo Park, N.J. when I first saw Star Wars. I was old enough to pay adult admission (though, in truth, young enough looks wise to pay the $3.00 children's price). And I very clearly remember the full impact that movie had on me, as it did every one of my circle of friends. The first time I saw Star Wars will always, ALWAYS! be one of the finest, fondest memories (cinematic or otherwise) of my lifetime. Times change, though, people change, and attitudes towards every facet of life may change. Yet nothing will change my debt of gratitude owed George Lucas. Quotes strewn about like "SW is dead, long live LOTR" are ludicrous, to be sure. Mere bait to those less secure in their love of the Republic and it's starry universe. I shall always respect Lucas' accomplishment, but... the gauntlet HAS passed hands, Raged Out. Make no mistake, I will always love Star Wars and Empire and even, on a lesser scale, RotJ. Nevertheless, Peter Jackson's devotion towards the fantasy genre's preeminent paradigm, the 7+ years of intense planning and conceiving of the work, the respect & restraint he's used in characterising not only the inhabitants of Middle Earth, but also Middle Earth itself (a VERY potent character as reprented by Treebeard and the Ents' stone crushing rampage of Isengard), is all there on the screen for movie-goers to see and marvel at, now and for generations to come. And, as I once did with Lucas' work, I whole heartedly embrace PJ's rendition of this critical moment in Arda's history. ******* All records are made to be broken, whether that record be ticket sales or a fan camp's devotion. No doubt, some day Jackson's worthy work may be surpassed by another as the new milestone in cinematic wonder. Till then, my praise remains gushingly emotional, whilst the analytical portion of that praise waits till I fall back to earth. I am that happy to see films being made that are as wonderous as that one that so impressed me "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." We are of the same breed, Raged Out, devotees of fantastic film. I admire your passion. Best regards.
-
I love this this site its so classically American in its thought process. All you do is put up your shouty shouty opinion and then the next person comes along ignores it completely and writes what they think. No constructive argument no nothing. You are all G W Bush
-
Geez I just went out and got FOTR on DVD. Feeling slightly obsessed at this point
-
I really wanted to hear Faramir say that. I wanted to see Faramir be the better man. Instead he was portrayed as a rerun of Boromir. However, that was my only disappointment with an otherwise brilliant movie. I'm looking forward to the extended version with maybe more Merry, Pippin and ents, as well as maybe a reedit of the Faramir sequence.
-
And since I don't care about the negative press (which, in the case of this movie, there is little), I am going to give myself some time here to gush about the best movie I have seen in a long time: Peter Jackson's The Two Towers. Why would I call it Peter Jackson's? Because the unique vision of Jackson's visual style coupled with the imagry of the original Tolkien artists has made a palpable and real (to me, at least) world that I don't mind visiting at all. But, here's the rub: In watching this movie now, I have put myself in the same position as I was last year around this time. HUNGRY for the next movie. Only this time, I know even more of what happens. This film was a master craft, something in cinema that hasn't been seen since the Matrix; A heart and soul within the film itself. The creator of the film loved the source material, and with every single frame, the love of Tolkien's Middle Earth shows. I sat with a sense of wonder watching this film, and as the second chapter, it soon became my favorite all time sequel. Now, I view this as the middle part of a bigger movie, and you can bet your ass that I will sit down and watch all three of these in a row (DAMN YOU HARRY AND YOUR FOO-FOO DOUBLE FEATURE! SO JEALOUSSSSS!) when I own them all on DVD. But for now, I have patience and understanding that not all of the story is told yet...Things are being set up for the final picture...and I want to say something about myself that I am proud of. I am an American with a sense of scope and understanding, but moreover, I understand the value of prudence and patience, rather than the 'insta-quick, value meal' culture we seem to be fomenting here. I am not going to make more assumptions about the haters of this film. Because it doesn't really matter where you're from...Without a sense of perspective and patience, these films won't interest you. Without a sense of clear 'RIGHT' and 'WRONG', these films hold nothing for you. Without a heart...These films aren't interesting at all. You take from that whatever you like. I know that I love both films, and was COMPLETELY blown away by this film. And this film's ending was reminiscent of the ending of Empire Strikes Back...many questions and few answers.******************************************BLATANT THEORIZING FOLLOWS*************************My guess about the folks so negative about this film is because it is based on a book that many people are familiar with. They 'own' the book in a sense, because the story unfolds in their heads, and the voices and characters are how they see them in their mind's eye. So, when someone's vision doesn't match their own internal 'true' vision, they get a sense of schism that doesn't allow them to let go that control of the story. And that leads to the misery of deconstruction, to make their own view 'true', and this presented view 'false'. Just a thought.*****************************I leave you with the words of my Great-uncle Henry Eurich, who fought in World War II.."My father said 'Son, when you go to Germany to fight, you may be killing your own family, you may shoot at your own people.' And I said to him, I will do it. Because what they do is wrong." And I cried when I saw the last charge of the king and Aragorn, and them riding against what seemed like insurmountable odds, because dammit, I think about my uncle's part in that war, and know he would have done the same thing. And that is heart.
-
Elanor, I'll answer some of your points. I felt more sympathy for Gollum in the movie than in the book, and I thought that was a good thing. ***Tolkein may not have written LOTR to be pompous, but I find some of the language to be that way. It's just an opinion. ***Because I didn't laugh much during the movie and didn't feel all that moved is exactly why I feel the series has little or no soul. It is exactly for those reasons that I have this opinion. I'm not telling you that you should feel the movies have no soul. I'm saying I don't feel any soul in them while watching them. Is that okay? ***About knowing how it all ends... I guess I rue the fact that there isn't a shock to be had in LOTR. I think back to the Star Wars OT. I had no clue what was coming next, and that really did it for me. Heartfelt surprise? The relationship between Luke and Vader, for one. Nothing like that can occur in Jackson's movies. I guess my senses are dulled by having read LOTR, I know how this tale ends. That diminishes the effect of the movies for me. Whether that's fair or not is irrelevant, it's how I feel. Many greater kudos to those that create the story AND the movie, not just the movie. ***Apologies, Elanor, for using words like 'us', that was stupid, I meant 'me'. Reason says I should like TTT more than I do, given the types of movies that I enjoy. But I don't feel it. As for why... The smartest thing in your post talks about desperation in the naysayers. I'll talk only for myself. I am indeed bothered that I don't love this series. I should, and I don't. Maybe I'm jealous of all the people who have found the heart of these movies and found it to be wonderful. But I personally don't feel that way. That makes me a little sad, and somewhat jealous. Maybe that makes me be more critical than I should be. Whatever the case, I don't feel any love for these movies, and that's where I stand. ***I completely believe Harry has a wonderful passion for films. I repsect him for both his passion and his knowledge. But that doesn't mean he isn't in someone's pocket. Anyway, I'll have that suspicion until he says that I'm wrong. ***So the movie points... the olympic torch runner was indeed funny, but not in a good way. During a crucial moment in the battle, I can't see Peter Jackson intentionally inserting something so silly. ***Didn't hear in the movie Gandalf discussing the fate of Merry and Pippin, must have missed that. ***Comic relief is great, but not from a character who should be more than just that. Gimli has been marginalized, I don't take the character seriously any more. ***The small force fighting insurmoutable numbers is a hallmark of big action movies and very exciting. However, I already knew that the people in Helm's Deep were fighting overwhelming numbers. Did two people really have to leave the fortresss and take on hundreds just to prove this point and to reaffirm that they are heroic figures? It was a bit much, and totally unnecessary. I already felt these characters were heroic. ***As for the romance, all I'm saying is that it's there for the sake of being there. It's not integral to the story, and it feels that way. Tolkein, as you say, didn't feel it was necessary in the book. But Jackson has put it in there because movies have to have romance. The use of Liv Tyler on the movie posters is proof of this. By the way, I don't want to bash Jackson for this, it's true to the economics of moviemaking, and he probably had no choice in the matter. ***Tolkein's elves don't bore me, Jackson's do. Okay? Elrond's motivations, okay, whatever. Somehow, we had to believe there was a reason for the elves to show up at Helm's Deep, so all that stuff is in there to get us to that point. Maybe in essence I'm arguing that the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep was a poor choice, because it forced Jackson to create dull backstory. What would the movie have suffered if the elves didn't show up at Helm's Deep and we didn't have to hear elvish conversations about why they have to help humans? I don't think anything would have been lost. ***Aragorn's fall a hero's journey, eh? You don't want to know how much I love Christ imagery in movies... Maybe if I were working on a doctorate, I'd be able to understand it all, but I don't. Your explanation feels like an attempt to justify what can't be justified from a normal non-doctorate perspective on understanding movies. ***Aragorn didn't have to be the one spotting the enemy army, as you say. I'm sure Theoden had scouts out and about, too. Aragorn doesn't have to do every little important thing, does he? ***Funny that you should think I'm obsessing over this movie, when I'm just giving an opinion and explaining it. Hey, I already told you I liked the movie a lot. But I won't cannonize it. ***Sam's little speech was embarrassing, I don't care how well it was delivered. ***I wish Peter Jackson the best, that's all. I respect him for what he's done, even if I don't like everything he's done. ***Hey Elanor, one last time, I'm not telling you how to feel about the movie. I'm telling you how I feel. I'm stating an opinion. It's okay to disagree. It's stupid to insist that one's own opinion should be everyone else's. The movie entertained me and I enjoyed it, that's enough for me. You got more out of it, and that's great for you. We're all happy, I think. ***Butch, your point is taken. I'm totally glad that you feel the torch is being passed, you're right, records are meant to be broken. Like I said, wish I felt that way, but I really don't. At the very least, you convince me to go see the movie again sometime soon, so I think I will, and I'll try to be totally open and let it work some magic on me. ***Drakkir, I'll give you the historic claim, for whatever it's worth. It takes more than a historic label to get me to love a movie, though. Jurassic Park was historic, wasn't it? Good movie, but I don't love it. Anyway, I know these movies have touched and moved many people, and I'm happy for them. Anyway, a question, now that you bring up your wife's feelings on the movie... How many non-geeks are calling these two movies so far the greatest thing ever? I watched this movie with my wife, who is definitely not a geek. She liked it, but that's all. Would I be wrong in saying that these movies appeal most to the geek crowd? Anyway, this post is overlong, I'm done.
-
Harry says " it scares me, because I get the genuine sense of worry that I
-
Well jeez. What can we say? If movies like Chicago and Moulin rouge (You know, guys dressing up as women, All that SHOW TIME LISA MINELLI HOMO SHIZ is your thing then so be it.
-
Dec 22, 2002 4:44:04 PM CST
YOU ARE A FUCKIN MORON IF YOU DID ABSOLUTLY LOVE THIS FRIGGIN E
by juxtapoze
This movie , i think , was perfect in all ways. i mean im a big fan of tolkien yread the all the books a couple of times and i didnt find 1 ,no, not 1 reason for anybody to complain. MMMMAybe if you hadnt read the books it ight have been a liitttle confusing, but as a whole just a spectacular movie with awesome pacing and acting. SO FUCJ ANYBODY WHO IS GIVING THIS MOVIE A NEGATIVE TALKBACK.
-
i rest my cast
-
God, get lives you pathetic Hobbit humpers. A bottle of Nyquil would be a cheaper sleep aid than this drivel. And while you're at it, take a shower for christ's sake. The theater I saw LOTR in smelled worse than the gamer's room at Gencon. And Harry? Maybe you need to replace that animation with one that's closer to the truth: One in which you're licking Peter Jackson's balls instead of a bowling ball.
-
1. What you talking about 0007; Helms deep rocked! It couldnt be better. 2. If Gollum doesn't at least get best supporting actor he better get some sort of honarary award. 3. I dind't read the review because it was too intimidatingly long.
-
I disliked the whole Farmir being evil thing too, but I am geussing that in the third film Denthor will curse him releasing the hobbits and once again sort of make things work. Of course I havent read the bokks for over an year...
-
Seen TTT yesterday, and was completely blown away, etc etc. I'd really like to comment on this Yoda/Gollum debate. Seems some of our America cousins think that Yoda was a better piece of CG than Yoda in TTT. You guys have either not seen TTT or you are just plain FUCKING OUT OF YOUR HEAD. I couldn't stop laughing when I read those comments.
Yoda was an ok ILM effect, but you could tell it was CGI. Gollum on the other hand, well Gollum is in another league altogether. Gollum is MOTION PICTURE HISTORY. I mean it. Go see the movie for yourselves, 'cause you owe it to yourselves to see at least one great movie this year.
Gollum was the most amazing thing I've seen in movies for a long time, the first ever truly believeable CG character. My brain is still trying to digest what my eyes fed to it yesterday. Whatever New Line are paying those guys at WETA, believe me, it ain't enough. -
I think you are mistaken. I've seen the film three times and I paid special attention to that scene on my two last viewings. Rohirrim can't come out because the gate is blocked, the reason why Aragorn and Gimli go there in the first place is that the people inside can block even the last holes in the gate. However, the scene is beliavable in a sense because the bridge is narrow and only 3-4 uruk-hai at maximum can attack Aragorn and Gimli at a time. I don't think they have difficulties in fighting against 3-4 enemies.
-
really is motion picture history, isnt he? thinking back, I found nothing wrong, everything right. next!
-
Hey Raged Out, nice of you to respond. Your point is well taken, especially about JP. It was a historic movie in that it showed that CGI could be effectively applied to organic creatures. (T2 of course was the first aggressive use of CGI.) Also, the love my wife has for this movie is purely anecdotal evidence and I stated that caveat in my previous post. But, clearly she is not the only one. Just head over to the Metacritic and RottenTomatoes websites and the general consensus is that TTT accomplished its goals and is greatly loved. Does that alone make it a great (or even historic movie)? No of course not, and neither do academy awards or box office receipts. As another poster put it, history is the best judge of the effectiveness of a film. However, everything I see is telling me that these two movies (since none of us have seen the third) have raised the bar. I loved the movies and I'm pleased that many, many, many, many others seem to enjoy it as much as I did. But when it comes right down to it, whether or not you enjoy a movie is a very personal experience. I'm sure we all have so-called "guilty-pleasure" movies that we can objectively watch and know royally suck, but love them anyway. For example, many people love "The Black Hole", but we all know sucks bad. (For the record, I love it, but I'm not ignorant of its shortcomings). Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, and even if you didn't enjoy it as much as many of us had, that doesn't make you a second class citizen or us crazy. My enjoyment of the film is mine alone and its not affected by what other people think. However, discussions about movies is why we are all here. So I enjoy this dialogue. -Drakkir out ... Peace!
-
Wanna read a review made by a troll? Yes, the same kind as we find in these talkbacks everyday. Anyone read last year FOTR review by Alex Sandell, from JuicyCerebellum.com? Well, this year he did it again. He's calling TTT "least entertaining sequel to an event film this side of, Men in Black II". Go check it out, it's quite funny, but it made me kinda angry at the guy.
-
I just saw it and have to agree that while gollum was good, he wasn't as good as the hype. Yes the motion capture was excellent. I totally agree on that. But the animation of the face was... well comical. Those of you who are angry about audience members laughing during the smeagol/gollum inner fight are out of your minds. It was funny! Not intentionally. But the facial expressions were funny. And I'm not sure why you would ever try to defend a film against its audience. If the audience laughed then there was obviously something in the film that made them laugh. And if Peter Jackson didn't want that reaction there, then when he goes back to re-edit it for a directors cut, he better figure out what specifically made them laugh and CHANGE IT! This of course is assuming that he didn't want a laugh there, which from the rest of the yuk-yuks in the movie, may not be the case.
So gollum, best CGI ever. Maybe. But perfect, or a quantum leap over what has come before? No. -
Dec 22, 2002 6:25:40 PM CST
Here's what I tell friends when their favorite books are adapted
by orange bat
-
Dec 22, 2002 6:37:00 PM CST
Here's what I tell friends when their favorite books are adapted
by orange bat
You MUST leave previous biases at the door and judge the movie on its own merits. Okay, Faramir thinks about taking the ring. That didn't happen in the book, but it is important that the good guys are ALL TEMPTED to use the ring. This conveys the ring's true power over EVERYBODY to an audience that may have never read the books. Arwen's story is the one that I think is the BEST change from the book. Her story resolves itself in the third book out of NO WHERE!! She just appears, for NO REASON!! If you can't get over the fact that movies are NOT the books retold EXACTLY, then just read the books again and forget the "blasphemous" movies!! Don't put yourself through this hell. No matter what naysayers say about this movie, it is considered GOOD by too many people at this point. I feel bad for any one who goes into a movie with expectations and biases and cannot enjoy a movie. You know you have these expectations and biases if you are REALLY excited to see a movie. I recommend waiting a couple days to calm down THEN go see it. Once you're past your problems, then you can see a film for what it really is. I think that if you've seen this one twice ALREADY and still don't like it, you need to re-evaluate why you go to movies like this. I sure wouldn't see a movie twice that I'm SURE wasn't good the first time. Especially not in the same weekend.
-
I'm not being a troll here, but I was just on a chat room and a few people were talking about how some Mental Health Groups are campaigning on web sites because they say Gollun is making fun of the mentally ill.
-
This movie is superb. I'm not saying it's the greatest film I have ever seen but it is not far off (I'm waiting on Return Of The King). I had only read the lord of the rings trilogy recently and comparing the books to the films is ridiculous. For those who do, What's the problem? He adapted it into a more linear story. If you tried to do an exact replica of the books it would be utter garbage. It would either be rushed (like the badly done cartoon) or overlong, which was the complaint of the Harry Potter adaptations. Simply going through like a shopping list and ticking off each scene shows no imagination and no bravery as a film maker. Peter Jackson, it seems to me, has gone in and chosen only to tell the important pieces of the story, Aragorn's tale and the journey of the ring. Those are vital. Everything else is background. The books mythology is what makes the book what it is today, but the main story that gets people into seats for a movie are aragorn and the ring. Your average cinema goer doesn't care about history and myths at Xmas, they want to be entertained, they want a story that keeps you hooked. They want grand effects and moments that make the hairs on the back of your neck rise. Once you stary to far from the actual story confusion rears it's ugly head. Two of my friends who haven't read anything to do with hobbits went into these movies cold, one loved the first movie and the second, the other disliked the first but enjoyed the second and is getting the first for xmas on dvd. They both got lost with the arwen/elves stuff and this hammered home, to me, how important it is to cater for the audience that hasn't read the books.
(Return Of The King Spoilers Beware)
I am fascinated to see how the 3rd installment is edited together. I assume the Aragorn story will be squashed quite heavily, and the bulk of the action will be handed to Frodo and Sam after having their story cut down in the two towers. I can see Return Of The King causing a lot of anger amongest tolkien purists but as a cinema goer I am looking forward to the grandeur, drama and plain old fantasy adventure storytelling that Peter Jackson is able to deliver. Bold, a landmark in cinema, everything you want from an event movie and this is one that has been made in my lifetime. We should be honoured because there is nothing else around at the moment that even comes close. I am a huge Star Wars fan and when you finally get a film that you can compare with star wars, (Star Wars is fantasy not sci-fi, A Long Time Ago In Galaxy Far..../Once upon a time in a land far .......anyone??????) you have to acknowledge which is better. Sit back and say it out loud, Lord Of The Rings is better than Star Wars, see it feels good. No-one else heard you say it, only you know the truth. Obviously I'm talking to the Star Wars/Lord Of The Rings fans who can't decide. If you hate either set of films then you won't care what some guy from England thinks about crappy hobbits and ewoks. No-one may care and isn't reading right now but for what it is worth watching Lord Of The Rings strengthened my belief in fantasy films of this nature. Something that only seemed to happen in the 1980s is back with a bang and the imitators will be coming out in force, only one stands up to be counted as the most important film of our generation. -
No, Gollum/Smeagol isn't making fun of the mentally ill. For starters, I'm not sure it counts as a mental illness if the voices in your head are real. Also Gollum isn't there just to be laughed at. He can be funny but he is also pitiable. Smeagol used to be hobbit-like and the ring destroyed him. Gollum is a tragic character. He's very necessary for the plot too - if you missed it, he says he's going to betray Frodo and Sam to "her". "She" will kill them and he'll take the ring, since he can't bring himself to kill them personally. I think most of us know who/what "she" is but I don't want to ruin it if you don't. The ring's power is internal and external. Part of it lies with the weakness of the individual and part of it is an outside manipulation. Gollum is it's victim. So, trying to wrap this up, Gollum isn't there to mock the mentally ill. He's too damn complex for that. And tragic.
-
That's going to be the main topic of choice next year among this community. Check this article out: http://www.msnbc.com/news/850165.asp?cp1=1. Trolls, gashers, and intellects get your ammos ready. (note: Star Wars fans, sorry you won't be in on the conversation/debate anymore next year).
-
Dec 22, 2002 7:48:40 PM CST
You knew it was coming!! Gollum for Best Supporting Actor Petiti
by wonderboys
Go and sign!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/gollum/petition.html -
Dec 22, 2002 7:49:32 PM CST
"Star Wars fans, sorry you won't be in on the conversation/debat
by qwerty uiop
I'm not.
-
Elanor:I'm in a much calmer mood now, thank you very much. Love the story about the dead dog! Well, I have just gone and tried to revive my former pet, scooping his guts back inside him and listening patiently for the sound of a heatbeat. But it didn't work. He's dead and the second look confirms it. In fact he looks deader than I had previously thought! But, I'll spare you a blow-for-blow post mortum and instead go and bury my ol' pal for good. And that'll be the end for me on this site. No doubt this talkback will go on for years, but I will have fallen out of it. Which means that I am going now. I wish you all a very fond farewell. Goodbye.
-
At the beginning of the film,when Gandalf and the Balrog fell down the chasm - they fell through a ceiling into what appeared to be an underground sea. Just as they were about to hit, we got the flash back to Frodo, who was apparently dreaming. Later when Gandalf retold his story of the fight to Aragorn and company, we saw him strike down the Balrog at the top of the mountain - just like it said in the book. My question is - Did they really fall into an underground sea? And if so, wouldn't you assume that the Balrog's flame would be put out? Wouldn't that have killed it?
I do not recall if he was still flaming on the mountaintop, but I think it was still in flames.
Any feedback? How about you Harry? -
In the book, the Blarog returned to some kind of slime creature thingee-ma-jig, if I remember right. Then they fight all the way up the mountain. Of course, thats it the book, not the movie. In the movie, I assumed they were just going for continuity of character design or something.
-
Dec 22, 2002 9:25:36 PM CST
Speaking of books adapted into movies, "Gangs of New York" is th
by neutral_density
Here is a film that relies on a personal story to drive (and tell) a larger historical story. After watching this film, I felt as though I really had my money's worth. It does not rely on special effects, it is a strong story that provides a visceral history lesson. If Daniel Day Lewis doesn't win an Oscar for his performance, I would be speechless. I found the battle sequences far more thrilling and easier to watch than TTT. I found myself actually caring about the characters, and the pacing of the battle and violent sequences in the film to be right on the money and absolutely breathtaking. Martin Scorcese's multi-layered filmmaking is present in every single one of the shots. I will not give out any spoilers, but when Harry gives his review of GONY I will talk about the symbolism in the film. There have been only a few films I have walked out of that genuinely made me so happy as to put a smile on my face. This was one of them. It is a finely crafted piece of cinema that relies on the power of performance. For example, when I was watching the film, there were some restless teenagers punching themselves in their seats in front of us. Then came a scene, which was one take of Daniel Day Lewis (Bill the Butcher) telling Leonardo DiCaprio (Amsterdam Vallon) about how he ended up with a marble eye. Those teenagers actually stopped fooling around and watched. You could have dropped a pin in the theatre, and still have been able to hear it. The power of performance with sharply defined characters that are not only characters, but symbols within a larger socio-political story made this film so satisfying. This is what was missing from TTT for me. Scenes which allowed me to get to know the characters on many different levels. I didn't need flash or bang, just good performances which dictated the cinematography and editing. In this sense, it is quite a pure humanist drama. Also, unlike TTT, there is no clearly defined antagonist or protagonist. It is a real thinking person's film, because nobody is completely good or bad. Yet, at the same time, the story and the performances are so good and well executed, this dissonance does not matter. You find yourself really invested in these characters. In summary, "Gangs of New York" is my "Lord of the Rings".
-
People here who have picked up on dodgy moments on the film. Do we know for sure if Peter Jackson was there on those days? Given all the pickups that took place was he/is he trying to tidy up?
Also, this is going to be hard to answer I reckon but I'll give it a go. Does anyone know if the Gollum conversation with himself is available on the internet somewhere, hidden away in the fires of mou....whatever. I know it sounds sad but I just loved it all. It was precious to me...I have to stop this and get a life.
Quick! -
Weekend of December 20-22
1/0 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers $61.5/$101.5
2/0 Two Weeks Notice $14.4/$14.4
3/1 Maid in Manhattan $11.0/$35.5
4/0 Gangs of New York $9.1/$9.1
5/3 Drumline $7.6/$22.8
6/0 The Wild Thornberrys Movie $6.1/$6.1
7/5 The Hot Chick $4.5/$13.7
8/6 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets $4.4/$228.9
9/2 Star Trek: Nemesis $4.4/$26.4
10/4 Die Another Day $4.0/$138.4 -
OUCH!
-
Hey about the Balrog. If I remember correctly they did land in the water in the book and the Balrog was extinquished.. They the Balrog made it's way to the top of the mountain trying to escape and Gandalf followed, knowing he'd never find his own way out if he didn't. They continued to duel on top of the Mountain as you saw in the film and Gandalf killed the beast.. The balrog did reignite (if that's a word) during the final battle though. I'm hoping to see more of this in the extended edition.
-
Yes, indeedy.
-
Hey, thanks for pointing out something very important for us all, Dolmes. There is a huge difference between people who talk about their opinion and people who feel that their opinion should be crammed down everyone else's throats. This talkback is full of both kinds of viewpoints. I'll tell you who really knows the truth. It's you. You know the truth. No one else. Please tell us how to feel on the topic of movies or anything else for that matter. You know, how about just stating your opinion and why you feel that way? Instead of telling us what we so secretly feel but refuse to admit? Seriously, if there is anything like a healthy debate about TTT going on in here, you set it back by piping up with crap like that. Give it a rest. Why even compare with Star Wars? Two different trilogies from two different times, sure they're both fantasy, but one's existence doesn't demean the other's excellence. How about saying something useful instead? I know you can do it, if you really try.
-
Like many of you, I was disappointed by TTT, much more strongly than I thought possible. I went in really expecting to love it. Parts of it I really liked - Gollum primarily. I have to see it again, because I had a similar, though less strong response to FOTR. In that case, I enjoyed the movie much more after the first viewing. I'm hoping something similar happens here.
I really didn't have a problem with most of the changes, Treebeard being the only exception (not how he looked, which I liked, but his character). What I did have a problem with was the fact that within the movie, as presented, either everyone had to be a moron, or things simply didn't make sense logically.
Let's start with Treebeard. Assuming PJ wanted to appeal to all viewers, not just readers of LOTR, I see where he could make the decision to "change" the Ent nature from being old and wise to old and apathetic, safe, in their own little world. For readers this is a tough change to accept because Treebeard, as presented in the book, is such a great character. If we can get by that, we still have a problem. PJ cut off the Ents actions from Gandalf, and Helm's Deep. That throws a huge hole into the plot.
In the book, there were 1,000 or so infantry at Helm's Deep and a 1,000 or so of Eomer's cavalry. At the end, as dawn breaks, Gandalf arrives with another 1,000 of Erkenbrand's infantry from the west, while the Huorns have appeared miraculously (and terrifyingly) behind the Orcs. At this time time, 900 or so cavalry, led by Theoden and Aragorn rush out of the Hornburg with such force that they drive the orcs back to the dike. This fairly large mass of people (1,900 or so), as well as the fear of the Huorns is what let to the retreat and destruction of Saruman's army.
In the movie, they never make it clear how many cavalry there are, but it looked like only 5 or 6 people rode out of the Hornburg - King Theoden with the Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas and a couple others. We don't know how many Elves, but they walked in I believe - no horses.
Gandalf did appear with 2,000 cavalry, but without the Huorns, it would just be another big fight - nothing to force Saruman's army to retreat. So, why the big turn of the tide.
BTW, a lot of people have complained about the scene where Aragorn and Gimli hold off the Orcs on the bridge in front of the Hornburg. That is not that different than the books. Aragorn, Eomer and a few other men do the same, with Gimli behind them. Don't forget that Aragorn is nearly superhuman in the books in terms of battle prowess. There are several scenes where just him appearing with Anduril in hand dismays the Orcs, so, I can buy that scene.
BTW2, I'm also assuming that the reason he does not have the re-forged Narsil yet in the films is because Arwen will bring it to him in ROTK, proving her love by not "sailing west". I certainly hope they don't have Arwen assume Eowyn role in ROTK - definitely within the realm of possibility.
Another big logical problem: Treebard tells Merry and Pippin that he will take them to the "White Wizard". Obviously, this is thrown in to make you question which "side" Treebeard is on. As it turns out, that is Gandalf. Well, what exactly would Gandalf have said to them "Oh, yes, they are in fact Hobbits. Well, I have to go. Hope we meet again some day". It makes that meeting ridiculous. What are we supposed to think happened there? What did the screenwriters think happened there?
Later, when Treebeard offers to let Merry and Pippin go so they can "return home to the Shire", Merry and Pippin talk as if it's a possibility. Wait a minute - what about the rest of the fellowship. They're just going to walk home, and hope things turn out OK for the others??!! I found that very infuriating. BTW, I don't have my Atlas of ME in front of me, but I think they were somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand miles from home, so how did they plan to get there anyway? This is one of those spots where you have to ask if PJ and the screen writers actually read the book.
It would have been very easy to make these scenes work exactly like the book. Treebeard repeats the same lines when he sees the cut trees that he says in the books when he first meets M & P, when he's telling them of Saruman's treachery. So, somebody new where that occurred in the book.
The one other problem I had was Frodo reaction to the ring. I know we are supposed to see Frodo in a "pre-Gollum" mode, but that was way overdone. We cold figure it out without such a blatant roadmap. That level of control over him shouldn't occur until much later.
Finally, I do have to say I didn't have as big a problem with Faramir as most. I loved the character in the book, and the movie waaaaay simplified him. But, as I see it, he didn't "succumb" to the ring, he just was acting as a good soldier. I think they did a very poor job of writing those scenes with any dialog that had real power. Sam's speech was very lame, and the scene where Frodo kind of scrambled off like Gollum - oh, please.
Now, a couple of questions:
I don't see how they can wrap everything up in ROTK. They have so much left to do unless they radically change things again. They have to meat with Saruman, get the Palantir, go through the Paths of the Dead, get the Riders of Rohan on their way to Minis Tirith, fight Shelob, escape from the Tower of Cirith Ungol, etc. I just don't see it.
Since Frodo has already had the "mini-fight" with Sam, what happens when Sam has the ring? Wasn't that almost the same scene? Does that mean we won't have that whole scene? Is it possible both Sam and Frodo defeat Shelob and we won't have the entire Tower of Cirith Ungol scene (yechhh!!!)?
Now, as a final Christmas wish, I must ask the following: If anyone out there actually has some connection to PJ and or the screenwriters, PLEASE beg them to scrape up any film for the EE of TTT that restores Treebeard to his true nature. Or, get the WETA guys back on the computers and make Treebeard an Ent again. That's all I ask. -
God willing, there will be no more "reviews" of The Two Towers on aintitcool.com. It has brought out the stupidity in most talkbackers. People pitting films against each other like prize fighters or their favorite sports teams. People quoting box office grosses to back their opinions. People blindly lauding one franchise as classic and perfect while, for some reason, feeling the need to denigrate another franchise. I've been looking for some interesting commentary here and I feel cheated in that I can't wade through the shit fast enough to find any. I don't even want to begin to imagine what 2003 holds for these forums with Matrix:Reloaded, X2, T3, ROTK, Daredevil and The Hulk just waiting fuel ridiculous talkbacks. --d PS... I just rented 12 Monkeys again and I still love it. Good stuff.
-
Did anyone else think that the DEAD MARSH scene containing Frodo's fall in the water looked like someting out of Disney's Haunted Mansion. Should have just left it with the dead bodies...AND ANOTHER THING We got a film here with greatest SFX to date, did Jackson spend TOO MUCH MONEY ON GOLLUM and run out for poor Theoden's metamorphosis scene? For christ's sake, that was the WORST POSSIBLE WAY to pull that shot off. Other thatn that everything else held its own.
-
Damn it I wish I could hit enter and actually make paragraphs. :P
****************
First, the cinematography is as great as before. As is the acting. The score was a little bland, but not horrid.
***************
I had a problem with the first Gollum/Smeagol scene. When he is talking to himself and PJ decided to make it look like an actual conversation, it pulled me out of the story. This scene screamed MOVIE!! and hit me on the head several times. Andy Serkis' acting was superb, and I do think he deserves to get nominated. But I think the direction of the first Gollum/Smeagol internal argument was poor judgement.
***************
I did not appreciate Gimli being made the comic relief. A little isn't bad, but constant joking is a bit annoying.
***************
Now, about the book/movie contraversy. I understand when people say that comparing the book to the movie is unfair since they are different types of media, yadda yadda, but it can be difficult when the story you except (and love) is not the story that is told. I think I was partly let down by the movie because of how much it differed from the book. I think after watching it a second time I will be able to enjoy it more. There were certain elements that were changed that were not needed to be changed and actually changed the message of the story because of it. First example, Faramir.
***************
In the original story, Faramir was the mirror image of his brother Boromir. While Faramir was a warrior, he preferred being a scholar. He was a noble man who did not like war. He understood the dangers lurking in the ring and did not want it. Deciding to change this to make him more like Boromir was a detrement to Faramir's character. I can see how this change might have been made as a kind of retribution for Boromir, but I don't think it was necessary.
***************
Frodo and Sam did not need to go all the way in to Gondor and meet up with the Nazgul. It was heavy melodrama unnecessary and just lengthens their journey. The reason that Frodo and Sam's story doesn't end in the same place as it did in the book is because they made it so much longer by dragging them into Gondor.
***************
The elves did NOT go to Helm's Deep. One of the points of Helm's Deep was that the kingdom of man can take care of itself (since the Elves time has ended on Middle Earth). However, I do like the symbolism of one last alliance. As long as elves don't show up in the battle in Return of the King, this isn't a big deal. Also, I was a bit confused about the elf captain. I thought at first this was Celeborn who came to Helm's Deep (and died). When I realized it was Haldir instead, I wasn't as pissed off.
***************
Theodan was not a pussy. He wan't to fight.
***************
I liked Elrond and Arwen's "He will die but you will not" speech, but as far as I can remember, Aragorn never told Arwen to go screw herself so that she could sail West as her father wanted. It may be somewhere in the appendix, I suppose. Again, not that big of a deal, and it help's to justify Aragorn's flirting with Eowyn.
***************
These problems pissed me off, but I think after a second viewing I will be more comfortable with the changes.
-
I have not seen either film and I don't plan to. Why? Because of all you blathering idiots. "It's the greatest film ever and if you don't agree with me then you're retarded." If that's the case, then I AM SAM. You see kiddies, that it's the greatest film ever is your OPINION. It's subjective, not a FACT. Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one (Harry's just happens to be stretched out by serious abuse by PJ.) I HAD planned on seeing the first one a few weeks after it came out, but the constant stream of idiocy coming from this place made me sick of even hearing the name of the film. And it's only getting worse. So it's thanks to you that one potential viewer has been turned off permanently. Shit, if the internet had been around in 1977, I'd probably have given Star Wars a pass. Just remember children: In the end THEY'RE ALL JUST MOVIES!!! (and i'm not just talking LOTR)
-
If you truly refuse to see a movie because of a bunch of immature fanboy reactions, then you are giving their words WAY too much power. If you want to see it, see it. If you don't, don't. But don't pass the "blame" over to this talkback. --d
-
Yeah, I swear, whenever I read these postings I feel like Ogre standing on the balcony of the Alpha Beta frat house in ROTN. I wanna get the whole world chanting at you dildos. Harry's reviews, not to mention writing style sicken me. Seriously Harry, you need to find something else in your life other than gushing adoration for movies. Shit, I had it, but outgrew it in my early twenties. Most movies are fucking woeful, moreso now that Hollywood has become a completely homogenised shit-factory, and its only gonna get worse once the Dept of fucking Fatherland Security gets its tentacles onto things. Why do some of you guys get a hardon for unshaven men uttering excruitatingly pretentious cliche'd dialogue in grave British accents? What is it with slow motion fucking battles scenes. Two or three hits and it's like 'yeah, and? Who gives a fuck, get on with it.' Unfortunately, this movie will be laughed at i the future and all this sad worship in here will be immortalised as a record for future generations to access as they laugh at the quaint film-cult behaviour of the 'Nerrrrrds!' Whatever. I don't care. I'm probably 95% serious, but it doesn't matter to me. Get lives. Get over this scat.
-
I have to say I agree with most of the points you raised (and shared your reaction on first seeing TTT, even though the film improved enormously for me on a second viewing). I am very concerned at the way Frodo has been taken too far, too soon, and I was concerned even before I saw the movie, based on a number of remarks by Peter Jackson about Frodo-as-heroin-addict. When we have seen Frodo actually hold a blade to Sam's throat at this stage - and BARELY stop short of killing him (which is farther than he ever goes in the Tower) - what, then, becomes of the Tower scene? There, Frodo brings Sam to his knees with tears in his eyes merely by lashing out at him VERBALLY - and is utterly horrified, a moment later, to realize he has done so, when he knows what Sam has just done for him. And we share Sam's hurt and Frodo's horror. Will this scene have anything like the power it should? Will it even BE there? (For that matter, since they have already used the dialogue from the Stairs, will we ever see Gollum's "almost caress" of Frodo's knee and Sam's fatal reaction to him "pawing at master"?) Each change begets further changes, and I can hardly imagine Frodo's state inside Mordor, if Ithilien finds him in such a state of possession. In the book, his WILL remains intact to the very Crack of Doom, or he wouldn't have reached it at all. He is increasingly worn down, tormented by the Ring, and focused on it; but he is only irrational when Sam offers to take the Ring, and he can still collect himself quickly to tell Sam that taking it from him would drive him mad - he is not mad yet. Except in these moments, the metaphor always seemed to me one of extreme illness, rather than addition. In Mordor, Frodo lacks the strength to notice that Sam is giving him all the food and most of the water; he collapses each time they halt; he can barely communicate; but his speech is still rational, even as he tells Sam he has lost all memory of other things. In the book, Ithilien was a time of rest and partial recovery, if only for a few hours. In the film, Frodo is pushed even farther over the edge...although he seems to have recovered by the time of his final conversation with Sam. I just wonder where this is heading, and what further changes will be necessary to get there. ***As I posted above, I thought the scene with the Nazgul was simply stunning, especially on second viewing. It's awesome visually and enthralling emotionally, but I don't entirely accept that the logical outcome is that "now the Enemy thinks the Ring is going to Gondor." Wasn't the point supposed to be that Sauron thought the Ring had reached Isengard with the captured hobbits and (with the Palantir) was now in Aragorn's possession? (Which also fit better with the missing scene, where Aragorn is told that Sauron fears him and what he may become - i.e., powerful enough to wield the Ring.) If the Ring was indeed sensed during that scene (and why else would the Nazgul hover directly in front of Frodo?), wouldn't that negate the way both fate and purpose had drawn the Eye north to Isengard - and as far as possible from the Ringbearer? Osgiliath is simply too close for comfort.... And how on earth did Frodo get to the west side of the river (which both the visuals and the dialogue clearly indicate they are on)? And how back again, for that walk through the woods? (By the way, I agree with whoever said that they are not being NEARLY stealthy enough, in voice or manner; one might think they were on a picnic.)
-
I'd have gone to see the damn thing based on the opinion that it's "the greatest filme ever". My life will be just fine without ever seeing it. I've never read the books, and had only a mild interest in seeing the original. I was neither passionate nor dispassionate about it. Since I didn't care one way or the other, it was reactions here that made me decide that I didn't care to see it. I'm not "blaming" the site, just stating why I have chosen not to see it. And to "cage of peace", nice try sending the virus.
-
Has anyone else seen the latest Mad, with the two-page spoof of TTT? Instead of their usual parody, they have actual photo stills from the movie with voice balloons. My favorite was the shot of the Edoras refugees trekking beside the lake, with the caption: "Is this the standing line or the line for the tickets?" (or something like that). You can read it all in a few seconds without buying the magazine.
-
I fucking loved the movie. If you have'nt read the books. I do not want to hear it. I think that they did an AWESOM job with the effects and even though this is hollywierd it was fucking good so as I said STOP YOUR DAMMM BITCHEN. And go back to bitching about the new star treck movie or somthing that you know more about.
Betty -
TTT will, without a doubt, win best picture this year! Neither "Chicago", "The Hours" nor "Far From Heaven" will win because they're all "chick flicks", albeit good ones. There is a staggering number of men who will never watch a musical, a 50's melodrama or a film about three women set in different eras (sad but true). "Gangs of New York" was just not that good (however, Scorsese will definitely win Best Director Oscar come March). "Minority Report" has sadly been forgotten and "About Schmidt", "Adaptation" and "Catch Me if You Can" are just not strong enough films to take such an honor. (Yes, I have seen all of these films.) Oh, and "Road to Perdition" was garbage. It will be completely snubbed, except for Paul Newman. They will award TTT because it is one of the biggest films of the year, it is epic, it is a blockbuster and critics are unamimous, and so are audiences for the most part. They will award TTT, because it is the best film THIS year. RotK may not be the best film of next year (if you follow my logic). In other words, the Academy will give TTT the award because THIS film is great. Why wait to see if RotK is as good before giving it any awards? However, Peter Jackson won't take the director statue until RotK, regardless of whether or not RotK wins Best Picture. Mark my words.
-
Who do you think votes for Best Picture, a bunch of guys hanging out at a bar? Some young guys who hate all those "chick flicks"? Fellowship was an "epic" movie and it did NOT win Best Picture. And Two Towers WILL NOT WIN BEST PICTURE. Mark MY words. It is too much of a stretch for the conservative academy. The Hours will probably win, and The Two Towers will clean up in most every artistic category. And that makes sense as The Two Towers is an artistic endeavor. Maybe one day a movie of it's scope can be "Best Picture". --d
-
"The Hours" won't win. Rarely, does a movie win best picture that audiences don't get behind. "The Hours" will get great reviews, but average movie goers won't respond to it. It's too arty. Besides, it's also depressing and the Academy often likes "feel-good" movies. If the same members of the Academy had to re-vote for the best picture of 2001 right now, they would give it to "Fellowship of the Ring". It's a movie that many just didn't respond to right away. They have realized their mistake, TTT will win this year. The Academy loves historical epics. If you give the Oscar to "Gladiator", how can you not give it to the far superior "TTT"?
-
Let's look at some recent "Best Picture" movies... American Beauty, Titanic, Schindler's List... NOT feel-good movies. Now let's look at the "epic-style" ones of the last decade or so: Gladiator, Titanic, Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, Forrest Gump. All of these have a central character or a central couple around which the movie revolves. The characterization of The Two Towers is too spread out. The movie is not perceived to be about the actors/performances enough. Furthermore, all of these epics had a leading performer around which the audience rallied. Mel, Russell, Leo, Kate... yada yada. As much as I love Ian McKellen, it can't be said that he leads this cast. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to see a movie like TTT win "Best Picture". It ain't gonna happen. And if the Academy could "re-vote" as you suggest, they would not vote for Fellowship. Just wouldn't happen. The Two Towers may be the most well-crafted film this year, but it still doesn't fit the current Academy definition of "Best Picture" unfortunately. --d
-
Almost ALL movies have "a central character or a central couple around which the movie revolves". Rarely, do we see good movies like "TTT" or "Traffic" which effectively juggle multiple storylines and several main characters. When a great one comes along, we should not be afraid to bestow awards on it just because it's "not like the other films". ("A Beautiful Mind", "Shakespeare in Love"...God help us). Truth is, the Oscars are a sham, but there is a method to their madness. The Academy likes to give the Oscar to the film that everybody wants to see win. This year, that film is clearly "TTT". People are also trying to tell me that the Academy won't award best doc to "Bowling for Columbine" because they're all friends of Charlton Heston. While there is much truth to this, can you honestly see them giving best documentary to anything else? Many people thought that "American Beauty" would be considered too risque for Academy voters, but it was the one movie that most people wanted to win. (BTW, I DO consider "American Beauty" a feel good movie, despite the sad ending.) Also, "The Hours" does not have a central character or couple either. It definitely has a better chance for winning for the actress' performances, but will a movie containing three stories about unrelated women win over all Academy voters? I seriously doubt. BTW, Denis Leary is a member of the Academy. Which film do you think he'd vote for?
Again, "TTT" is an obvious choice for Best picture Oscar, even the Academy won't be able to deny it. The only other choice would be "Chicago", but how can you honor that film over the much superior "Moulin Rouge!"
Good discussion! Merry Christmas!P.S. Julianne Moore and Daniel Day-Lewis are also Oscar bound. Sorry Leo, the Academy has snubbed you once again, this time for two movies though. -
If you are still reading I congradulate you, and wonder also why you are down this far. Its nice to see that some people are still looking at these films critically and not jumping on the LOTR money bandwagon. I could not come out of this film and feel slightly disappointed. This fil felt different than the first, in character portrayl, editing, and even story structure. I think this film will appeal to the masses much more than the first b/c of its quick cutting and more conventional storytelling (The dwarf comic relief as example). But this story is not a Michael Bay film. And people need to realize that this is not PJ's story, its Tolkien's and his books will live on when the final surviving print of this film has rotted away. PJ is riding another man's story to success, which is fine if you are faithful. But he is starting to divert from the text. Why? I don't know. A wonderful story is provided for you, you don't need to riddle it with cliches. This film is edited badly, the jumps feel forced b/w the stories. I can see this series devolving into another piece of Hollywood shelf fodder. I think PJ gave in to pressure that the first film was too slow, so he sped it up. I hate hollywood conventional wisdom, people are idiots, they can't follow a story unless it breaks every 3 secs. I see these guys all over Hollywood, the Euro trash that hangs at
SkyBar, these scumbag movie producers who can't get their dick out of the intern. This movie is not Bad Boys 2. I won't go into movie book comparisons, its hard enough to convert book to film. But adding scenes and changing characters are something different. PJ is getting away from rule one in editing, if it doesn't add to the story cut it. What was that whole Aragorn over the cliff montage, and don't tell me that it was there to reveal Eowyn's affection. There are easier ways to get around that, besides we already knew she was starting to care. It was dumb and unnecessary, and shows his desire to tinker. I don't care about Faramir taking Frodo into the city, seemed to me that it was an excuse for more battle scenes, and a Nazghul confrontation. But I do care about the hack job he has done on Faramir. He seems close to the opposite of his character in the books. But you can squabble over minor points in this film. My big problems are with the increased cutting, and bad scene placement. Characters are going places they don't need to go. But more than anything, it is the underlying theme of what is happening that is bothering me. That this film will change into another cliche ridden Hollywood Blockbuster. LOTR was slower and more faithful b/c PJ was scared he would upset hardcore fans. Now that it was a success and the money machine is rolling. Things are changing, everyone wants some input. "increase the love angle" "we need faster cuts" "more battle scenes with new characters that we can create toys out of". Also PJ is getting his back patted every five seconds and soon he will think he can do no wrong. The direction this series is heading is down the Hollywood blockbuster route. Not the epic route. I am afraid that we will end up with another Godfather 3 at the end of this ride. Not a series that will be timeless.
I am sick of critics who hate to go against the grain. Shit, timeless and instant classic are used everyother film now. How many of those "timeless" films from two years ago are on your shelf? Most of all I am disappointed with the potential that this movie has, and may not live up to. I do not have high hopes for the last film. I hope PJ proves me wrong though. -
Dec 23, 2002 3:38:37 AM CST
Ladies and Gentlemen: The President of the United States
by george w bush
As Commander-in-Chief and a veteran of the armed forces myself, I have to point out the military weakness in the Helm's Deep thingy. The US military would have innoculated those 300 brave fighters against small pox and mopped up those 10,000 lily-livered, kettleheads in 5 minutes. Speaking of which, was it me or did that small pox vaccine I took the other day make it appear that Sam-what's-his-name had eaten one too many of those Keebler snacks.***********Wydok, to borrow a phrase from my predecesor, I feel your pain. I have introduced legislation in the House making it illegal to host or establish message boards on the internet with at least but not limited to: creating a post with more than four spelling erors; not giving the poster the oportunity effectively utilize necessary punctuation and grammatical format, the mentioning of the words "Star Wars", "Lord of the Rings" (a.k.a "LOTR") in the same post, and the exclusion of the proper noun "Harryhausen" (it's a dyslexic thing). The bill is referred to H.R. 4829 or the PATRIOT Act (the Prevention of Asshole's Tirades and RestoratIon
Of the Talkback).*******Condy points out that Gollum could be the love child of Vladimir Putin and Calista Flockhart******Oh, and I_AM_SPARTICUS, and other caustic TBer's, Rummy sayz be good or Santa might bring you a precision guided ordinance for Christmas (through the chimney).********May God Bless America (and not Iraq, France, North Korea, France, and that other country that starts with a D)! -
I agree with your take on TTT but just cause I happen to like movies that you don't doesn't make me an idiot. Try and relax. Everybody has an opinion who are you to judge. Movies are very subjective.
-
I loved TTT the first time I saw it I didnt have any nagging feelings. Your an idiot cause you didn't like it the first time you saw it :)
-
Hey, chill out!
I'm calling Star Wars a pile of crap, their great films! I just like The Lord Of The Rings a little bit more.
Sorry about the whole "say lord of the rings is better than star wars to yourself" thing, it was jumping the gun a little but I was trying to offer some help to few who are having an inner struggle over their favourite movies of all time. Take it or leave it.
Anyway, as for something intelligent. Probably not. But I'll throw this at you as I'm interested on people's takes on it.
Citizen Kane, for many the greatest film of all time. Fine, I don't have a problem with that, although how you can compare it to the cinematic masterpiece that is TeenWolf 2 is beyond me. However, how does anyone know his last words were 'Rosebud, Rosebud' when he died alone?
Have I missed something here or am I reading the movie incorrectly. I'm interested to find out what others opinions are on this. -
I must say initially I was disappointed because I wanted everything to be as the book was. Not possible.
Once I watched it again I saw it for what it was, a really great film. OK so some things weren't in the book but it does make a better spectacle.
The Elves at Helm's Deep; just cemented the fact that they had helped them years ago and they would do so once more... which tied in nicely to the start of the first film.
Nice job PJ, but its a pity it will be another year to go. My only bone to pick now is the whole "Frodo waving the Ring in front of the Nazgul in Osgiliath". Now he knows a Hobbit has it there..
Unless in the 3rd installment, the palantir is used by one of the Hobbits in Isengard. Sauron now knows exactly where the ring is and will send his WHOLE force out to get it back..just just an advance force like in the book....
If he thinks Saruman has caprtured it, it gives them a little more time to reinforce GOndor with Rohan's forces and allows Aragorn to destory the forces of the Corsairs with the help of the Army of the Dead....
Cant wait....Shelob, Minas Tirith main attraction Gandalf vs the Witch King.
-
Dec 23, 2002 5:44:06 AM CST
I fucking love the Two Towers with a passion! One of the best fi
by mentallymariah
The sheer spectacle of it left me speechless...I have seen it four times and will go again! I hope it wins the Best Picture award, put it next to Gladiator and it makes Ridley Scotts Epic look miniscule! This movie deserves to win BIG TIME! There were moments of such joy and visuals that made me smile so hard...This is the reason WHY I LOVE MOVIES SO MUCH! I agree with all the Two Towers lovers on here, It's a passion of undeniable love!
-
The shit that gets argued about on this talkback is fucking amazing. Who's better, ILM or WETA. Who fucking cares. It's not as though these are the only two FX company's in Hollyweird. Digital Domain dose some amazing stuff too, as dose ILM and WETA. And it's not as though CGI is the only things these companies do either. If you were to look at all the things these companies do both in the past and the present, I think you'd all be pretty fucking amazed. From Jar Jar to Yoda to Gollum, I have yet to see a CGI character on the screen and think, "holy shit dose that look real." It all still looks fake, and of course Gollum is going to look better than Jar Jar. The technology just keeps getting better for CGI year by year, and one day they will be able to make it look real, but guy's, were not there yet. Peter Jackson is a great director, and defiantly the right man for these movies, but he is not the second coming of christ, and niether was Lucas 20 years ago. God, is everybody on this talkback so obsessed with PJ, Tolkien, and this Trilogy that they can't handle the slightest bit of criticism. An opinon is just an opinon, even when you think it's stupid. Deal with it. Alot of peole have expressed some honest faults they have had with this film only to be berated by obsessive asshole's who think that eveyone should feel as they do, and completly fall in love with every second of this film. Well, fuck you. News flash, not eveyone likes what you like, if you can't understand that then don't go outside. The world is full of people who don't think like you do. I liked this movie, but still found some faults with it. However, I'm sure not going to tell any of you obsessive fucks about it.
-
Dec 23, 2002 6:48:06 AM CST
Hey Dogfish......I think you got me confused with someone else m
by snake-eyes
I dont recall ever replying to one of your posts.......in fact as far as I can see, these are youre first posts on this talkback. So what are you on about? You say.... "I agree with your take on TTT but just cause I happen to like movies that you don't doesn't make me an idiot." Well I dont recall calling you an idiot and I certainly wouldnt call you one simply cos you like films I dont. You also said...... "I loved TTT the first time I saw it I didnt have any nagging feelings. Your an idiot cause you didn't like it the first time you saw it." Hmmmmm..... for someone who criticised ME for alledgedly calling him an idiot cos he likes films I dont, what the fuck does that make YOU for calling ME an idiot for not loving TTT the first time?????
In ACTUAL FACT what I said was I DID love TTT the FIRST TIME but until I saw it the second time there was a nagging doubt in my mind as to whether I would love it as much as FOTR!!! Luckily after that second viewing I concluded that it is as GREAT as FOTR!!!! So do me a favour and go contradict yourself elsewhere.....
-
Jeeps how long is this talkback?!
Well just thought i'd contribute - I must admit i'd like to see TTT again as to be honest it was ruined by three or four different dickheads with mobile phones and a couple who brought their 5 yr old girl to see the movie due to its 12A rating (which means anyone under 12 can see it with parents) LOTR: unsuitable for kids much?
Apart from those major distractions I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I thought the action scenes were impeccably staged and the plaudits have already been voiced regarding Gollum which is extraordinary - but i was truly impressed by a moment which amazed me - Legolas' clever backward flip mount of the horse -
i know it was just nice touch, a little blink-and-you'll-miss-it but for me its moments like these that set this trilogy above other films. And the british debut i mention in the subject? Well I know in the US you lot go mad in the cinema applauding cheering whooping and the like but over here we sit in silence unless its funny or scary - its not that we don't get excited its just i think we feel silly cheering for something that isn't 'real' like a sport - but for the first time ever in my experience -that little trick brought a well deserved round of applause. Well done Mr Jackson & WETA.
Although I fear I will not be going to see the ROTK until its on DVD unless cinemas decide to install mobile phone blocks and not let people under 12 in... so far this breathtaking trilogy is everything I hoped for- and to those who criticise it, fair enough, you're entitled to your opinions but seriously, was it as terrible as you make out? Even if it doesn't measure up to the god-like status you've given the books you have to admit its one of the top ten films of the year - try to deny it go on - convice yourself you couldn't enjoy it... and while your at it FOTR wasn't even all that was it? I mean where was Tom Bombadill?
Come on guys grow up! The books can't be translated to screen they are fantastic books but for the modern moviegoer a lot is redundant and would seem silly - even laughable on the big screen. I amazed PJ managed to make talking, walking trees believable and not a laughing stock.
I can't wait till ROTK. I bet most of you 'critics' can't either - who among you will seriously not go and see it?
-
Oh God. Talkbacks make me hate humanity. But actually, when you analyze them (providing you're wearing a biochemical suit when you do) they are never as obnoxious as they appear. I'm a bit of a Canon Nazi myself, but always with these movies its the same - the first time you see it, the alternative vision of a book that you've read and loved for years and years is jarring. Second time, you chill the fuck out and go with it. And let's get one thing straight. Aragorn going over a cliff with a Warg and Frodo getting frogmarched to Osgiliath but then released are minor plot curlicues. "Plot changes" are the Orcs winning at Helm's Deep or the Ents deciding to accompany Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom. Everybody got to the exact same place at the end of the movie as they did in the book - the stuff they didn't get to is going to be in the next movie. I have a beef with Faramir's character change, but that doesn't change the fact that this movie *rocked*, and hard.
-
Best MOVIE Ever?: yes
Best FILM Ever?: no chance
there's a big difference.
-
You can find a thousand things wrong with TTT, you can question the casting, the pace, the CGI and all, but as a Tolkien Fan of 25 years if this film can make me weep then it suceeds. A Million thanks to Peter Jackson for restoring my faith in Cinema, after years of decline into cheap, teenage banality. The fact that Jackson has made a grown-up film for Adults may explain why so many people are trying to find holes. Believe the hype about Gollum, Fall in love with the landscape of Rohan/New Zealand (The two will now be forever linked in my mind), and weep openly at the inventive imagining of the Ents and the sacking of Isengard (Hardly mentioned in the book). If you're a Tolkien Fan then 98% of you will love it, if you're new to Tolkien then 50% of you will love it, but if you don't like Fantasy - Just don't see it, and leave the Cinema's free for those of us who are going back to see it again. Don't give Jackson an Oscar - He's too good to be lumped in with all the Hollywood Rubish.
-
That bugged me the first time I saw it, but less so the second time. One interesting point - Sauron will probably assume that Gondor has control of the ring due to that encounter. Which will bring a big force at Minas Tirith, just like in the book. So, what Tolkein accomplished by having Pippen and then Aragorn look into the palantir (making Sauron look for the humans to be in control of the ring and therefore striking quickly at Gondor), Jackson accomplished with that scene. I think Pippen still needs to look in the stone to get him to Minas Tirith ahead of Merry, and I would still love to see Aragorn look into the stone and challenge Sauron. Gotta wait a year to find out, of course. Also, earlier someone wondered if the scene with Faramir shooting the fell rider's beast was a reference to the Hobbit. Actually, it reminded me more of Legolas shooting one of the beasts from across the river in FOTR.
-
That's really funny mate. I read the books when I was about 6 years old and still thought them childish. Broaden your horizons my friends, before it's too late!!
-
FOTR & TTT are, quite simply, the best movies ever made. The best movies OF ALL TIME. No amount of squabbling and whining can change that. These movies have honestly changed the face of filmmaking - they have raised the bar. It's either go above and beyond or drop out of the race. Hopefully, the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions will come close, which I suspect they will.
-
FOTR and TT are NOT the "best movies of all time". That's just silly. Perhaps they will be. But it takes TIME to become the "best movie of all time". They are finely crafted films and ones that I thoroughly enjoy. They may have raised the bar on fantasy films, but who in their right mind can compare this to American Beauty. There is NO comparison because they are too different. To declare one of these movies as "the best ever" is asinine and short-sighted. --d
-
Eff you and your stupid name. I SAID - FOTR and TTT are the best movies of all time, and that's it. I didn't ask for your opinion on my opinion. What the fuck do you mean, they need time to become the best movies of all time? Either they are or they aren't. What, time is going to change them somehow and make them better? Well, probably, because THEY ARE THE BEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME, but I don't need ten years to realize this. They are miraculous, both of them. Now, I would agree that I was assinine if I said Return of the King is the best movie of all time because I haven't seen it yet, but when I do, I'm sure I'll add it to my list, so, in summary, shut the fuck up, you carpetbagger, you pile of congealed vomit. AMERICAN BEAUTY? Please. You're the one doing the comparing, not me, dumbass. Go lick a fishy clit, you effing twat taddler. The majesty of this movie is beyond your empty-headed surmises, you smoldering pile of donkey dung.
-
Now, there is no way. Casting dispersions such as "congealed vomit" and "carpetbagger". CARPETBAGGER?? Please, even if that term had relevance here you are in no position to use it. You have made some absurd statement about two movies, released in the PAST TWO YEARS being THE GREATEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that FOTR and TT made great advances in plot development, character development, cinematography, sound design... EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of a movie. And, no they did not. In fact, since we're just throwing around empty opinions with no backing whatsoever, I believe that several movies tell stories in a better fashion. Several movies have better character development. Several movies have had better screenplays. However, again in my unsubstantiated opinion, NO movie has EVER looked this beautiful. No movie has interwoven visual aspects so beautifully as The Two Towers. These movies tell wonderful stories and are beautiful to behold, but they are NOT the best movies of all time. Glass, you have attacked someone with a differing opinion. My previous response to you was mild, at best. You are an immature little brat unworthy of any further discussion; if work weren't so boring, I'd ignore you. I'm glad the Trilogy has arrived so that your life may now have meaning. --d
-
Yes, my fellow talkbacking 'tard, I do believe that both FOTR and TTT are perfect films, that they "made great advances in plot development, character development, cinematography, sound design..." I think it's pointless to claim differently. What film tops these two masterpieces? Tell me, in all honesty, what film tops them. Sorry BladeRunnerUnit, while I love Citizen Kane to the utmost degree, and I appreciate its huge importance in the history of cinema, I do not consider it the greatest movie ever made. I consider it a cog in a grand machine which has been developing throughout the years for the sole purpose of creating FOTR, TTT, and ROTK, THE GREATEST FILMS OF ALL TIME (at least the first two!) Now there is nowhere else to go. Nowhere. The building is over, the cogs will fall off, cinema, as we know it, has been lost. We might as well go and watch blank movie screens, because there will never be another film that will measure up to these miracles, these gems of artistry. Oh yeah, and dorfer, eff off.
-
Wow, I guess there's no point in creating movies anymore. Furthermore, there is no point in WATCHING movies anymore. Yes, you are right, implying that any movie other than FOTR or TT has made greater achievements IS pointless, as you say. Why? Because asses like you will come back, with no reasoning whatsoever, and spew bile. I was hoping to hear some actual thought in your responses aside from the hollow "best movie EVER and don't you forget it" bullshit. You have succumbed to fanboy crap. No director is talented enough, and no movie is LONG enough, to do justice to the characterizaion of Tolkien's heroes. The Two Towers spent 3 hours NOT developing characters. It is a great movie, but alone it is not the best I've ever seen. The most visually stunning? Yes. Glass, I wonder why you get so defensive when somebody simply suggests that your "Best Movie Ever" label is incorrect. Are you hoping that these movies succeed so much that you cannot handle the prospect of even the smallest failure within them? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. And the word is "fuck", Glass. Fuck off. If you're so bold as to assume you know THE GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME, you should be bold enough to write even the dirtiest of words, little man. --d
-
I was just wondering if anybody knew the little poem Gollum recited to himself while he was trying to ignore Frodo. It was right after Frodo asked him 'Who are you.", and he replied "Mustn't ask. Not it's business." Can anybody help?
-
It beats what I SHOULD be doing right now. I'm amused by the religious fervor with which people approach these films. GOD IS IN THE SILVER SCREEN... AND HE HAS BIG HAIRY FEET!! Movies are movies, plain and simple. They can be moving, compelling, boring, simple, sophisticated... whatever. But, to determine their impact in time requires just that... TIME. Incidentally, I rented Blade Runner recently. I got the director's cut. It didn't have the same impact it's had in the past. I didn't care about the characters as much as I remember. However, the art direction was so fucking incredible. 1982! Wow. It's been so long since I've seen the original release that I can't figure if I miss the narration, or if this way is better. I will have to view it some more. --d
-
You are a purist! Of course. You've been so careful to hide it, but you blew it! It's out in the open. Dorfer, it is not impossible to do justice to Tolkien's grand tale. What's impossible is cutting and pasting YOUR imagination onto film with a little WETA for good measure. Don't you realize that? I've said it before and I'll say it again: does a still photo capture the map of God, of humanity? Of course not, because we cannot read God's mind. We just accept that the most talented of photographers will capture a general essence of what we are and what we will become. It's the same with film. Jackson took this masterpiece of literature and brought it to life, and it came from the depths of his mind, which, fortunately enough, happens to satisfy the imaginations of the general populace. At the same time, madmen like you expect some sort of psychic connection between the inner workings of your literary mind and the mind of Jackson. Can't you just accept that the movie sufficiently captures the essence of the books in a miraculous way? Can't you accept that humans haven't developed the ability to use the ever-exploited sixth sense, and that no filmmaker will ever be able to strangle out the images that are locked within your fat head until we do develop that ability? Please.
-
If I'm a purist, it has very little application to film. Maybe baseball, but not film. Any piece of art is subject to the influence of its creator. And, it should be noted that Peter Jackson, although a fine director, is not solely responsible for bringing these movies to the screen. My comments regarding the characterization failures of The Two Towers were not in the purist vein. I believe the characters in the movie were not flesh-out enough. The pacing was poor. My comments were in defense of this movie, or any that attempts to tell such a grand story in an accessible amount of time. Given the plotline, the number of characters and the sheer pressure of delivering an acceptible rendition of The Two Towers, I feel that the movie delivered as best it could. BUT, it left me feeling flat. That's MY opinion. I will see The Two Towers again, because it is a wonder to behold, but I like more character development in my "Very Bestest Movies Ever in the Whole World". Glass, get off your high horse. You've been attacking a fan of the same movies you claim as messiah. And my comments regarding "God" were sarcastic. Leave theology out of this as it cheapens the movie. --d ***** SEAN ASTIN'S GREATEST FANTASY/ACTION-ADVENTURE MOVIE IS GOONIES!!! LONG LIVE SLOTH!!!
-
Both are so funny at times you can't help but laugh. Yoda is a silly little old creature that sounds like Grover from Sesame Street when we first meet him. But later we see how easily he conveys nobility, wisdom, disappointment, and that moment when when he tells Luke he will be scared soon ("you WILL be...") is fabulous. You're suddenly almost scared of him. Gollum is the first time that's been accomplished since. He goes from being a twisted animal to a funny, almost cute character, & back to a depraved evil conniving murderer in a matter of minutes. Just awesome stuff. Miami Mofo, interesting observation..... could be right, a bit of a nod to Smaug there!
-
The poem Gollum mutters to himself as Frodo is trying to get him to say his name? It's in the scene where Frodo asks what he said, and Gollum responds "Master should be resting," and then when Frodo says "Who are you," he replies "Mustn't ask...not it's business." I love the poem its so creepy and disturbing...is it in the books? Help a brother out?
-
All i have to say is that i've seen the movie twice...and it was even better the second time! Can
-
Its my first time on Talk Back. Hello.
I like some of you, you aren't idiots.
I don't like others of you. You are idiots.
Idiots make stupid comments about films. (The Two Towers is Shit). Please go and get a life.
I bet you all love Batman & Robin.
Yeah you do.
Mmm Hmm. -
If Legolas could kill anything at will, then he would have put down that huge Orc-thing within the caves in FOTR. Took a bit of time, no? Anyway, you're just pointing out lame possible "flaws" and calling them "SERIOUS". Stop. It's tired. Besides, AOTC only had three major flaws... it was so poorly written, directed and acted. Other than that, absolutely brilliant!! --d
-
Watch now as I, daringly, PJ-like, flashback AND flash-forward! *** The TB under Harry's FOTR review. Go ahead, look it up. Remind anyone else of another festering swamp hardly worth the effort of pawing through? *** Now travel ahead 12 months: The TB under Harry's ROTK review. ...Nnnnnope, think I'll pass on entering that one, as well. My GOD, the carnage, the empty hate! *** Now, see how the flashback and flash-forward thematically speak volumes, informing the current action AND setting the immediate situation within the larger context? No? Well, the break is there as the centerpiece of the larger Talkback, you see... *** Oh, hell. Why bother. Back in Aught-Three, tell me where to be. Looking forward to the worthwhile conversations and debates, with far less rubble to scroll through.
-
Dec 23, 2002 1:06:04 PM CST
king_yoda: so by dodging the question I can only assume you adm
by minderbinder
Since you say that PJ doesn't deserve much credit for the LotR movies (in favor of Tolkien), I assume you also think that credit for the Godfather movies should go not to Coppola but to Puzo? ANSWER THE QUESTION.
-
Ahhh talkbacks...to see the little goblins complaining and bickering is amusing.
-
I've been thinking about that comparison a lot over the past couple of days (because I'm a loser) and I want an answer, too. ANSWER THE QUESTION - it's a valid one.
-
Dec 23, 2002 1:20:02 PM CST
BladeRunnerUnit: Blade Runner will forever be the best cinematic
by neutral_density
In my opinion. The sheer visual brilliance of that film continues to stand the test of time. The effects in that film makes current CGI look crappy. There is a lot to be said about the creative usage of lighting in that film. I too, have been holding off on watching it because I don't want to desensitize myself to the film. It is like a fine wine. Great performances, and the only film to have such an arresting style that actually allows the atmosphere to "act". Blade Runner is quite possibly the most depressing film I have ever seen, yet at the same time inspiring my imagination to wonder about the world the characters are situated in. The only film that comes close is Richard Stanley's indie film "Hardware" which rips Blade Runner's style off, but is quite impressive for what it is (it was shot for ONLY $800,000! It also featured a robot designed by the greatest director of all time, Chris Cunningham before he became a music video director) These films in a purely visual sense ignite my imagination and affect me profoundly. Has anybody else seen "Hardware"?
-
Just when you almost sound like a reasonable person who just doesn't like amovie as much as someone else you finish with a really stupid capitalized expression of your expty intellect. AOTC is about as good as Battle star Galactica, any episode. Horrible plot, Horrible acting, Silly effects. If you say the effects were 100% ebelivable, watch any segment with CG stunts, like Anakin riding the animal when he goes on a picnic with padma. Thats horrible unbeleivable CG, much worse than Legolas mounts the horse in TTT. Every scene Jar jar is in, it seems very obvious that the character isn't there, his interaction with his enviroment is minimial and his interaction with any of the real characters is non-exsistent. While Gollum had to wrestle the hobbits and do many things, like catch fish. Every flaw you've pointed out about LOTR applies twice over for all the new SW, and all the FX critisms you have applay also to the Entire SW series. As well the nit picking about thinks liek legolas and his killing can be applied to SW, like why the hell don't the storm troopers ever hit anything, you see Aragon and the rest fo the LOTR cast get the Shit beat out of them and people die, While hans solo can waltz through a corridor full of storm troopers and not get hit once. Or how about the walkers in ESB, wouldn't you think they'd make a walker good enough so that it doesn't explode in a huge fireball when it hits the ground. Or hey, how about their little trip inside the monster inside the astroid, you'd figure that it'd be really cold inthere, after all, it has it's mouth open to space. Or heck even if the creature keeps the plac ewarm, wtf does it eat. You have this gigantic cretaure, int he middle of a barren astroid field. It has a mouth it should eat something. Or what about the gungan, they can degign advanced underwater cities and energy weapons but their all fucking morons. Did they steal this technology? did they fucken pull it out of lucases ass. And about Anakin and yoda, the prissy little boy claims to be as good as yoda in lightsabres in AOTC and he gets his friggin arm chopped off by Count Dooku. HE continually gets his ass beat by any and all guys with a light sabre, and this trend continues into the original trilogy. Heres another one, the Senate has been around for 10 000 years, you'd figure soemone might have taken them over in that time since the Jedi are the only army it had for that long, how do maybe 1000-10k jedi keep your huge multi hundred star system alliance safe when they can't do jack to a small army of robots. If a million clones, can't hit anyone storm troopers can kill the robots, but a dozen bad ass jedi can't you'd figure someone would've just made an army of 100mill, and taken the whole damn thing over. Hers' another, why the fuck would anyone build their power core right nect to their docking bay. Whats the rational of having the most vulnerabel thing in your ship, and the most important, easily accesable to some punk ass 6 years old and his stupid "wooh" "wooh " woooh". That bothered me more than anything in TPM.
-
Dec 23, 2002 1:40:48 PM CST
Actually, come to think of it, Chris Cunningham would have proba
by neutral_density
Cunningham directed "Frozen" by Madonna. It is not the best of his work though. His most impressive videos are for electronic artists like Squarepusher, Aphex Twin, Autechre, Bjork and Leftfield. The man is an insane editor, has a distinct visual style that is both disturbing and rife with sick humour. To think what he would have done with FOTR and TTT, it would have been absolutely sick! He is very classy in his use of CGI, take a look at Bjork's "All is Full of Love" it his impossible to tell what is CGI and real. The company that did it was Glassworks, but I firmly believe that the director has to take control of all aspects of the production in order to yield the results Cunningham has. Cunningham is the only director who is working today who is actually moving the medium forward with his cinematographic and editing techniques. I am dying to see his work on a megaplex screen. Ridley Scott recognized Cunningham's creativity and Cunningham has done almost all his videos under Ridley Scott's film production company RSA (Ridley Scott Associates) and Black Dog Films. It is such a waste that Cunningham has yet to do a big budget feature film.
-
I agree the movie is too short. That is it's only problem.
-
Dec 23, 2002 2:19:04 PM CST
"so i think we can all agree that TTT has serious flaws, much mo
by minderbinder
Chortle. I'd like to nominate fett for Funniest Post ever. Wait...what do you mean he's serious?
-
fettastic, I agree about the character development issue within TT. However, again you shoot yourself in the foot with assumptions and poor comparisons. Legolas is not an outspoken character. He is more an elf of action than of words, so to say that he should "say more" is like suggesting that he should be a different character altogether. Yes, I would like to have seen more character development across the boards, but what was shown was well-done by the actors. YOu make a big mistake in comparing AOTC. Sure there was great character development, but the delivery of such development was so poor that I would have much rather read it in the script than have to suffer hearing delivered during read-throughs. Of course, that is what they were... read-throughs. One-take non-wonders. I wanted so much more from the character interaction, but poor directing and scripting reduced great actors to wooden dolls. I must say, I really think McGregor's Obi Wan is great. I wish I could reduce the majority of AOTC to his scenes. I digress (dammit). Hopefully, ROTK will allow for the actors to flex a little more. Hopefully I'll feel more for the characters. --d
-
What about the growing comraderie between Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas. Their reunion was beautiful. Arwen and Aragorn's relationship is also advanced, great touch by PJ there.
Theoden,Eomer,Eowyn introductions were handled very well too.
But most of all Frodo feeling the growing influence of the ring and Sam's growing leadership role were the best. Gollume just stole the show. Great stuff. -
OK, I can accept that having the Nazgul see Frodo with the ring could be a plot device, so that Sauron will think that it is going to Minas Tirith and justify the huge assault in ROTK. BUT, in the book, when Pippin talks to Sauron when he steals the Palantir, this is supposed to make Sauron think that Saruman has the ring at Isengard. Obviously Pippin has to look in the Palantir, as this is what causes Gandalf to take him to Minas Tirith. Can someone of even greater sadness than myself tell me how they think this is going to be worked out?
-
Words cannot descrive the overwhelming feeling of disappointment I had leaving the theater after seeing this film. To people ticked off at purists for whining about the film, you must understand how beloved this book is to many of us. The whining stems from the fact that our self-inflated dreams were not met. In FOTR, Jackson certainly took some liberties, but they were small and forgivable. The Platinum Edition DVD rectified a lot of these. But the film was true to the tone and spirit of the book and the casting, costuming, and cinematography were so spot on it was truly mind-boggling. TTT deviates sharply and profoundly from the text so as to change the spirit of the books in an unfortunate way. My own personal displeasure stems from the fact that my two favorite characters (Eomer and Faramir) were either not present when they should have been, or had their characters altered in such a way that their part in the story is irrevocably ruined. There are a myriad of points that can be brought up; suffice it to say, Jackson took a lot of liberties with the story, more than necessary and most completely unneccessary. Examined from a sheer film-making point of view, TTT is astounding, a true movie miracle. Gollum will go down in history, both for the CGI but more importantly the performance. But go easy on us purists. You can't spend your life waiting for a story to be told and have it presented to you, only to find that a different story is being told. It is bound to be disappointing. I will see it again at least a couple more times, and with my hopes firmly in check I will appreciate it for what it is, let go of the disappointment, and enjoy a true cinematic marvel. But Tolkein's "The Two Towers" come to life on screen, it will never be.
-
Anyone who can't see that the characters have changed since FOTR must have been out the whole three hours for popcorn. Aragorn, the loner, is now leading armies and inspiring kings to action. Legolas, who once looked at Gimli with pure disgust, is ready to die defending him. The gruff Gimli is calling Aragorn "laddie" and is bonded with an elf. And Frodo! By the end, he's held a sword to his best friend's throat. ***And by the way, fettastic, as a former girl (I am now a woman, though I doubt you will ever be a man), I tire of your using "girlish" as an insult. This girl used to stand up to rock-throwing bullies a lot better than half the guys. It's about time you figured out that character, which is what you lack, is not a matter of age, gender, or sexual orientation.
-
Frodo is falling into the shadows. His character development is so subtle it's brilliant, and I can't believe you didn't appreciate it. It's almost do-or-die time, and Frodo has got bigger things on his mind than acting like a proper hobbit. Also, it is made clear that Bilbo and Frodo are not run-of-the-mill hobbits in FOTR. They ARE different. And Sam? He has certainly changed! He's always had a "stout heart," but he's getting a sharper blade, too. He's tougher, he seems more capable of putting up a fight. His days of playing the lovable oaf are over: He's taken on a cast of sadness and regret, something entirely new to him. Merry and Pippin may not have changed much, aside from their realization of the direness of the situation, but their absurdly likable characteristics shine through in TTT. They're just a couple hobbits who were looking for some fun (from the beginning of FOTR with the fireworks, to Farmer Maggot's crop) and found more than they bargained for. They begin as daredevils yearning for adventure, any adventure, and their wish comes true. Their true warrior spirits have yet to reveal themselves, just like Aragorn, who is clouded in mystery. His true self has yet to shine through. His self-revelation, to come in ROTK, has yet to fully develop. It's not TIME to see the real Aragorn, Fettastic, can't you see? He's not ready to reveal himself. Legolas, while remaining in the background for the most part in Fellowship, now has a centralized role as one bad-ass warrior. The guy can fight, and with each passing scene, the viewer becomes more and more awed by his brilliance. Not only is he a force to be reckoned with, but his pleasure at destroying the enemy is palpable, his pure goodness is illuminated magnificently, which is something that becomes clearer and clearer throughout the series. You can see it in that smoldering expression. Gimli's role of providing relief from darkness that would otherwise consume us, as viewers, tempered with his competence as a warrior, is more firmly established in TTT. His charming personality has begun to shine through, as well as the brutal, competitive side we were introduced to in Fellowship. Anymore questions?
-
I don't want to offend anyone here, but here's a take on the response to Peter Jackson's movies. Is it possible that we've been hammered so hard by bad films over the past few years that we've been desperate for something, anything, better? Something to recapture the magic of movies as they made us feel when we were younger? Is it possible that people have latched onto LOTR as the new hope, as it were? I mean, it sounds that way. LOTR is it, the second coming, and all flaws will be ignored, it's a religion now. We'll find facts to back up the necessary opinion that these are the greatest movies ever. We'll quote critics reviews and tomatometers and box office receipts. How well was Spiderman reviewed? How much money did it make? What does that say about using such 'evidence' as proof that LOTR is the best movie series of all time, period? Seriously, this is turning into a religion among a select few. And I do mean a select few. Just because critics are hailing the movie doesn't mean they believe it's the best thing ever. How many of them have said that it is? Just because many people are seeing it doesn't mean that all these people are saying it's the best thing ever. It's a portion of a relatively minor subculture (fanboys or movie fanatics, whatever) that is lauding these movies as being so great. The problem is that these people are annoyed and maybe threatened that not everyone shares their belief. It's almost religious in nature, where when confronted by facts, a zealot falls back on the stupid 'well, that's the way it is' argument. Forget facts. Ignore criticisms. Firmly believe that because you feel so strongly in your own individual beliefs that those who don't share them are stupid, ignorant, or unintelligent. Listen, if you believe Jackson's LOTR is the best movie series ever, more power to you. Insinuating that every critic and movie goer feels the same way is assinine. Clearly, they like or love the movie, and that's all you can say. Your nearly fetish-like love for this series is not shared by everyone. So get over it. I hate to say this, but I get the real feeling that ten years from now, we'll look back on this and have very little memory of any of it. That LOTR will fade into the memories of most people as being something they watched, something decent, but not life changing or world shattering. And then there'll be the small minority of you out there in the world who'll be watching the trilogy every weekend, still trying to live in what you feel at this moment, the moment when every single one of your hopes and prayers were answered and you finally had something to root for with all of your might. Congratulations, your lives are fulfilled. Anyway, excuse my tone, this is aimed at the idiots on this talkback who are saying things like 'if you didn't like this movie, you're a moron'. There are people who genuinely liked this movie just because it was a good and even great movie. That's pretty much me. The rest of you... All I feel for you is pity, you're like some bad spoof of obsessiveness and irrationality come to life.
-
Much of the character development in TT was implied, in my mind. Since the film picks up almost exactly when FOTR ended, I feel most of the development happened in the first. And "development" may have been a poor choice of words at times. I believe I was looking more for "interaction". For instance, I had a totally different feeling regarding Legolas' and Gimli's friendship in this movie than in the last. But I don't remember that luke-warm area where the changes began taking place. It's implied passively and I have to accept it. As for Frodo, going momentarily crazy isn't "character development". At the end of the movie, I felt that he was in the same place as at the end of FOTR. --d
-
Great commentary. You have great perspective. Personally, I believe all of this messianic-movie speak is also the partial product of brilliant marketing. And, of course, the internet. --d
-
Frodo is NOT the same at the end of TTT. He is ravaged with fear, agony, exhaustion, hunger, and pain. He dreads this journey which he has no choice but to make. He pities his poor friend Sam who never asked for the priveledge of protecting him. He wants to die. At the end of FOTR, even though he understands the brevity of his responsibility, even though the above-stated feelings and emotions are beginning to spawn, and though he knows the dangers ahead (losing Gandolf and Borimir drives that home) he still doesn't QUITE get it. He isn't in the grip of the ring, he hasn't got the permanant taste of fear, yet. He even looks forward to the journey, a bit, b/c it means getting rid of the burdensome ring. At the end of TTT, he's got that taste of fear, he's in the grip of the ring, and the dream of suicide is flowing like tears from his eyes. Plain and simply, he's not the same hobbit he once was.
-
To the former, why, thank you! I appreciate the compliment. ***And Glass, you are most insightful in your recent posts. Keep them coming.
-
Hey, maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that because of all the horrible action movies that we've been subjected to of late (just like Behind Enemy Lines or Tomb Raider, crap like that), anything that is better could potentially be made out to be greater than it is. Admittedly, the bar for action movies has been set pretty low of late. So yeah, LOTR might raise the bar on those low standards. Is it possible that because LOTR is so good in comparsion to the general crap that it's been elevated higher than it should be? I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should think, I'm just raising this as a possibility. Hey Dorfer, thanks for the words, glad to hear there are people out there who feel like this.
-
Even better than FOTR! There wasn't a slow moment in this film whatsoever. A breathless and utterly captivating, shockingly fast 3 hours!
Picture of the year easily!
-
At the end of The Two Towers, Frodo is more shaken and has a greater understanding of his place in the destiny of Middle Earth. But I DID NOT FEEL IT during the movie. I did not feel the change in Frodo. I KNEW the change was there, but I didn't feel it. I was not given enough time to absorb all of these character changes during the movie. So, when I say that I felt Frodo was in the same place at the end of both movies, I meant that I recognized the change at the end, but not as a gradual transition. And that is my PERSONAL problem with the film. It is not absolute. It is not wrong because that is how I experienced the movie. --d
-
To me, subtlety is the key to good film acting (well, acting in general, but film acting requires it, whereas stage acting benefits from it but does not hinge upon it.) There are very few actors who can subtley convey an emotion, be it pain, or fear, or sadness, in a way that makes that emotion crystal clear to the audience but does not hit us over the head with it. Most hacks either overdo it, ham it up, flail around, or they are dreary and drab and colorless and fail to convey any emotion whatsoever in their fruitless quest to be cool and convincing. That is radiant subtleness. Radiant subtlety is Brando in On the Waterfront, Jodie Foster against Hannibal Lecter in SOTL, Chris Cooper as John Laroche, getting women wet while at the same time disgusting them. Finding the perfect balance between charisma and naturalism.
-
Shove a billy-goat up my ass, I didn't even hear myself! Forgive me.
-
$102,046,212 for 5 days.
$26,159,972 Wednesday
$13,878,712 Thursday
$19,224,340 Friday
$22,752,057 Saturday
$20,031,131 Sunday
total $102,046,212
Overseas boxoffice....$85,000,000
Toal so far... 187,046,212!!!
Reviews were mostly glowing for Two Towers and fans agreed as moviegoers polled by CinemaScore.com gave the PG-13 film an overall A grade.
Many film pundits now believe that this will be the second movie in cinema history to top 1 billion dollars at the box office.
So to all the trolls on here who have slagged it off, get used to it, suckers!
-
No, the poem is not from The Hobbit; it is from Fellowship of the Ring. It is from the chapter "Fog on the Barrow Downs". The Barrow Wight recites it just before Bombadil shows up. "Cold be hand and heart and bone, and cold be sleep under stone..." In the movie, though, the poem is a little different: "Cold be hand and heart and bone, and cold be travellers far from home..."
-
In your post, you claim that we don't understand the point of this site, you claim that it's about the geeks, the fans. I think YOU are the one who doesn't understand, sir, because if you did, you would understand the fact that some people do, in fact, feel as though LOTR is the best ever (fill in the blank). What is wrong with saying that? I don't get it.
-
Because nobody lacks that much insight. Who is Frodo? Please, there is certainly enough information available for you to UNDERSTAND his position and his place in the plot. And quit comparing with Star Wars. What do you REALLY think about these movies? Because what you write is a farce. --d
-
LO, so by your logic fettatastic, the movie isn't good unless the charcters progress or change? How did, say anakin change in TPM? He went from annoying little boy, to annoying little boy that looks down a lot. Do you think the best way top develope characters is to have them say all their thoughts. Just imagine American beauty with that logic "Gee she looks a bit under age, Hmm.. should I take her virginity, naw, screwing mena sulvari is kinda icky, her body looks anorexic and kinda of pre pubecent. Hmmm... I think I've devloped as a human being, wow." The difference between a good film and a horrible piece of contrived crap from a director with as much intuition into human beings as an ant is basically how you convey growth. But then things like well done character developement don't appeal to people like you do they? You seem to like being led by the hand into what you should think about the characters. A movie like Mulhaland drive, would drive you nuts cuz you don't know what to think.
-
THAt is the best review i've seen. I posted my first post 2 days ago, and as i suspect...nothing but "you ignorant fuck" or something to that effect. Anyway, no skin off my back. TTT is a huge dissapointment, and i think that MOST people who love it only do because they are SUPPOSED to, if they are true geeks or whatever. But if you honestly liked it, good for you. Really.
-
Dec 23, 2002 6:24:44 PM CST
raged out: why quote critics reviews and tomatometers and box o
by minderbinder
It's got nothing to do with trying to pretend a movie is better than it is. It's simply to counter the idiots who keep posting "critics/the general public hate this movie, it's bombing and can't possibly get any awards or nominations". And to try and shut them the fuck up, although that will likely never happen. For me, the movie speaks for itself - I wanted Fellowship to the The Best Movie Ever, and it just was a great movie. Happily, TTT has turned out to be MUCH better, likely will become one of my all time favorites.
-
Yes, we read a great deal into what we see on screen. The classic example of this is Greta Garbo's face at the end of "Queen Christina." So much tragedy, loss, introspection.... It has long been regarded as one of the great "acting" moments in screen history. Except that Garbo, when she was asked what she was thinking at that moment, has said the director told her to think of NOTHING and be absolutely blank. Fettastic, do you at all see how this relates to the moment that so affected you in "Star Wars"? Yes, that was a great moment - we all remember it. The twin moons, the music.... But it's not that Mark Hamill was doing anything exceptional (he, too, was simply gazing into the distance) but because of what we all projected onto that canvas. Now, I'm sorry you can't relate to Frodo, who happens to be someone a great many of us CAN relate to, and feel compassion for. Your lack of response to him (or, I may say, your HOSTILE response) is not a factor of anything that is happening on screen, but is a product of your own make-up (which, I may say, seems singularly lacking in empathy or compassion). You simply cannot say objectively that Luke, gazing across Tattoine, is giving us more of an emotional canvas than Frodo standing on the bank of the Anduin, when we know he is holding his own death in his hand, and facing it.
-
Dec 23, 2002 7:04:59 PM CST
About Gondor as a province, not a captol city of a province name
by 0007
Okay. Yes, Gondor is a province. I am not pretending to be a Tolkien expert. In fact, I have only read The Hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and some biographies of Tolkien. I have always been more a C.S. Lewis' Narnia/Perelandra series fan, so that is that. I was throwing out examples in a hurry, and did not check my facts. Even though I knew Gondor is a province, I mistakenly thought it was also the name of the capitol city of that province. That is comforting to know that the city I was discussing was the one Gandalf visited briefly in FOTR. Thanks for the correction. I will be looking forward to it in Return of the King.
-
Nerrrrrrrrrrddds!!!!! Nerd-nerd-nerd-nerd-nerd-nerd-nerd-nerd.....LOTR is the wardrobe and you guys are Lewis and Gilbert lugging it across the campus as the Alpha Betas chant derisively at you. Put up your Frodo posters and masturbate in your dorm rooms. Meanwhile I'll be getting down for some hot and heavy action with Betty Childs on the couch in the AB frat house.
-
That was FUNNY! ***And BladeRunnerUnit, I am charmed. If only the Atlantic were not so wide.
-
Dec 23, 2002 8:29:21 PM CST
For good acting, everyone should check out Daniel Day-Lewis' per
by neutral_density
Talk about getting your money's worth! The first real screen menace to come along in years. Top notch acting, he IS Bill the Butcher- it is an indelible performance. If he ever does anything again, it will be very hard for him to slay this character. Gangs of New York is probably the last time a film of this epic scope and magnitude with one of cinema's most powerful performances will ever be released by the Hollywood machine. Daniel Day-Lewis will "festoon your guts" with his performance! =)
-
I have a theory about many of the critiques on this talkback, especially those that start in this vein, "I loved Fellowship, but TTT was really disappointing, a letdown." Now the theory really works for those who revere the Star Wars franchise, but may work for even those who simply liked the SW films. It is an astonishing parallel to the reactions of fans to the prequels. They loved the original trilogy, but were severly disappointed with the prequels. Thus, they transfer their deeply held disappointment with the prequel to the LOTR movies, but since there can only be three, the process needs to be speeded up quite a bit. The massive amounts of hype only strengthens the parallels. Thus they have a ready made avenue for criticism, even though it fails to take into account that the majority of fan and critic reaction has been very positive, much moreso than the prequels. Just a theory. Wondering if anyone would buy this, or if I am simply barking up the wrong tree.
-
hey, just a funny anecdote. i am a canadian living in asia. an asian friend of mine went to England to study and she wrote me, "I saw this film on the weekend and it was really good. It was called THE TWO TOWERS. you should see it. but i recommend that you see the first film (it's a sequel) or else you may not understand what's going on." MWHAHAHAHAHAHHA! I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THESE FILMS FOR A DECADE, BUDDY! i didn't even think it would be possible they could be made! BUT HERE THEY ARE! Man, i am going to come into my office in full Aragon regalia next week and geek out completely! **************OH AND Merry Christmas to all of you, wherever you are! LONG LIVE AICN! -jackburtonlives
-
TTT rocked because it had better cgi than any movie I have ever seen. Whoever thought differently is entitled to their own opinion as well. I liked Sam's little soliloquy at the end because it was good to hear what was "worth fighting for" with flawless execution and timing and it served heavily along the concluding themes with the fighters at helms deep and the ents fighting at isengard. Sam and Frodo were away from the action I seem to think but everyone else is fighting because of the burden Frodo is carrying and in the true sense of the situation Sam and Frodo were fighting as well. I would like to think of the first movie as a gathering and the second movie as the rough and tumble point and hopefully the last movie will make everyone happy with bittersweetness.
-
Hey MorGoth, I've been anxious to know your thoughts on the film as you're one of AICN's most eminent and even-headed LOTR fans. I figured I'd find your review somewhere here in the tailend of this talkback. I've never addressed you personally before, and I don't post often, but I have always enjoyed and usually agree with your comments. Once again I agree. I've seen it twice now and I liked it much better the 2nd time. The 1st time I was troubled by certain diversions from the book, especially when Gandalf's lifting of Saruman's spell from Theoden didn't play out like it did in the book, where it was much subtler. I felt it was a bit dumbed down for a more theatrical effect. It could have been the best dramatic moment for both McKellen and Bernard Hill, especially with McKellen's limited screen time. It was OK though and I didn't mind the 2nd time. I also think PJ still has the opportunity to show us that Faramir is not like his brother in ROTK. He has simply taken dramatic license and added suspense to the story by making the audience believe he is like Boromir at first. Gollum is mind-blowing. I can't stop thinking about it. Also, the same thought occurred to me about the winged Nazgul & Frodo at Osgiliath (if I follow you rightly): just because it was about to attack Frodo doesn't mean it recognized him or the Ring. I'm glad they threw Osgiliath in there just because the set design was incredible. The shot with Frodo on the wall with the Ringwraith above him and Mordor in the distance was just classic. And by the way, I thought the most hauntingly beautiful shot was Arwen standing in the ruins by Aragorn's sarcophagus in the black gown, her veil fluttering in the wind with leaves falling all around, followed by her walking in solitude through the woods at the end of the age... Anyway, I'm glad you liked it. Thanks for enriching these talkbacks with your many insights, both from your head and from your heart. Happy Christmas everyone!
-
It simply places the blame for some peoples dissatisfaction of TT at the door of Star Wars, and refuses to entertain the possibility that Peter Jackson might just *not* be the greatest film maker in history. With the constant OTT criticism the SW Prequels get I find it bizarre (or perhaps not considering this is AICN) that someone finds yet another reason to knock Star Wars, when to be fair Star Wars should not factor into this at all, and some people like myself not only found TT to be a poor adaptation, but it was also a *rather poor movie*. I've been seeing on many msg boards die-hard fans of PJ's TT bend over backwards and write the most in/uncredible explanations in order to try and justify the awkward changes he's made, as though there really is no problem at all, despite their requiring a feature length essay to explain the changes. My mind really boggles as to why folks here who claim to be ardent Tolkien fans can so casually put up with some rather odd/pointless choices by PJ/Walsh. I'm also fascinated how some here are claiming this to be a masterpiece, when to me, ostensibly and all feelings of 'purist' (a ridiculous generalisation btw) aside, the film is little better (literally) than something like Armageddon. Are people really this desperate for a film to love?
-
If anything, perhaps floating the theory will help to get at the true complaints, and the general, "God, it sucked....I was wildly disappointed....It was a letdown....Not nearly as good as LOTR....They screwed with Faramir (my personal favorite, as I wonder how one fairly second-tier chracter can cause such consternation)...", can be washed away. I like criticism, but I like informed criticism. I do think that some of the criticism on this talkback has been of the rather unexamined type, and some has been spiteful. Would those who disliked the movie agree that some posts on this talkback were posted only to piss on the excitement of those who liked the film? Nonetheless, I enjoyed the film completely. Yes, I have read the books, a good number of times (started reading them in the mid 70's, and have gone back to them a good many times). Although I must admit they are not my favorites, that honor goes to the fiction works of Umberto Eco, Foucoult's Pendulum holding the top spot on my list. Now, if someone were to make that into a movie, then I would probably be the worst of purist snobs. Mostly, I advanced the theory in order to hopefully begin a discussion that examines the movie on its merits, and not mere subjectivist ejaculations, either good or ill.
-
I just saw the Two Towers. It was a visually spell binding film, although I feel that FOTR was a superior story, as I have felt about the books as well. I did not like the extras that Jackson added, such as the Wargs, Aragorn's fall, and Faramir's entrancement with the One Ring. However, I cannot wait for Return of the King, and I eagerly await the release of the extended Two Towers.
Also, didn't Arwen forsake the immortal life in Fellowship? Continuity please. (If you read the annexes, and I have, Aragorn chooses his time of death, and then Arwen dies shortly there after.)
Still loved it though. -
TheOneRing.net has posted a list of scenes that may make their way into the TTT SEV, which is worth a look. Not nearly enough Frodo and Sam, though I have read earlier today that, because Gollum was so involved and expensive to animate, they really had to decide up front what was going to be used in the theatrical release and not go for anything they weren't sure they'd use. Nonetheless, I would like a scene where Sam uses his rope (since he was finally given it in the FOTR SEV), and as much non-Gollum extras as were left on the cutting room floor. The missing Faramir speech would go a LONG way to bringing the character to where he needs to be. There is also a separate long post of direct quotes from the book regarding Faramir. ***I don't think anyone is arguing that Faramir shouldn't at first appear quite threatening and capable of actually executing the hobbits should he get the wrong answers to his interrogation; the difference is between a Faramir who finally sees the full danger of the Ring and is willing to let Frodo go, even at the risk of his own life; and a Faramir who is ultimately so much in sympathy with Frodo that he fears for his life and where Gollum may lead them (because he has learned to love him) even as he speeds him on his way. And darn it all, I really wanted to see the scene where Frodo blurts out his mission and then collapses. It just said worlds about the stress he had been under, and his suddenly feeling he can trust Faramir.
-
Dec 23, 2002 11:07:02 PM CST
Instead of A "Cartuna" Harry, Put A Gandalf/Balrog Animation on
by jollydwarf
Jesus, does every other poster have to use that nonsense? What, are you all a bunch of fucking lab coat-wearing, Einstein 'do-having ne'er-do-wells? You need a New Year's Resolution (and that DOESN'T mean an improved graphics card)? Trying give those cliches up. Bad enough to deal with Talkbacks this long, let alone ones where at least half the posts are redundant. And I thought the "Guerrilla Review" of "Clones" in March had an endless Talkback....
-
Hey Gang: Having seen the film 3 times, I can say it really gets better every time you see it. Jackson has crammed so much into this film. I think in a few months after it has sunk in a bit more people will appreciate this film more than they do now. Here is an example of a little detail that blew me away when I finally noticed it (It was on the third viewing). Frodo draws Sting and places it at someone's throat twice in the movie. Jackson places the camera in the same place each time, from the point of view of the victim looking up at Frodo. The first time, he draws it with his LEFT hand and places it against Gollum's throat. This is when Frodo still in control, the ring's hold is not yet complete. He does this of course to save Sam. However, at the end of the film when Frodo attacks Sam with it, Frodo draws Sting with his RIGHT hand! This is Frodo, weak and tired, and giving in to the will of the Ring. The fact that Jackson films each scene from the EXACT same camera angle shows us that Frodo is becoming a mirror image of himself. He is becoming the anti-Frodo if you will. Now, compare this to the 2 seminal scenes where Gollum is talking to himself. Here, Jackson again uses this "mirror" motif to show the inner conflict of Gollum. We see, through these techniqes that Frodo is now walking the same road the lead to the creation of Gollum. The movie is full of little details like this, which convey so much. This film is truly great film making. - Drakkir out ... Peace!
-
I liked AOTC. You said everyone who liked that movie was a fucking idiot. Oh and I was kidding in my second post moron.
-
Do any of you get percentage points? We (for the most part) PAY to see these movies. As a customer, any of us has a right to praise or bash TTT. I know movies are important to all of us here, but some of you are losing perspective. You can like TTT and AOTC or you can like one or hate both. If you came to this forum for the first time you would think
this was a Nazi rally, or worse, a bunch of wheezy teenagers. -
:)
It's great film, it will be remembered fondly by many children and adults alike. -
First off, I want to comment to Harry, and Aint-it-cool-news. What is with all of this damn LOTR's coverage and nothing on the far superior Scorcese film that was just released. I get it that you guys are film Geeks, but can't understand why a film Geek would ignore one of the greatest directors of all times outstanding film achievement this Christmas seasom. With that being said, on to the Two Towers.
I'll start with a little background. I really loved Fellowship of the Rings, I don't think it was the greatest movie of last year, but it sure was a hell of a ride. That being said, the latest installment is far more dissapointing. The first hour of the movie is simply awesome, from the appearence of Gollum, to the Gandalf midair battle, to the Hobbits escape. That being said, the movie derails from there. Gollum is the greatest CGI character I've ever seen. This is maybe the first time, with the exception of Yoda who has a longer film history to his credit, that I've seen a living breathing CGI character, that is so amazingly done, that you forget he is a computer image. If there ever was a case for an animated character winning best actor, Gollum is the one who has set the bar. Going back to Gangs though, Daniel Day Lewis is the definite best actor winner this year. My complaints shadow those of many of the other talkbackers. While in Fellowship there, was a definite since of dread, that a main character could be slain at any moment, in Two Towers, that feeling is completely lost after the Hobbit's escape. The heroes in this film are so ungodly powerful, slaying orcs by the dozens, that at no point in time are you worried Aragon or any of the main players are in any danger at all. You see them lunge into a crowd of thousands of beasts, and there is no fear aspect at all. The Battle of Helms deep was often reduced to an action sequence of Willow proportions.
This is a movie where they could have easily shaved off a half hour, and the movie would have been better, while Fellowship, you never wanted that movie to end. The Hobbits riding around on the tree endlessly back and forth through the forest, the several flash backs with Aragon and the elf chick, Christopher Lee pacing back and forth doing nothing as his army is destroyed, to many dwarf jokes, the complete failing of the explanation of Gandalfs transformation, the half assed battle in the Human city, all reduced this film to a popcorn flick instead of an epic. The whole Fellowship chasing after the missing Hobbits, and then seemingly forgetting about them through the second half of the movie. The orc creatures did look much better in this one, but the sense of urgency that the first one had was completely lost in the bad editing choices of the new flick. I find it very difficult to believe that they couldn't fit in more from the book, when this picture took so much damn time with some very useless scenes. The first one had texture, character, and flow. I'm sorry but Middle Earth was a gorgeous huge, sprawling world in the first LOTR's. The bad guys were scary, the mission seemed impossible. When 200 soldiers, and a few heroes can hold off tens of thousands of orcs without breaking much of a sweat, and a few trees can wipe out a whole army, it just doesn't feel as if there's any sense of danger at all. Of course they are gonna complete the quest, because who's gonna stop them? Give me a sword and I could chop through that pussy ass evil army. It was still a fun movie, but nothing compared to the first, and I'm not nearly excited about the next one, as I was about this one. -
Dec 24, 2002 1:13:44 AM CST
I''ve finally seen TTT!!!.... my opinion? AICN is full of cynics
by expfcwintergreen
I've been unable to watch this movie until today due to how much work I've had to do lately. However, I've been reading along in these TB this past week and, to be quite honest, they've been getting me worried. You see, I loved FOTR and all the negativity on this TB almost had me convinced that TTT would be a let down.....------------------------------> Today my apprehension was put to rest as I sat down to watch a truly magnificent movie. AICN really is a magnet for the miserable cynics of this world. Some of the criticisms that've be posted so far: "no character developement?... unforgivable discrepancies from the book?.... incoherent battle scenes and plot lines?" Jesus-fucking-Christ-Almighty what is wrong with you fucking people. I've read the books twice and I had no *major* problems with the changes made (I was put off by a few differences). Know why they didn't bother me? Because, the film was excellent, the acting, the pacing - fuck was I surprised how quick that movie went by -, the score, the effects, the cinematography!!!! The battle was awesome, the best ever put to film. The attack on Isengard was also phenomenal. And character developement? The characters in this movie, in these two movies - have been perfect.-----------------------------> and to that asshole who said, "the only reason people like TTT is because they're 'supposed to' " -- You know what, fuck you! I'm a huge LOTR-fan. After reading all the bullshit on these forms I had absolutely no expectations either way going the screening, seriously, I wasn't even excited. I come out of it now covinced that the only reason some people here *cough*Orson*cough* didn't like TTT is because it didn't follow the movie they had planned out in there pathetic little minds. I can, however, see how some might not like it. There is no question it's a different movie from the Fellowship. FOTR also had a much more natural emotional arc then TTT did. But I don't car, both films have had me entranced.
-
Well, I saw TTT on my birthday and then decided to go again today and was lucky enough to see a 3pm showing with a 6:10pm showing right after so of course I decided to check it out... it is the holidays afterall! After two more viewings back-to-back, I'm liking the film more. This is a new style of movies where it's more intended for multiple viewings than your standard 90 Jim Carrey slop... 3 hours is a looooong time and it takes more than one look to see it all in the context within which it was intended. I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYONE WHO CAN SAY THAT GOLLUM WAS FLAWED OR NOT CONVINCING! Gollum LIVES onscreen and it's the only computer effect since Tron and Toy Story that's made me totally excited about what the future holds. The only effects that don't and probably won't hold up over time are the minitures, especially of Barad Dur in Mordor because as you move up the structure to the top with the "eye", the fact that it's just a mini is painfully obvious. It worked in FOTR, but not in this one. Take a clue and create your architecture with 3-D next time. I'm looking at the same model on the FOTR SEV DVD right now and it's totally sold, but somehow they messed it up for TTT... possibly because they got much closer... FOTR had a lower angle and stayed a respectable distance away... this time they got in on it and it didn't sell at all. Yes there are story problems and things I wish were in that are not, but all in all, it's a fantastic movie that does what it's ultimately supposed to... entertain. It seems that these things are a little too important to some people... it's just a movie after all and the point is to have fun. Never expect an epic to be filmable and retain all you loved about the book. Troy won't even follow the written text and will be leaving out all of the gods which will dramatically change the story of The Iliad... anyway, I'm way too stoned right now and shouldn't be writing... but I saw the film twice today straight and enjoyed every frame... except for the Elrond/Arwen scenes which are just completely unimportant and happen at a point where it interrupts a good build... blah blah blah... puff puff give...
-
NONE OF YOUR FUCKING OPINIONS MATTER YOUR ALL A BUNCH OF FUCKING MORONS WHO NEED TO GET SOME FUCKING LIVES SPENDING YOUR TIME BITCHING ABOUT SOME FUCKING GAY ASS MOVIE. ITS CHRISTMAS FOR FUCK SACK GET SOME FUCKING JOY IN YOUR SAD FUCKING LIVES. I WISH ALL OF YOU FUCKING MORONS A MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY FUCKING IN THE NEW YEAR.THIS ANGRY ASSHOLE HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!!!!!!
-
"You guys are Giving this Movie to Much Love
-
I never post...I just read and lurk. I've checked Harry's news since the beginning, but my last proactive communication was a post to one of Harry's rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc threads in 1996.
To all the people who criticize this film: If your favorite film of all time, say "Empire" for example, were released today, you would be all over it as a contrived, disjointed, poorly acted, horribly animated (no CG yet) piece of crap. All the while also pointing out the things you enjoyed and backtracking in order to say "it's not all bad."
No movie is going to be perfect in your eyes unless you are the filmmaker, for the same reason that no one person has the exact same opinion on any one film. The filmmaker of any one film is just one in the pool of viewers with a different opinion...but his opinion is that the movie is perfect. All other opinions range from: -
peque
-
What a brilliant piece of work. Fucking hell! I haven't a single complaint.
-
Rated 2.4 out of a possible 5
There was never a film more sure of it's classic status. Many scenes are so corny they seem like they could have been written by someone's dopey mom. They seemed to care a little less about making TTT as good as FOTR (I film I rate 5 stars) was. The Ents are a very saggy sub-plot that preaches treehugging. Merry and Pippen discover them and they talk to each other then (unlike the book) are tricked into fighting, the best parts are excluded (like Merry and Pippen's main characterization), and that is their entire plotline. There was no reason to do that, the book showed that these inactive trees still posessed a lot of power when they needed to use it, they just didn't live a life that called for it often. I loved how they flooded Saruman's tower (unlike the book), though, it was a far more cinematic way of destroying them then if a title card came up and said 'they kept stomping orcs for a day, until they were all dead'. It wouldn't be clear to someone who hadn't read the book if the Ents were going to fight in Helm's Deep or some other place, the reason everything was taking place where it was, when it was, went largely unmentioned. Gandalf comes back and bores with words better suited to a novel, McKellen strangely has a poor scene where he introduces himself as Gandalf the White, I thought it really failed. I realize the movie can't be the book and it should never try, but with all the time I felt was needless and all the additions, many of the books best elements could have been shot. It tried to be many things but genuinely succeeds just in visuals.
I don't think John Rhys-Davies who plays Gimli should have been Treebeard also, and using the same voice digitally altered was still too obvious, I mean, they can afford to hire a different guy! I have no CGI complaints, they did a fine job, it wasn't artful but it was spectacular. Of course, you're not going to believe Gollum exists, it cuts corners sometimes, but it was often close! The Oliphaunts and Winged Dragon-esque beasts are really nice-looking! The Ents don't look expensive, but they look well-designed, despite losing their best parts in the book. I think Billy Boyd, John Rhys-Davies, Dominic Monaghan and Christopher Lee are all great actors given very little to do. Elijah Wood (Frodo) is a little less good, and Sean Astin (Sam) doesn't show much skill, Orlando Bloom shouts uses a deeper voice for the elf but he's good enough. I liked Brad Dourif's work a lot. Miranda Otto has just a thin, dull character doing obligatory gender reaffirmation, Serkis did a fine job, Hugo Weaving (Elrond) plays a doting dad to the crushing Liv Tyler and isn't given much to do. Bernard Hill looks great in makeup and makes a swell King, although having the character arguing over 'who's in charge here' was wasteful and a little too much like an 80's cop movie for my liking, he's great with what he's given, but maybe the character shouldn't be in the film as much as he is. Faramir is a restatement of the evil of men wanting the ring and he imprisons the hobbits (unlike the book) which was half-heartedly added. I dislike seeing Gimli as a complete JarJar-esque clown for whatever reason. For instance, while in the presence of the King he burps. Almost all of the dialogue past little phrases are changed and often into something that was intended to be comedic and it keeps the entire movie lighthearted. The music is much the same, although remixed a little as sonic wallpaper. I could gladly have done without an hour of it's running time, it's way too long to be watchable very often and the film is much poorer for it's editing. There are many pseudo-Tolkien monologues about the war and how it sucks, shouting and headshots lasting for some time, SO MUCH SO that I feel like I would have gladly done without about an hours worth of the movie (and I didn't feel that time was misspent in the book). Despite the immense journey, there's never any real downtime, no quiet late-night campfire spent speaking to each other, reminding us of all that's at stake and why it's happening, developing personality (as is in the book). I think Helm's Deep is the only real night shot, everything else looked to take place within a day.
I don't really care about not being true to the book, but the additions are goofy. Certain additions like the Warg battle (which isn't in the book) are interesting to watch but are too long and again, aren't shot so well. There's a little part where Aragorn is said to have died (unlike the book) which is great because LOTR really wasn't complicated, exciting or confusing enough (so many characters seem to die then come back, adding another just lessens things). There's a lot of spaces of talking and droning on without much substance or interest. I love the makeup and effects, but the Dead Marshes were something of a disappointment for me. Aragorn has the remarkable ability to throw a dwarf about 8 feet across, further than Gimli could jump. The Eye of Sauron looks like one of those light shows you'd see in a Radio Shack. Many supporting characters spoke sternly and walked a tightrope of self-parody. The psychology of Gollum is shown in one scene, it's a little dumbed down for the McDonalds crowd, he directly takes on different personas and one of them justs says to the other that he hates him, it's immediately made lighter when the same persona asks the other if he is "some kinda moron or sumthin'?". I actually kind of enjoyed that borderline-comedy, childlike/evil, simple sickening muppet take and it would be the main reason I might see the film again but it is a very different spin on the character. Actually, Gollum's characterization is about the deepest in TTT, everyone else takes a step down from FOTR instead of evolving. I loved 'THE TWO TOWERS' above the rest as a book and I don't feel I expected too much TTT should have been a better translation than this, but it looks like I'll regard this as the weak link in the group. At least it plods a little closer towards the ending, I can't shake the feeling I saw another movie that comes off as a long trailer, either for the next film or the DVD.
Helm's Deep is a nice battle, but I can't stand how it was shot. I think it should have used clearer, longer shots, the enemies often look computer generated but that's ok... It's definitely not the battle to end all battles as we've been hearing. Gimli ruined the tone of the battle when he said something about not being able to see over the wall (yuk yuk). Legolas ('the dude') actually boogie-boards down the stairwell, I'm not kidding. Concentrating on Aragorn makes things pretty dull. They often showed the children of Gondor to illustrate their people's fears (I think at least one of the kids played a Hobbit last time). The elves show up at Helm's Deep (unlike the book) and it detracts from the mythology aspect when the 300 don't fight and win alone but I'm still alright with that change. They have a mini-crisis where everyone panics for sometime whether they'll win or not. TTT came off as a very happy romantic-comedy fantasy romp starring Viggo Mortensen, none of the tough situations came off as being tough or hard to live through, I wonder if the utter blackness and bleak outcome of ROTK will come through after all this. I watched the movie, but I was never into it.
Aragorn is a one-note hero and TTT spends so much of it's time with him and his trouble, which was really only one of three stories in TTT. However, I don't even think Aragorn is the hero of LOTR, to all of Gondor he might be, but ultimately, the story ends showing us just how overlooked the hobbits are compared to Strider, in spite of all they accomplished, which made conflict between them engaging in the books. The hobbits are the center, and are far more interesting. The loves of Aragorn detract from the movie, it's clearly whoring the property out to a romance angle (without actual romance) for one particular demographic. There is the 'Girls can kick butt, too' sub-plot which is just unspeakably moronic. Gollum was a nice part, I can't find anything wrong with him, really. The hobbits play what seems to be too small role in the film, I personally think the filmmakers greatly misjudged Aragorn's actual importance and role in the series. He was interesting and had nice lines, but they were clearly underlined for a theater audience. I really hated how they misused the books line where Sam and Frodo chipperly spoke about whether or not their story would be remembered as a classic, it seems like a very plying, awards-hungry way to end the film. Despite intentions, the finished film doesn't take Tolkien's efforts very seriously at all. It's a fairly typical modern film really, and if that's all you're looking for you'll be able to enjoy this, but I'll avoid it for the rest of my life. I felt this film was ultimately disengaging, disinteresting, choppy, inconsistent, confusing and sort of a mess though it's understandable with all of the work in making 3 films at a time. I still get some enjoyment out of watching all of this, but taking it as a film or even a story is far more difficult.
-
Seasons Greetings All...from Middle Earth(a.k.a New Zealand). Early early morning here and one thing I can surely say!...these movies have made me appreciate the vast(albeit small)beauty of my country even more. On Christmas Eve I'm in the heart of Middle Earth and I feel basolutely blessed. Thanx Peter, Harry, etcetera :-) Merry Christmas
-
Such a good movie. I never read the books, and I've never been much for fantasy, but this knocked me out. George Lucas should open a grocery store and become a bag boy -- he FAILED. This movie just shows us everything that the prequels MIGHT have been. As I watched Gollum, there were times when I forgot he was CGI, and that's something I've been waiting for a film to do for a looooooong time. Loved the story, loved everything. Except the Ents... why did the main one have to be so much like the Rockbiter from Neverending Story? Maybe it was just the voice, and the field mice thing...
-
It was more the childish narrative technique and made up words that (even at six) left a sour taste in my mouth as I actively tried to read beyond my years as a child, dismissing most childrens' books as below me. Maybe that's why I'm such a cynical bastard these days.
-
Posted on Torn.
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1040683523
Seems to me that Peter jackson wasn't so far out with his version of Faramir.
Some notes on the introduction of Faramir (in the book -- not the movie)
When Faramir and his men capture Frodo and Sam, Faramir declares his identity to the two Hobbits with the following words: "'I am Faramir, Captain of Gondor,' he said. 'But there are no travellers in this land: only the servants of the Dark Tower, or of the White.'" (A minor side-note by the way: one white use this passage for an argument that the two eponymous towers are those of Barad-d -
I've tried not to get sucked into this SW vs. LOTR debate...But I can't hold back any longer! ..I grew up watching Star Wars on the big screen, an reading The hobbit & The fellowship before I went to Bed, Just Like Peter Jackson did. And for most modern directors,the love of those old SW trologies is what motivated them to become directors. They were moved by SW to direct, so that they could bring to life what lived in their imaginations. Just for a moment, think back to how old you were when you probally watched Star Wars the first time, 7 or maybe 10, how about 13..And at that time, you didn't notice or even care about,a weak screen play, bad pacing, cheesey blue screen effects, Bad dialoge...Why because when those big yellow letters rolled across the screen we were taken to a galaxy far far way. So should we hate Lucas because he lost his magic, has Star Wars lost it way...No, as we get older we become what we hated the most as kids..Synical adults, who tell you there no tooth fairy, Santa Claus, no dragons, or that there's was no ,long time ago in a galaxy far far away.....Is Yoda better CGI than Gullom, boy are we JADED, & spoiled...I truely love all these films, Stars Wars old & new, The Matrix , LOTR, TTT the list can go on, because I can still walk into a movie theater wide eyed and excited, and be taken to a galaxy far away, or to the ramparts of Helms Deep... And thoses adult we hated so much; the synical critics that some of you are becoming, they lied..There are dragons, far off Galaxies, and Maybe even the tooth fairy. And Peter Jackson, Lucas bring them to life at the movies. So stop the all this debate..You don't like star wars Ok, you don't like the Fellowship well thats OK too. But you don't have to ruin, the experience for those of us who loved both sets of film.
-
I would never begrudge anyone's right to express their opinion and I think it's nice when people say that they respect other's opinions when they disagree with one another but you yahoos ripping this movie deserve NO respect for your opinions whatsoever. I'm certain there is no such thing as a perfect film but some of these deconstructions and criticsms are just beyond asinine. Someone up top friggin went on for like 4 paragraphs how he was disappointed in the architecture used to depict Helm's Deep for Christ's sake - and another guy thought the Gandalf cavalry charge was too melodramatic........strange criticism for a climactic moment in high melodrama.
And these motherfu^&ers still taking swipes at Star Wars listen up once and for fu^%ing all: The new Star Wars films are virtually nothing more than big budget experimental filmmaking. If you can accept that and realize that the conventions of dialogue and story that you try to apply to a 3-movie plot lifted from some 20+ year old half-baked doodles in a notebook you'd hate a lot less. Applying the same analysis to the old films results in the same limp criticisms. An ass that can't see that there wouldn't even BE a LOTR or Matrix trilogy without Star Wars - old AND new - is just intellectually stunted. Go ahead and keep ripping Lucas as he establishes almost every new paradigm for actually constructing films for the NEXT 20 years. I'm sure you all know so much more than he - arguably the most influential producer/filmmaker (even if only from a technical standpoint) probably of the past 30+ years.
As for you fece slinging monkeys criticizing TTT go put your head in a toilet. The movie is not perfect but your criticism reveal a complete lack of any objectivity and therefore any relevance or insight. Show me a better version of this type of filmed entertainment and explain hwo and and why and I'll be the first in line. Otherwise, simply talking because you can doesn't translate to having something relevant to say. Your criticisms are the farts of the internet. -
good stuff
-
With the movie only out 5 days this talkback is soooooooooo long it needs a fresh start. Can you start a new one for all the folk on here?
It would be appreciated. -
The first time I saw it, at the midnight screening, I must say I was in a state of shock. Things weren't affecting me. I would start to get into it and then they'd bring the elves to Helms Deep or mess with Faramir or I'd be wishing for more Treebeard. I had several issues. I went back immediately and checked the book for comparison and I was right on the changes they made. For all that I loved on the first viewing, I was quite disappointed too.
Then I saw it again. This time that shock was gone, I was beginning to accept the film essence for what it was. It was starting to work for me.
I saw it a third time last night (obviously I must want to give it a chance). This time I was enthralled. All my qualms were ignored and I was in the moment of the film. I loved it dearly this time. I was crying and applauding and cheering and my pulse was racing the entire film.
I still wish they hadn't made as drastic changes as they did, but I accept them and embrace them now.
The one constant is: I could watch Gollum for days and weeks... "Brilliant" does not do him justice.
'Frodo Lives' -
Well, got off of work early today. I must say that my one Christmas wish for all of you is to be visited by three ghosts tonight, and all of them bop you over the head with their eternal chains. As Zach de la Rocha repeatedly bleated, "WAKE UP!" If I piss off a thousand of you (likely) and help wake ONE of you from your mental slumber (not so likely), well, then it was...you know the cliche. I have NEVER seen such pointless dissection before, and that includes all of Kato Kaelin's testimonies. I like checking out this site for the feedback, but this particular TB is honestly scaring me. The Bible doesn't receive this much scrutiny in the deep South. There are posts that fill three full screens with text about the character deviation of Faramir! Not a post...POSTS!! Look, it's a divided room, no changing that, the world is still turning, Elijah Wood and Sean Astin are skimming this shit with Grey Goose vodka spraying out of their nostrils, and this is going to bleed RIGHT INTO A "RETURN OF THE KING" TALKBACK!!! Be warned, for a year from now, you'll be there, petting your monitor (which is yellowing from being near burnt out), whispering "My pre-cioussss..." Merry Christmas, Buon Natale, Feliz Navidad, Happy Belated Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa (sp?), Happy Winter Solstice for the agnostics and atheists, and Happy Festivus (for the "restovus"!) FUCK POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, let there be a thousand voices rather than one oppressive censor! P.S. Ralphie, you'll shoot your eye out!
-
In one of your comments above, you say "another basher complained that the Elves weren
-
Dec 24, 2002 2:44:13 PM CST
I hope Wood and Astin ARE monitoring this talkback...
by daughter of time
...because then they know I think their performances are both impeccable, and that I would like to see them on the podium at the Oscars in 2004, accepting for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor for ROTK (though it should be for the whole journey). And I hope they give a special award to Andy Serkis, if he can't get Best Supporting Actor this year. If this trio doesn't work, LOTR doesn't work, and it DOES work - beyond hope, whatever problems one may have with the editing or adaptation elsewhere in TTT. In fact, my first serious hopes for the film of LOTR, before I ever knew about this talkback or had anything to do with the internet, were when I learned Elijah Wood has been cast as Frodo - and when I saw FOTR, I knew he had pulled off the impossible: turned my favorite literary character into someone who moved me even more strongly on screen than he had on the page. Bless him. And bless Astin for backing him so solidly, and giving us a Sam of such transparent goodness, devotion, and dignity. You both bring tears of joy to my eyes.
-
Isn't it? I mean, after all, God forbid people actually enjoy something...
-
The movie was good. But didn't any of you feel your stomach tighten at that last scene between Sam and Frodo? It looked like they were about to kiss! I think that due to the two of them being presented as almost rivals throughout the movie, those cute little moments, when they are friendly, seem so exagerated as to be faggoty. At least, that's how it looked to me and my friends. Otherwise, we enjoyed the movie, but the threat of that kiss... Oh, jeez.
-
Not all of it, but a good chunk of Rohan especially. Also some of Faramir got pretty dry. Sketchy characterizations will do that to you. And this is coming from someone who fell head over heels for FOTR. That film cast a spell from beginning to end....like a dark fairy tale. TTT most of the time felt like a generic medieval adventure with CG.
-
Roughly 10% of the population is gay. To "accuse" someone of being gay or "acting" gay makes as much sense as accusing them of having blue eyes. And "faggoty" is really hate speech. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you think it is "cool" to bash gays or to be horrified that two people who care deeply about each other might kiss. Again, get over it. You just demonstrate either your own extreme immaturity, bigotry or disconnection with the human race. Maybe you and your friends are afraid of your own sexuality, that you are so threatened by a kiss. I couldn't care less whether Frodo and Sam are gay or straight. What matters is their friendship, their courage and the fact that they are willing to go through hell together for something greater than themselves.
-
Dec 24, 2002 4:21:04 PM CST
2nd Viewing helped so much. Returning to some inane posts, thou
by dorfer
My 2nd viewing allowed me to see more of the character development, the analysis of which plagued this talkback yesterday. I was able to focus on more character interaction and I feel it's certainly commendable work. The acting was very well-done, despite some heavy-handed mono/dialogues. Excellent movie. **** Crapiola, maybe you were in the theater earlier today when I heard some Junior High School jackasses commenting similarly during the end of the movie. Thanks so much for re-introducing "faggoty" into modern vocabulary. Haven't heard that since the 3rd grade. --d
-
I am seriously starting to worry about some of the people on this list when they open the topic of whether Sam and Frodo are gay or not. Why? Simply put, the folks who bring this up must be either a callow youth (inexperienced and immature) or holding on to some significant repression issues. Why? Because the relationship between Sam and Frodo is so much more profound then what these posters are getting. Do you not have friends (of the same gender) that you would be willing to absolutely give everything for? Do you not care so deeply for your friend that you would be willing to go anywhere for them? Do you not love your friend with the kind of friendship that transcends silly categorization? The relationship between Sam and Frodo is so much greater then the simple physical relationship that you are trying to post about. Thus the conclusion is that of what I said above, you are either quite young, and have not had that kind of friendship yet, or you are repressing your own homosexual impulses. It's too bad, really, because you are missing out on a friendship that will last regardless of what happens.
-
The painting is Slacht bei Issus, by Albrecht Altdorfer. An apocalyptic, 16th century revisionist take on Alexander's victory. A perfect match for that scene, I think! I'm glad you enjoyed your second viewing so much, I am looking forward to seeing it again as well. I expected to have to take a little while to digest what I liked/didn't like about the movie, and then come at it again with my expectations all gone. I loved FOTR much more after the second viewing. Maybe TTT Take Two tomorrow :) Oh, yeah, for you rabid trolls - (Gollum): STAR WARs OWNZ! BORED of the Onion Rings SUCKS!!!
(Smeagol): No, it'sssss not true! Look at the critical and public reviews and the box-office take!
(Gollum): I TOLD you noone would like it.
(Smeagol): Go away, and never return!
(Gollum): My tongue feels fat... -
Ok, a short lesson my friends, because I am starting to feel a titch annoyed with the misuse of the term Medieval. As many of you are rolling your eyes right now, I would like to point out that the period of time known as Medieval roughly spanned 1000 years, from the collapse of Rome, through to the Carolingian period, the rise of the Papacy (especially mid 11th century to the year 1300), the Avignon papacy, the Conciliarists in the 15th century, and finally the beginning of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. There is no such creature as a monolithic "Medieval" period. Thus, while you may be thinking of a period of time which highlighted the romantic notion of knights and whatnot, this is not the only way in which to define the period of time. Is this a small issue? To many, probably, but to me it reveals a general sloppiness in understanding of the long march of history. Using terms loosely deprives the terms of clarity and serves to confound the general reader. Just be more specific, that is all that I ask.
-
My two cents: This is what I understand, and I could be wrong. Elves are immortal. Unless taken by a sword or some other similar act, they will live forever. Am I right... just want to be sure. Men and dwarves are mortal, no? Their time expires on its own, right? So, assuming that one will probably die in a hopeless battle, I think those with the immortality would take off for safety. If they are not taken in battle, they'll live on eternally. However, men and dwarves, since they will die eventually, may see it more "heroic" to do so in battle... more likely to stay and fight. Now, I'm not assigning any valor or bravery here. I'm just suggesting that if immortality is the issue, one has MORE to lose by dying in battle. Any thoughts? --d
-
I really doubt anyone who didn't like the movie went to see it AGAIN! A movie of that length unfortunately takes two viewings to fully appreciate, in my opinion. I took issue with certain aspects at first, and now that I've seen it twice, I have better perspective. Some issues remain, but I really enjoyed the movie AGAIN. What's wrong with that? **** The film broke opening night. Apparently someone did a shitty job putting it back together. I saw this 'flawed' version today. Coulda been worse, though. --d
-
As in release ye rods out of ye asses! Damn, some people need to stop being so anal.
-
Dec 24, 2002 5:30:27 PM CST
Seen it three times in seven days. This movie is now officially
by a goonie
I love this movie in the way I love my favourite movies. That feeling that you've explored the picture, critiqued it, analyzed it, and you now know that this movie will forever be held dear. I love Peter Jackson and Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh and Stephen Sinclair for writing the best screenplay of the year. I love Howard Shore. I now actually love Andrew Lesnie. I love Richard Taylor and everyone at WETA Digital. I love The Two Towers so much. Now if only the Academy would give Andy Serkis an Oscar... Merry Christmas everyone.
-
Dec 24, 2002 5:46:48 PM CST
EddieVed: You're right. How could a master like Scorcese be over
by neutral_density
It's a shame that Harry hasn't reviewed Gangs of New York yet. After reading some of these posts, I really don't know if I COULD wish any of you a Merry Christmas. Happiness is lost on most of you. Actually, come to think of it, that's the real shame. Opinions are not facts. In this case, the adage applies "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. Remember people, you can only get angry if you allow other people to affect you. You control your responses to stimuli.
-
very true. the movie was pretty damn awesome...
but i think that when jackson made those left turns...some of them left out parts of the books that i thought were rather compelling...
but it's all good, because he still did an awesome job, and i gotta say that gollum really did impress me...
i can't wait for the next installment...
and better yet...the HOBBIT (which is by far the best out of the four books)... -
Dec 24, 2002 6:17:18 PM CST
I gave Harry a ton of crap about his birthday gifts and BNAT a c
by hogarth358
weeks ago and I just want to publicly say I was out of line. I do think it was bit tacky of him, but no one needs to have their ass ripped like I did his. Harry-I'm sorry-hope you and everyone here has a merry christmas.
-
so heres the two towers from a man that haves visiopns of a better world....
im from sweden and i love America...i think its the land of my dreams....but i dont like one thing...i hate its politicits...its a desgrace for human nature......America suffers from German 2nd world war abstince...i loved bill clinton but Georg is more like Gollum untrustable inthe world of terror.....
im drunk now but i know you Americans think that your country is the centre of the world but what the fuck wake up....we love you and despair you.....you are not what you think, you are one of us remember that..........
Im sorry for your missfunction in this world becuase you where raised in subburbs.......please prove me wrong becasuse i love your country....
sometimes i feel your so miss educated...
Lord of the rings is not American, Australian, Europeian, Its Human....so get the fuck out of IRAC.......its not worth it.....stop building atom bombs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
You restored my faith in people again,thank you.Folks enjoy your lives,your faimily,friends and your loved ones.Enjoy your movies too :-)
-
hey ya'al,
saw TT again, and gained a better feel for some things. check it out: the dedication at the end of the film is partly written in elvish. any of you gee--ahem, film enthusiasts see that? up on your elvish? i had been disappointed by the song at the end titles... now i realize the song is, of course, 'gollum's song...' whew. really, the film's about frodo sam and gollum. redemption, temptation, distrust. not bad. the second time, i really appreciated the battle scenes more. watch for the details. remarkable. i like the scene where the orcs are bringing the ram up the ramp to the doors of helm's deep, and they just push dozens of their orc-buddies off the sides of the ramp. others have remarked here about legolas' very spiffy horse-mounting scene, and again, knowing it was coming, i was knocked out by that fine little detail.
hey, listen, just enjoy. merry christmas, yo! outta here~ -
You have to give credit to an artist who attempts big things, successful or not. My hat is still off to Baz Luhrmann and his audacious misfire Moulin Rouge, and Ang Lee
-
Dec 24, 2002 10:45:49 PM CST
Saying Matrix and LOTR wouldn't of been made without George Luca
by retrace
We'd still be in the dark if it wasn't for Gord Brontofucker discovering fire....Or we'd be walking to work if it wasn't for Seth Mammothfeltcher discovering the wheel. Give the guy his props but don't act like he's god.
-
Listen up, Sven: You know why you never see Swiss guys bashing the USA around here? Because the Swiss know that by staying neutral in WWII, they lost all moral authority to criticize those who fought the Axis. Not only did Sweden stay neutral, but you money-grubbing bastards actually traded with the Nazis while they overran your Scandinavian brothers in Denmark. It was like Rohan saying, "Hey, we've got no personal problem with you, Saruman. Wanna buy some furniture? Sure, we'll take Gondor gold." And while I'm at it, you'll notice we never go after your precious Prime Minister Persson around here, either. You know why? Because it's none of our business! So keep your opinions to yourself, you morally bankrupt ninny. To paraphrase Trent Lott, "If only we'd bombed the Swedes, we wouldn't have all these problems we have today."
-
Funny that all mentions of Gangs of New York have magically disappeared from this site. Just wondering.
-
Have only seen TTT once so far, and agree with many here about the good and the bad. I am a 20+ year Tolkien fan, and have to say that the movie should be faithful to the book, otherwise the souce material should have just been changed around and written into a different movie.
I think Jackson has captured the spirit and wonder of Middle Earth and it's large cast of characters perfectually, in a visual sense. So many things seem so perfect starting with the Shire at the start of FOTR. The Balrog from FOTR blows my mind, and I want to keep loading up the extended DVD and just repeating the scene where he jumps into the frame to face off against gandalf, just to see every little part of the damn thing he got SO FREAKIN right!! The same sense comes over me again and again in different scenes, and I think the work in that area is second to none. The battle scenes so far have been simply awesome.
However, I don't have my head completely up PJ's kiwi ass, and I have to say that the scripting and story, overall, have really been butchered - regardless whether you look at it as a direct adaptation from the books, or a significant rewrite to translate the story to the big screen - there are enough poor choices to hurt the movie. I have major problems with some of the choices made - lack of time with the Ents \ Merry & Pippen story vs. Helms deep time, the (where the HELL did this come from?) almost-death of Aragorn and his unexplained wonder horse who rescues him, the entire Faramir \ Frodo & Sam & Gollum part, with an innacurate, unecessary, and even poor scene with the characters in Osgiliath. People say the focus of the movie is on the Hobbits, but I don't see the time and quality spent on Frodo\Sam and Merry\Pippen here at all. Gollum surprised me and I liked the end result but then again it seemed like many in the audience took the character the wrong way.
What worries me most about all of this is the degree to which PJ and company might have butchered the story for the third movie - I'm anxious to see the finale of these great movies, but scared that he is going to take the ending in a direction that will dissapoint instead of delight.
I still think the first two movies are really good, and if you compare them to any previous animated efforts (bakshi, the hobbit, etc.) they shine far beyond those efforts in a league of their own. But I don't think they are anywhere near the top of the "all time best movie list" as the writing is, simply, not nearly as good as the cinematography and special effects, and is way outclassed by many other efforts. The movie, for me, does not come together with all of the elements as something like, say The Matrix, did.
Which is a damn damn shame, because if the writing was on par with everything else, this could have been one of the great great ones.
To be fair and honest, when I look back, I'll probably view LOTR as an awesome visual spectacle, but I'll look at The Matrix trilogy as something that not only had incredible visuals AND writing, but also took films in a completely new direction, putting them up there in the pantheon of the greatest films in fantasy \ sci-fi of all time -
Straight up! I just sat on the edge of my butter-covered movie chair and watched possibly the best film I've ever seen. Okay, there's no Anthony Hopkins in the bunch with a Juliard moment, but all of the film's moments combined blow away most other films, hands down. The vision of Peter Jackson, Tolkien's story, and the production crew simply clicked for a terror of cinematic genius.
First, the Two Towers is a better story than FOTR. There's more action and a much more heightened dialogue going on. FOTR was great but had to lay out much more history and and an orientation to Middle Earth (all fantasy books are plagued upfront with describing major races, politics, and geography making the early plot line a little tedious for the typical John Grisham type of reader). TTT is much more juicier as there's more action to the story (Helmsdeep, Gandalf and the Balrog downunder, Helmsdeep!!!). The transformation of the hobbits into deeper characters also begins to permeate. In the Hobbit and FOTR (books), there's so much focus on individual races and these cute little hobbits as "hobbits" (as my girlfriend so elegantly describes them). TTT brings out more of the individual qualities of each of the characters and really places Frodo and Sam as tragic figures more akin to an Oedipus or a Job. Aragorn's ascent into being a leader is awesome as TTT relies more on subtlety to bring this across rather than some Braveheart type of figure.
The action scenes are stellar. I've never seen a fantasy flick with so much detail of how sieges and catapults and mid-evil sh** really would work. Jackson certainly did his homework on that subject.
As far as acting - Sean Astin should get an academy award for playing Sam Gamgee. I know that may be out there, but I really understand his inner loyalty to Frodo and the reasons why he's does what he does in the film. Same for Aragorn, there's a clear picture of the person he's becoming and the person from which he came. Legolas and the dwarf aren't as strong in this area but definitely kick ass in the battle scenes (the humor is really good with them as well much like the book)
Hands down - - - The Best
But: I do have throw a couple jabs in like the rest of the Ebert f***s on this board who are so critical they can't just sit back and enjoy a truly great film. The first post above made a great point that much of the motivation of the characters isn't there. Why are they doing the things they're doing? Liv Tyler's passion for Aragorn is well placed but superficial. I just feel like Legolas and Gimli are like a D&D guy I used to game with who played to play but didn't develop the characters to what they could become. Jackson never explains that the rope Sam has on Smeagol at the beginning is elvish which is why it "burns" then and doesn't when Boromir's brother has one on him later. Sam's distrust for Smeagol is evident but I like the part in the book where Sam overhears Smeagol's conversation with himself about Precious. The Faramir scenes really disappointed me. It seemed like he just let Frodo go w/o any motivation other than "Damn, mayber we need to destroy the ring after all." Jackson missed a great opportunity to highlite the underestimated will of the Humans (since Isuldur messed it up for them) and really show their place as leaders. Tolkien handed him a gold mine with Faramir. Faramir was the guy who could do what most couldn't except for maybe Aragorn. Jackson left me with a superficial portrayal of the whole event. What, Sam just talked him out of it and a wraith scared this fact into him? No, what happened is he realized Boromir's weakness and saw Frodo's quest from the larger standpoint. (Also, Sam NEVER just blurted out there was a fellowship like the movie states.)
My last minor beef is that while Jackson should be commended for is his portrayal of how the races interact with one another and how the different "occupations" of each character. The lonely ranger, the cross dwarf, the snotty elf are all perfect (stereotypical) descriptions of each as they've been portrayed in fantasy books and by Tolkien. BUT, Jackson f**ks up the wizard part. Gandalf is my favorite character, don't get me wrong, but some of the sword scenes leave me in a cruel disbelief. Mayber I played too much Dungeons & Dragons when I was a kid, but wizards, no matter how powerful, don't just charge into battle with swords. They are more effective kicking back with spells and launching fireballs and shit. I don't doubt that Gandalf can do what he does (and I like it) but it's NEVER how wizards are and it's not very good battle sense. He's can do better in battle with ten thousand orcs with spells than he can with a sword. Cast a giant illusion spell or something but quit saving the magic for the magic users.
I love this movie through and through and will see it many more times despite my petty complaints. Cheers to Harry! -
I'm a film student, and as one my love for films is ruined by the moaning and picking upon of every insignificant little detail.
The Two Towers had a lot of inconsistencies.
For example, during the battle, the orcs are about three steps away from the wall, then suddenly, they're about thirty metres away.
When Golom had his arm around Frodo, it was a completely human arm.
There are more.
BUT!!!
The fact remains that the film rules, so none of this crap matters. When a film is that good, and has a giant tree toe punting an orc, none of these insignificant things matter. I loved it, and will watch it again, and buy it, because it is a visual masterpiece, and a tree toe punts an orc.
Now a film that sucks is James Bond 'Die another Day'. There's an invisible car, that makes him invisible - rubbish. They could have made it funny and have the car invisible but him not, so you'd see him floating along with a sandwich pack or jacket floating behind him.
two towers rules. -
Finally saw TTT today, just before I went to work (all night) and got home at 6.00 in the morning. I enjoyed the film and loved a lot of it. Not all though. Anyway, I'm gonna get some sleep, go see it again and get my thoughts together about this. Cheers.
-
Why do people keeping praising Howard Shore's score for Fellowship of the Ring and now The Two Towers. I hated it. The music was so average and forgettable. John Williams' score for Attack of the Clones was brilliant, especially the main love theme which sticks with you long after you see the film.
-
What's the deal with that?
-
Not true. Eomer has brown eyes, and Wormtongue and Gollum both have pale blue. These are supposed to be Northern Europeans, after all. ***By the way, anyone who's interested in quality, inexpensive collectibles should check out the New Zealand Post site. I bought a set of their FOTR Maximum Cards last year, and $12 NZ turned out to be only $6 U.S. - and they didn't even charge postage! This year's TTT cards/stamps look just as good.
-
I loved both TTT and FOTR, however, the destruction of Isengard had to be the worst special effects of the entire trilogy so far. Is it just me or did that whole scene look fake? You could tell they were models, I thought I was watching an old Sinbad movie. In comparison to the other scenes this one just disappoints. My other complaint was that Gimli is being overused as comic relief, his character is getting almost no respect. He is the sole representative of his whole race he shouldn't be the butt of almost every joke. Everything else was great, even though I don't always like some of the changes, every director must make an adaptation his own. One last thing, Gollum was unbelievable!!!!
-
aggan69 - I'm sure Harry appreciates you coming into his house and peeing on the furniture. That being said, please don't tar all Americans with the same brush as G.W. *** BEDDY - you are aware, are you not, that the Swiss are from Switzerland and the Swedish live in Sweden? *** IRIEnet - I have to take issue with the statement "BUT, Jackson f**ks up the wizard part." Umm, I think you can lay your beef at Tolkien's door as the Gandalf in the film is a darn near spot on match to the Gandalf in the books. Those who sent the wizards, the Valar, have prohibited his use of so-called "magic" (magic is a whole other discussion in itself) except as a last resort or in self defense. Gandalf was sent as an emissary to inspire the inhabitants of ME to fight their own battles with Sauron. *** Hullo to all the tailenders! I hope you had a very merry whatever and I wish you all the best in the coming new year. Oh and I loved TTT, btw. I left the theatre stunned and amazed (changes and all). I am currently looking forward to many more viewings now that the crazy time of year is coming to a close. I think I need to see the movie an other two or three more times to be able to absorb all those wonderful little details that PJ & Co. incorporated to thrill the fan in me. My favorite scene was when Shadowfax made his first appearance. I cried at the beauty of that shot. OK, I've got to fly. Love you all - JD (who is very surprised that she can still remember her password) {:o) P.S. to Skyw, er, Fister. I hope to mail the book out by Saturday. I'll let you know when I do by email.
-
I do not want this to sound like a complaint, but merely an observation. For me FOTR was a much better film for the simple reason that it had a poetry and emotional depth to the character portraits that lacked in this film. Now I am not faulting Jackson. I am told that the poetic dimension and the character development are not strong in the Two Towers. Regardless for me a true epic needs especially the poetic dimension to elevate it into the stratosphere. FOTR was a transcendent masterpiece, which may never be equalled in its genre. It is virtually impossible for Jackson to reproduce in another film one of equal quality. Nor do I think Jackson had the intention of creating a film similar to FOTR, nor do I necessarily think that it would be appropriate. He has diversified his film. I only miss the intimacy and profound poeticism of the first film.
-
Everyone
-
Season's greetings to all TEs! I love TTT! It's the best film I've seen since... well ... FOTR! I don't think it will win many awards for best film (due to it's 'part 2 of 3' structure), but if it doesn't win every award for SFX I'll eat my trousers! Gollum blew me away! I think he genuinely represents a new level in CG characters. Oh, and one comment on the recent TB unpleasantness; is there anything more idiotic than people who, for over six months, denegrate and ridicule TTT ad nauseum on this site, then go out and buy a ticket to see the movie?!?!
-
Saw TT again and, as expected, the second viewing blew me away. The trick is to get rid of years of preconceptions and accept the movie on its own terms. Awesome cinematic experience...the talent of cast and crew is especially obvious when compared to the shitty, shitty trailers in front of it.
-
You can find the whole review on Rotten Tomatoes, but I'm culling these paragraphs because they are so eloquent on why (for me, at least, and obviously to the critic) TTT was most successful when it dealt with Frodo: "The soul of The Two Towers is in Frodo's anguished face. The hobbit's struggle to master himself and withstand the Ring's "everything you want" allure overshadows the ink swarm of orcs over the battlements of Helm's Deep. When Frodo cajoles, "Good, Smeagol, good," as though encouraging a pet, he's also addressing the creature he sees himself becoming. Conversely, Gollum's idolizing of his "master" and simultaneous scheme to murder the "tricksy hobbit" shows a longing for who Gollum once was, and a vehement loathing of anyone possessing what he has lost. ... (Saruman's)Technology may threaten our way of life, but it doesn't necessarily threaten who we are; the power of the Ring does. We're caught up in the drama of Frodo's fall, but not yet in that of Middle-earth, whose destruction never seems possible.... The shot of Frodo dreaming before a winged Nazgul is the trilogy's most powerful scene so far. As Frodo stands for a soft moment staring at a Black Rider on a winged serpent, his finger gliding toward the Ring, the hobbit's blank facial expression
-
okay, first off... drakkir: interesting comment on the Frodo "mirror image" idea. Hmm... will have to check that out the next time I go see the film. ***Kraaken: in the book, the Balrog's fire is put out, but it the fire does start out again later. The thing is, the Balrog is essentially a living bunch of lava. If you've ever seen volcanoes on the ocean floor, they are not put out, even though they also don't flame very much. So obviously landing in water would put out a lot of the Balrog's outer flames, but the inner lava would still remain burning and would allow the flames to reappear on the surface later. ***fettastic: no character development? WTF!?! I think crazy mofo showed some excellent examples of Aragorn's development in the film, so I won't reiterate that, except to say that the change in his approach to the Rohan sword (first looking at it disdainfully and throwing it down and later saying it was a fine sword) showed his underlying change in attitude. The people in these films show their characters and their development more through action, not by stating it (except Gollum for the most part), but I think that is how it should be. Movies are essentially a visual medium, and if you can express something through action and good acting, rather than a page of talk, that's good. *As for other character development, Frodo's definite breakdown but also his growing bond with Gollum is clear, as is Sam becoming more assertive and proactive (although I've always been a bit annoyed by Sam), Merry and Pippin developing greatly (seen in both their actions, such as Pippin's acts while captured, and in their speeches to the Ents and to each other), and Gimli and Legolas growing immensely. If you think they are all about jokes and battle, you are wrong. Even the jokes show their development, like how Legolas can now make fun of Gimli, but they've both grown to the point, where they both take the jokes in their stride rather than consider them mortal insults. And if you want other examples, Legolas holding on to the Evenstar symbolises his growing bond with Aragorn and his hope (even against seemingly insurmountable odds) that he will return, and his argument with Aragorn his developing attitude towards death (once a far away concept to him) and his frustration at the thought that people he care about will have to die. I could go on, but I've got other things to talk about. ***FXMoon: you wonder about Merry and Pippin maybe going home? Well, it has been stated that none of the members of the fellowship need to stay with the mission any longer than they want to, and since they are not only separated from their comrades, but definitely far away from the main mission (Frodo and Sam), they could go home. Also, they don't consider themselves particularly important. I mean, are they great warriors? Wizards? Possessors of any great skills apart from a quite good rock-throwing arm and really big stomachs? No-one in the fellowship (they themselves included) considers them vital to the success of the mission. Of course, this will later turn out to be false (getting the Ents involved, Pippin saving Faramir, Merry helping to destroy the Witch King...), but for the moment, they could be free to go home. The fact that they choose not to, even though they are free to do so, is important. ***Miami Mofo: gotta agree with devil0509, I think it reminded me more of Legolas shooting the flying beast on the river. If the arrow had been aflame, the connection would've been even stronger (not that I think that should've happened). ***IRIEnet: the elven rope bit is not mentioned? Yes it bloody well is! Aside from the extended edition (which you shouldn't need to see), Gollum states clearly that the rope burns, because the "dirty elves" spun it. And as for Gandalf not using spells more, he's not supposed to (or allowed to). His job is to encourage the wills of others to fight evil, and if needed to in self-defence, to fight. He can use spells to fight the Balrog or Saruman, he can turn back the Witch King in the heat of battle, and he can use magic to light his staff to show the way in Moria, but he isn't allowed to use magic to slay whole armies or something like that. D&D wizards and Tolkien wizards just have different rule books to follow. ***morGoth: well, I think the main reasons against using Glamdring in the charge are: 1) the staff is longer, so it's better to use on horseback, and 2) where the hell would he put the staff? In his other hand? It would be kinda funny to see Gandalf struggling to keep hold of the reins, the staff and the sword and stumbling. "Okay, now I've got them!...Oh no, wait, no I haven't...Damn...Looks like I chose the wrong day to stop smoking Longbottom Leaf..." ***Wilco: my ideas on the palantir are as follows. With the Sauron/Gondor thing established by the Frodo/Wraith encounter, the palantir scenes are not absolutely necessary, but I hope they will get in. But they will play in with the set up storyline, as Sauron's encounters with Pippin and Aragorn through the palantir will tell him three things: 1) Saruman no longer has the palantir and it is now in the hands of Isildur's heir. 2)the party also includes a halfling. 3)Isildur's heir will no doubt head for Gondor (actually, Sauron may not know precisely where Aragorn is at the moment, as Aragorn can control the palantir and possibly cloud Sauron's vision, thus making it possible for Sauron to think he is closer to Gondor than he really is. Put these three things together, and Sauron is given much impetus to believe that the Ring (which he knows is in the possession of a halfling) is, or soon will be, in the hand of Isildur's Heir and in Gondor. Thus, an attack on Minas Tirith will be his cause of action, and Sam and Frodo can avoid too much attention. ***Harry Proudfoot: interesting post. I still gotta disagree somewhat. I've never said that Faramir doesn't kidnap the hobbits or distrust them in the book. Actually, I've said he is somewhat hostile against them and takes them with his troops. BUT he does it for distinctly different reasons and is still an inherently good character. Even when he interrogates Frodo and Sam, the two hobbits (and the reader) are given glimpses of his character. The hobbits view him as akin to Boromir in appearance, but nobler, calmer and wiser in attitude - a sentiment echoed by Pippin in ROTK. Even though he states that the law would call for the hobbits to be killed, it is also I think quite clear that Faramir intends to ignore that law. Sure, he's distrustful of the hobbits, but he has full reason to be: they are caught stealthily moving around Mordor's borders, they have a strange and not very nice orc-like creature with them, they are obviously keeping many secrets and Frodo is obviously lying somewhat about Faramir's brother Boromir, and may have had something to do with his death. But that's just the thing. The motivation for Faramir to distrust the hobbits and his reason for taking them to his father is to find out the truth about who they are and whether they were involved with Boromir's death. In the movie, he takes them to Osgiliath, because he wants the Ring for Gondor. As I've stated in several posts, if PJ would've just kept two of his lines "The Ring will go to Gondor" and "it's a gift from Faramir" out of the movie, the character could be considered quite similar to Faramir as we know and love him. But those two lines ruin it, turning him not only into Boromir, but actually into an even more nasty Boromir (seeing as it took Boromir a heck of a long while to get obsessed by the Ring, while Faramir seems to develop a need to get it to Gondor by force in a matter of minutes).
-
I do think that the beginning of the debate between Gollum and Smeagol is supposed to be funny. That's just the point: that the audience will first be amused, but then will be filled with pity and sadness, and finally joy again. That's the amazing thing about the creation of Gollum in the movie: he can be funny one minute, scary the next, disgusting one minute, truly pitiful and sympathetic the next. The debate scene is supposed to be a condensed rollercoaster ride example of the conflicted character of Gollum and how we can and should react to him. Now, if the audience laughs at the debate's 3/4 point, they are callous bastards with no understanding of the situation. But if they laugh in the beginning and are then reduced to silence or tears, that's the way it's supposed to be.
-
Okay, all you tailenders, trolls and others, if you want to check out my last two posts, they have somehow found their way near the top of the TB (just look for the posts dated Dec. 27th). Then again, if this post ends up there too, this won't be of much help...
-
Well, Gollum does sound a little too close to Donald Duck at times. (I think the voice is one area where the BBC Radio version nailed it.)
-
...I'm sad to hear your disappointment. To be fair to PJ, the Helms Deep side door is straight out of the book. *** My dearest morGy, I shall forgive you this one time, BUT, if you ever call this Kiwi an AUSSIE again there will be serious repercussions!! Don't tell me all those years in the void have brought on senility? ;-)
-
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Faramir is one of the last remaining true Numenoreans. He is never tempted by the ring. He does not "capture" the hobbits; he shelters them. He is completely without evil. Any temptation he may show lasts but a second. "Not if I found it by the side of the road would I take this thing," he says. He is oath-bound, much as Aragorn was, and will not break it. He is meant to show that Gondorians are not all haughty and over-proud, like Boromir. He possesses a true sense of humility and know his station; most importantly he knows that neither he nor any other being possesses the power to wield the ring to his or her own end. Faramir is meant to be a respite for Frodo and Sam, a shining example that goodness does exist in the far lands they do not know, a goodness that struggles just as they do to overthrow Sauron. He re-emboldens Frodo to his task. Any "questioning" or "interogation" is done out of duty; Faramir senses very quickly that Frodo is on a dangerous quest for his own benefit. But he must obey orders, and he cannot allow trespassers to linger in his territory without learning everything he can. PJ's change was unnecessary and unfortunate.
-
And just when we were finally able to talk.... I do think that in the book Faramir "captures" the hobbits and that his sternness (and the reality that he might execute them) is not feigned; but I also agree with Achilles that Faramir is meant to be a strong contrast to the relentless evil that has pursued them, and their brief stay in Ithilien a respite from it. I would also insist that he and Frodo are very much akin spiritually, and rapidly recognize this - I have elaborated on this before, but it includes an innate nobility (they are "gentle" in both senses of the word) combined with genuine humility and compassion for others - and that he does not merely "release" Frodo but sends him on his way as someone he has come to know and love and fear for. I thought that, in the film, Faramir's line that they now "understand each other" rang false, because however much the Nazgul incident and Sam's speech have convinced Faramir to let Frodo go, there was no two-way communication that Frodo could have come to any "understanding" of Faramir - at least, not in the movie. Frodo has pleaded frantically with Faramir to be allowed to continue his journey, and (despite everything he knows) Faramir still determines to send Frodo to his father. This is interrupted by the attack of the Nazgul, which forcibly drives home to Faramir that he has made the wrong decision - which, THANKS TO SAM'S HEROISM, he still has time to reverse. But I would hardly call this a meeting of the minds (or spirit), as it is in the book.
-
When Sam has praised Faramir for "showing his quality," Faramir replies: "...there was naught in this to praise. I had no lure or desire to do other than I have done." "Ah, well, sir," said Sam, "you said my master had an elvish air; and that was good and true. But... you have an air that reminds me of-well, Gandalf, or wizards." "Maybe," said Faramir. "Maybe you discern from far away the air of Numenor..." ***And in parting, Frodo says to Faramir, "It was said to me by Elrond Halfelven that I should find friendship upon the way, secret and unlooked for. Certainly I looked for no such friendship as you have shown. To have found it turns evil to great good." ***And to backtrack a page, a quote I only wish they could have used in the film, from Frodo: "And if I turn back, refusing the road in its bitter end, where then shall I go among Elves or Men? Would you have me come to Gondor with this Thing, the Thing that drove you brother mad with desire? What spell would it work in Minas Tirith? Shall there be two cities of Minas Morgul, grinning at each other across a dead land filled with rottenness?" Now that, mellyn, is a TERRIFYING image.
-
TTT was nothing EXCELLENT or anything, it was just decent. The pacing was horrible. The first time I saw FOTR, I thought it was horribly slow. I watched it a second time, and it solidified. However, people told me TTT was "much faster paced". But not that i saw it with my own eyes, it is just a muddled movie interspersed with battle scenes. I didn't feel any emotions except for that one awesome scene where Gandalf charges down to the orcs. I guess its because I read the books before......It was like, "its hopeless," but i already knew they were gonna win. I hope when i see it again, it will be much better
-
What if PJ and the crew produced an alternative, completely ACCURATE to the books cut of the films? Don't get me wrong, I love both the FOTR and TTT movies - I have FOTR on extended DVD and will be seeing TTT again many times.
However, I would definately want to get the "accurate" versions as well - and from what I'm reading I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. I'm not talking about major new scenes like Tom Bombadil (although ideally they could include them when they're down there for the Return of the King reshoots), but mostly cutting out stuff like Arwen's scenes and Aragorn's death from TTT, including the several scenes that I'm sure have been left out from the movie version, and reshooting some scenes so that the dialogue is true to the book (i.e. Faramir, the Ents etc.)
What does everyone think? Given that they will be going back to "massage" the third film, now is the time to suggest this, if people think it's a good idea - perhaps Harry, you can use your connections with New Line and PJ to see if it's possible - after all, with the several hundred millions spent on this movie by true Tolkien fans, it must be worth it to give something back, and I'm sure it would sell millions on its own right on DVD...
Once again, to avoid any misunderstanding: I'm NOT one of those people who will gripe at the two movies as they stand - I fully agree with Harry's review, and will probably see them again many times. They represent PJ's directorial vision, and have done more than do justice to the books - they have glorified them, and opened them up to a whole new audience. It is exactly because I TRUST PJ's rendering of the books so far that I'd be fascinated to see a more accurate version - and I would always view it as an alternate, and not as the one that first blew my mind away... -
Finally saw it yesterday (had been snowed under with work).
Well, let's not beat about the bush. For me, this was a major disappointment after Fellowship. I'm sort of shocked to find myself writing this, but I didn't think TTT was very good at all. There were a lot of nice *moments* in it, but I actually found myself thinking, "God, this is *bad*...." at several points in the same way I did when I saw The Phantom Menace for the first time. The final hour is the major culprit, and it's poor because of very bad decisions re: pacing and editing. In short, Helm's Deep is ruined by the ludicrous cross-cutting to non-action scenes taking place elsewhere that are clearly not even happening at the same time. Okay, so TTT is a hard book to adapt and we can all be Monday morning directors, second-guessing Jackson, but I was really surprised at how ineptly handled this was, violating standard dos and don'ts of interwoven plots. It would surely have been much better to have gotten all the build-up to the attack on Isengard out of the way first (at the same time as the build-up to Helm's Deep) and then interspersed pure action with pure action. As for the baffling stuff with Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath, that clearly shouldn't have been there at all, but if Jackson was determined that this invented stuff should go in, it should not have been cluttering the Helm's Deep sequence.
As for the invented stuff, did it bug me? Well, Aragorn's "death" was unnecessary but, well, it didn't bother me THAT much; the elves at Helm's Deep I could take or leave. But the Osgiliath stuff had me scratching my head and wondering, "Why....?" What purpose did this strange sequence serve? It didn't even stand on its own merits irrespective of purist complaints. It looked rubbish; it was pointless. It also changed the nature of Faramir's character.
Other gripes: yes, the Arwen flashbacks and dream sequence stuff was valueless fluff. Elrond still comes across as a bitter crank, almost a villain you want to boo rather than a wise, kind figure. Some of the visual effects with Merry and Pippin with Treebeard were bad. The whole Treebeard section felt rushed and undercooked.
Good things: Gollum. First rate. Really very good indeed. As others have said, yes, he still looks CGI, but more believable as a character than anything I can recall having seen before. And Eowyn is yummy; if I were Aragorn I'd ditch Liv and shack up with her instead.
Overall, though, I feel crestfallen. I really thought that LOTR was going to be three clean strikes in a row. That's obviously not going to be the case. -
"(T2 of course was the first aggressive use of CGI.)"
Not sure about the "of course". I would argue that The Abyss picks up that particular gong. (The technology used for that was built upon more primitive stuff developed for the weird time-travel dream sequence in Star Trek IV, btw.) -
I hear people complaining about PJ jumping from Helm's Deep to the Entmoot, slowing everything down. "Come on," you're all thinking, "Let us see the battle! We don't want this slow crap!" That's exactly what PJ wants you to be thinking! He's putting you right in Merry and Pippin's shoes! You, as the audience, know the dire situation the others are in, and you're begging for the Ents to go and help...JUST LIKE MERRY AND PIPPIN!
-
"You, as the audience, know the dire situation the others are in, and you're begging for the Ents to go and help...JUST LIKE MERRY AND PIPPIN!"
Simply untrue. Merry and Pippin know nothing about the events of Helm's Deep; neither does the attack on Isengard serve to help the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep, although in the long term it clearly benefits Rohan. If e.g. Gandalf had sent some magic message to the hobbits telling them that an attack on Isengard might give Saruman cause to withdraw some of his troops from Helm's Deep, your point would make sense. However, it's simply not the case. -
Actually, my problems with Gollum are pretty minimal - other than not enough time with him (or Sam or Frodo). By the way, I did a quick page count of TTT last night, and it works out to approximate 200 pages for BOTH the Ent thread and the Rohan threat, and 150 pages for Frodo. Even if you take out the last 50 Frodo pages, you still end up with a one-third ratio for Frodo's tale - which was NOT reflected in the film. (Grumble, grumble...) It felt more like one-sixth. But back to Gollum, other than the slightly ducky voice, which I'm willing to accept as a choice, he was really quite wonderful, so don't count me among the naysayers here! My own choice would have been a dark grey skin (Tolkien is inconsistent about this, but it would go both with him looking like a "black squirrel" and "pale") and pale GREEN eyes. I can see why they are giving him pale blue eyes (an enormous distortion of the way Frodo was beginning to look after Weathertop), but really, need they beat us over the head with this? Are we going to have a Frodo who LOOKS like Gollum by the time they reach Mt. Doom? That would be worse than the CGI-Frodo I was dreading in the Tower scene (which will probably be the only way they can get beyond his ALREADY having held a sword to Sam's throat, this early on...). ***I don't need a "purist" version of TTT (the FOTR SEV is as perfect as I will ever need), but I do hope the SEV will solve some of the editing and pacing problems. The suggestions made above were really quite good....
***My elderly mother thinks she may feel up to sitting through a three-hour movie tomorrow (at 79, she has good days and bad days), so I should be going for #4. I lent her the theatrical DVD, and she was RIVETED by the documentaries! However, she has a hard time understanding whispers (even loud whispers; it's a matter of quality rather than volume) so I'm a bit worried about Gollum. ***By the way, just thought I'd share with you that Alice has come up with another bon mot: Un!Faramir. Hope she doesn't mind me telling. :) -
Gandalf could have told Merry and Pippin that something big was brewing...which would have been confirmed when they saw the army marching from Isengard. Even if he hadn't, do you think they would have seen that army going somewhere and NOT thought that some serious shit was going to hit the fan? They knew that SOMEONE was in trouble with an army that big, and they knew how close Aragorn was to them, so I think it's a natural assumption to them that they would somehow get involved. And you say the Ents didn't help at Helms Deep? How about they completely destroyed Saruman's army factory, eliminating any chance of reinforcements. And we still don't know if Huorns showed up at Helms Deep or not...its a definite possibility...perhaps to be covered in the SE DVD
-
Never drink two large sodas at a movie theater in one sitting.
-
Orcs have cockney accents. The only clean women in Middle Earth are the ones you're supposed to care about. Dwarves go for the nuts.
-
I felt almost numb after my first viewing of The Two Towers. there was just too much to digest. But after seeing it again, I think it's every bit as great as Fellowship. Anyway, here's how I see why Faramir's character was changed. In the book through many pages of dialogue we're shown how he longs for his father's approval the way he (Denethor) approved of Boromir. PJ (I think) showed this in a very economical way by having Faramir take Frodo and Sam captive to be delivered (with The Ring)to his father so that he can finally attain his "rightful standing" as he put it. I did not perceive him as wanting The Ring for himself. He could have very easily taken it, but he instead orders the Hobbits be delivered to Denethor. And he says to tell him "the Captain of Gondor brings a Mighty Gift- One that will turn the tide in our favor" or something like that. Also, I think we get to see the threat to Gondor made real with the attack on Osgilliath and with the Nazgul seeing the Ring there, Sauron will assume it will go to Minas Tirith. I have to admit I was a little bothered by these changes at first, but after seeing it a few (3 so far) more times, I can sort of see why they were made. I really do not think any of the changes PJ made are detrimental in the least to the story. it's really a huge achievment and I can not wait for the Extended Edition just to see the other parts that were filmed.
-
I saw the movie the other day and liked it a lot. This isn't going to be a review, just a list of some likes and dislikes. For my money, I thought the pacing was great. The direction was pretty great, overall. With the two movies already released, the series is shaping up to be a good one. The only thing that really took me out of this movie was one of the scenes with Aragorn and Arwen, which otherwise worked really well. When Aragorn realizes that Arwen is indeed leaving for Valinor, and the two leave on rather tumultuous terms, it seems to negate the ending note the two shared in Fellowship. I understand that it's important to Arwen's character and the strength of the romance in general, and essentially both scenes could have occurred, but it just seems kind of off to me. Call me pedantic, tell me I don't "get it," because I don't give a shit. I understand what both scenes were trying to achieve, it just took me out of the movie. I really didn't have that big of a problem with it, because it works, anyway, and I loved the romance scenes. I know some people here had a problem with them, but I think that they were necessary. The only thing about these movies that really irks me, and most people probably will either see as nitpicks or just flame me for, are certain death scenes. All in all, there have been about 6 instances where the audience and characters are supposed to assume another character is dead, or the audience is aware that a character is really alive, but the characters in the movie are supposed to assume he is dead, and we're forced to watch their reactions. By the end of Return of the King, there will probably be a combined total of 9 or 10 such instances. I understand that all of these fake deaths have a purpose to play, either in terms of plot, character, or storytelling, but the fact that they do is what makes the decision grating. It almost seems like away of cheating to elicit the audience's suspense or emotion, or an excuse to flesh out the plot or someone's character, which also seems like a cheap way of storytelling (See: Eowyn looking like her world is spiraling when she finds out that Aragorn "fell," while melodramatic Indian music plays in the background and people feel sorry for her as her eyes water up. See: The hobbits crying and looking afraid and the elf looking distressed and confused while soothing chorus music plays over the slo mo scene that follows Gandalf's "death"). Again, I realize that all of these scenes have some part to play, but the technique just feels overused. Anyway, that's my rant,. Flame me if you want, because I don't owe you a goddam thing. I appreciate what Peter Jackson has done, I think the directing is awesome, but whatever. Anyway, in response to all of the Faramir hatred, I never read Towers or Return of the King, and I think that the character is fine. The sets are great, the score and soundtrack are great, and the effects are great. The score really does enhance this kind of movie, and it may not seem as good as Fellowship's because a lot of themes have already been introduced, but the variations on the themes are terrific, Gollum's Song is good, and I love the Rohan theme, even though it's not really as hummable as the ones introduced in Fellowship. Also, while not my favorite moment, and not really an important one, one of the scenes I liked in the movie was the one where Gollum is tugging on Frodo's shirt sleeve in front of the Gates of Moria, begging him to go a different way. He's just so pathetic. Actually, another scene people are trolling on is Gollum's first scene where he argues with himself. I've heard people bash it because it's unsubtle (is that a word?) and people laughed at it, but I actually think it is kind of subtle. It gets you to think exactly what you're supposed to. You laugh at it a little, you're forced to look at the difference between Smeagol and Gollum, and in the end, you're totally sold on the fact that Smeagol is this lovable but wretched creature. Anyway, that's my two cents. I've spent way too much time typing this post that nobody's going to read. Excuse me while I go realize that I have no life and feel sorry for myself. Good night.
-
Hi JD - both Switzerland and Sweden were neutral in WWII. My little rant was a compare and contrast of their respective behaviors since. Oh, about the movie: another minor error: people don't float face-up, and people with metal on don't float at all.
-
seriously, how many of you guys have been laid before? you really need to quit disecting this shit so thoroughly. the movie was fucking awesome, had a few flaws but P.J. I am sure didn't go through all the hard work to fuck things up by making Faramir a clone of Boromir. later geeks.
-
Nobody cares what makes him tick.
-
That this is just 85% of the actual movie. Let's all reserve judgment for the special extended version on dvd. I do feel a missing piece in this movie and it is a beginning and an end. Being the middle child means that your the least liked. Consider when the opposite is true. Expire Strikes Back IMHO was the greatest of the Star Wars movies. But, in that instance, there was a complete story with threads leading to the next sequel. In TTT, you're thrown into a world you should have seen right after the first. No small threads to pick up in the beginning or to leave off in the end. In the book versions, Tolkein gives us a synopsis to catch up the reader and refresh the memory. And just why is that missing from this film? A prologue would have been nice. However, we are brought in by looking at an exterior shot of the mountains and listening to the dialogue echo from inside right before Gandalf's fall. *Fecesiously* ummm, hello, I'm terribly new to all of this just who is Gandalf, why are those people so small, and just who is this Lord of the Rings? *Back to normal* Otherwise, its perfectly fine with me. It's like watching a grand soap opera where no matter where you come in at you grow to learn the characters. Then again, this IS a movie not daytime television. This is a once a year EVENT. Jackson oh Jackson why have you forogotten a prologue? Remeber folks, Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy yet one big book. Just like these films, not a trilogy just one big movie.
-
Peter J. is a genius! Just seen "Towers" for the second time. Holy god, it just gets better and better. Want to see it again and again and again... "For the King!!!"
-
LOTR: TTT is a Great movie... I don't just mean a great movie... I mean Great with a capital G. It's got action, emotion, vision, characters we care about, and let's face it; an epic story written by a master to back it up. People always complain about movie adaptations because they can NEVER satisfy everyone who loved the book because, inevitably, some elements must be left out (unless you want an 12 hours movie). As an avid reader, I usually stay away from movie adaptations because so many of them butcher the spirit of the book (remember Joffe's blasphemous version of The Scarlet Letter? Hester runs off with Dimmesdale?! What the hell! And what's with the explosions! Hawthorne's novel didn't have explosions!). PJ, however, has made some arguably necessary changes while staying true to the spirit to Tolkien's books... although I thought he could have futher toned down Tolkien's racist tendencies. Filmakers are interpreters of written material... they do not (and should not) follow the original material word for word like automatons. Where's the creativity in that? PJ manages to respect Tolkien's books, while also making it his own. I disagree with one the post that says that Tolkien doens't matter. He created this world, these characters, he brought them into our consciousness. Without him, we wouldn't have this movie... so even if you didn't read the books or didn't care for them that much, give the man his due! Back to the movie: Many scenes moved me to tears.. not because they were sad or anything, but simply because they were moving... like the shot of Gandalf leading the charge to rescue what remained of Helm's Deep. The music, the use of light, the editing... all superb! My friends and I tried to decide if we like it better than the first, but I realize that it's an unfair comparison. The first movie had a particular job to do; set up the legend of the ring, introduce the characters, and bring them together. The second movie has a harder job because it has to follow three divergent story lines while trying to maintain a unifying tone... no small feat! I can't wait for the final chapter.
-
It was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to change the role of Faramir as Jackson did. There may have been other ways to get them to Osgiliath for the encounter with the Nazgul (yes I know how to spell it, the misspelling is deliberate and a rather long story) but I haven't been able to think of one that was more efficient or would have improved the movie significantly. Might the hobbits have just wandered off course, even with Gollum aiding them? Not likely, and how would they come into the presence of Faramir and still be "lost"? He knew the way around. Would they have willingly gone to Osgiliath, perhaps to recruit a larger host of bodyguards for the journey into Mordor? Doubt it - at this point Frodo is well aware how weak men typically are in the presence of the ring. And you see that these choices take you even further away from the book than Jackson went.
Note that I'm taking for granted that, in the movie, the ring would go to Osgiliath. That's because IT HAD TO GO TO OSGILIATH. The storyline of Frodo and Sam, for all its implied tension, takes a serious turn for the boring in Two Towers the Book. Think about it - At the beginning of it they're at the Black Gates, and at the end they're at the stairs to the secret entrance. All they've done, really, is wander around the outside and meet people.
I imagine PJ's line of thought went something like this...."The two books of Two Towers can't be shown in sequence, it would feel like the viewer's watching one movie for an hour and a half and then another, completely different, movie for the second half. So we're going to have to intertwine the plot lines. Oh, look at this - the plot line with the Ents reaches a major high point at the end of the book (part III), and so does the story of the men at Helm's Deep, but the Hobbit's tale doesn't really go anywhere. I'll have to do something about that or the film will be horribly uneven toward the end." So, the Hobbits go to a place where the ring is in peril of being siezed, both by men and by the Nazgul. Because it's a *movie*, the separate threads have to peak simultaneously or it's going to become disjointed. And really, folks, Faramir departs from his depiction in the book for about three whole scenes. And at the end we're left with the same character we know from the book, ready to be that stout, strong-willed fellow in ROTK. And the ring is as it was, on the way up the stairs. (Shelob is a whole other issue, and I'll let someone else tackle why the spider queen was left off until ROTK.)
The real difference between reading LOTR and seeing it is the Ring itself. We can't be told, for page after page, that the ring is evil and corrupts the minds of those who see it or are near it - we have to SEE that, often through the actions of characters who could yak on for pages about how the Ring would never corrupt them. Can they do that in the film? NO! It's gotta be shown to us, especially those who haven't read the book. (Certainly no one on this forum. :-)
I challenge the purists who have bashed every little detail and depature from canon in this film to write up a script that is absolutely true to every aspect of the book and is:
1. Actually watchable as a film
2. Less than 23 hours long
3. Can be filmed for less than three billion dollars
If anyone can manage one, hey, post it up, please. It'd be a landmark achievement in screenwriting. -
because I'm going to see TTT again. After the first viewing, I was overwhelmed much like I was after first seeing FOTR. Too much to absorb, but I wasn't nearly as bothered by departures from the "sacred text" as I was after 1st viewing of FOTR. I'm in love again. My favorite line after one viewing..."Don't you even know your Sam?". Yeah, I get the book next!
-
I think the furry has fizzled. Me, I think the only problem with the film is that New Line is holding PJ back to a 3 hour time limit...damn them if it is true. For any tail enders around my son had a question...what happens to the elves when they die? Where do they go?
-
The spirits of the elves make their way to the Grey Havens, just as if they had sailed there. Unfortunately, its a much more painful journey, I'm afraid.
-
What then are the spirits in the dead marshes? I forget exactly what Tolkien writes. But I seem to remember a line by Gollum that they are the spirits of elves and men... If that is correct then why are the elves still there? As for Box office...I took my son to an eleven am viewing Sunday and we were late getting there. I walked in expecting a somewhat empty joint and we ended up sitting near the front. Everyone is converting to Gamgeeism. 200 Million in less than two weeks..who would have thought. Other things I noticed...it might be dirt but it looks like Frodo has a shiner from the spear in Moria. Pj ends both films by panning back to Mordor. When Legolas gets on the horse...well how the hell is that done.
-
"Men and elves and orcses..."*************************************************************perhaps the bodies of the elves remain? Not really sure
-
As others have commented, I had trouble with the inclusion of the Osgiliath scenes being created for TTT. However, Eowyn's scene about fearing "A Cage" is taken from her meeting with Aragorn prior to his embarking on the Path of the Dead. Having re-read this chapter after seeing TTT, I can only hope that it is cut from ROTK. I believe the the Path of the Dead is one of the truly weak and unnecessary passages of the book. It is two pages of dark caves, and hardly cinematic. However, consider what happens if it is cut. 1) The Palantir does not need to be a mystery that Pippin accidentally solves. Since Gandalf has already seen it in use in FOTR, this is not necessary. 2) Aragorn does not need to confront Eowyn before she becomes Dernhelm. All her scenes building to this gender-bending have already been shown. 3) Aragorn does not need to go to the coast. He can go directly to Minas Tirith as he has promised. 4) No one needs to remind him about "The Path of the Dead". If they were going to, this would have happened at least twice during TTT when Gandalf returns and when the Elves arrive at Helm's Deep. No one has mentioned it. By removing the Path of the Dead from ROTK, the only important thing that gets lost is Aragorn using the Palantir and drawing Sauron's eye out of Mordor and towards War just as Frodo and Sam enter Mordor. I would suggest that in addition to providing more plot for Sam, Frodo and Faramir, the Nazgul encounter in Osgiliath is now the trigger for the full scale war and will spare us all from the enormous let down that is (or would have been) the "Path of the Dead".
-
some responses. morGy: my staff comments were mostly jokes. But I still think the staff is a useful weapon for him, especially on horseback and when going up against a line of orcs with lances pointed at you. ***CeriStagg: gotta disagree with you on Merry and Pippin. Yes, they don't know precisely of the Battle of Helm's Deep, but they did see the huge army setting out. As Merry puts it "the war has begun", and they want to help their side win. The fact that they attack Isengard actually have nothing directly to do with Helm's Deep, but I think the hobbits realised that since pretty much all the Uruk-hai are out of Isengard, the place is relatively little guarded. Therefore, if they're going to have a snowball in hell's chance of taking the place out, thus winning a victory for their side, this is the time to do something (being near it and having very powerful allies at their disposal are also reasons). ***Oh, and DoT, great quotes. Man, I'm wishing for that "two Minas Morguls grinning at each other" line to be in the SEV. Didn't even remember it, but boy is it great.
-
Dec 30, 2002 4:46:21 PM CST
I haven't read through all the posts yet, *Spoilers*
by conan_the_humble
and I haven't yet had time to see TTT a second time, but The Nazgul 'seeing' Frodo bearing the Ring at Osgiliath, ruins the plot of Frodo sneaking into Mordor in the first place, for mine. Now I am an admitted 'purist' however, as Gandalf states in ROTK, (hopefully) Sauron rules according to his own wisdom, ie: if HE was in the position of the 'free peoples' of Middle Earth, HE would have used it to overthrow the Dark Lord. In the book, HE presumes Aragorn and the 'Captain's of the West 'march to the Black Gate for this very purpose. Why would Sauron think that Frodo would be taking the Ring to Minas Tirith via Osgiliath, when HE knows EXACTLY where it is coming from, ie: The Shire, via a quick stopover in Rivendell. Osgiliath is a little bit out of the way of a direct trip to Minas Tirith. The Anduin separates them for the Frodo's sakes!!! Why would anyone, supposedly going straight to Minas Tirith from Rivendell, to deliver The One Ring that will defeat the enemy, cross the biggest Freakin River in Middle Earth and bring this Ring CLOSER to the enemy you're supposedly trying to defeat, when it's completely unnecessary? It doesn't make sense to me. Moreover as soon as Sauron knew exactly where the Ring was, every servant at his command, including the ENTIRE Nine would be sent to that location ASAP and with the Nazgul mounted on their winged steeds, they would have reached, Osgiliath from Minas Morgul, extremely quickly, given the very short distance involved... TOLKIEN also speculates, that if Sauron had discovered the Ring's exact location, he might even have come Himself to reclaim it. It also occurred to me that ROTK the movie will have to be about 4.5hrs long (given the approximate 3 hour running time of both movies to date,) because TTT the movie only got about halfway through TTT the book. Saruman, still hasn't been cast down. Aragorn hasn't received Anduril yet. Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn and Gandalf haven't met up again with Merry and Pippin yet. They haven't even received the Palantir, let alone Pippin or Aragorn, looking into it. Aragorn hasn't gone to the Paths of the dead yet, nor have the Dunedain shown up. Gandalf hasn't begun to ride to Minas Tirith with Pippin and the Muster of Rohan hasn't begun, nor consequently has the ride of the Rohirrim. Frodo and Sam haven't reached the Cross Roads yet, nor observed Minas Morgul and the Witch King's Army, nor climbed the stairs of Cirith Ungol, nor battled Shelob and Gollum. Sam hasn't yet taken the Ring from Frodo and resolved to go on alone and then found out later from Orcs that Frodo is still alive... Whew. No wonder PJ et al is leaving out SOTS. I've just outlined half a movie's worth of footage right there!!! At least, this is the way I see it!!! Cheers.
-
Dec 30, 2002 10:27:20 PM CST
Words from Elanor (who has been having computer problems) if any
by daughter of time
Thank god for T2T. Have seen it four times now - it gets better and better. I now openly weep at nearly everything Frodo, Sam or Gollum say or do. Also Elves at HD, Merry "The fires of Isengard will spread"..etc., Shadowfax's appearance, Arwen in mourning, and the shot of the Three Hunters running as the Fellowship theme swells the first time.
Post this for me if you like - it will be a while before I can do that again. I am lurking whenever I can. Saw Bjarki's post after his second viewing. Huzzah! Tell him I am smiling for him. Hugs to all the Tailenders. -
Why is it that those who would defend the literal integrity and values of an imaginary world are such pricks in this one? Just wondering.
-
Go back and read Harry's journal of when he went to New Zealand to see LOTR filming. (Go over to search and type in LOTR, then scroll back some. It's called There and Back Again.) I believe it's in part 7 or 6 that he's talking about the final shot during the filming. And it was none other than Viggo looking into the Palantir. We will still have that for sure, but how about the Paths of the Dead? Remains to be seen. In my opinion, him taking the Paths is one of the things that makes him king...something so many before him were afraid to do, but he stepped up to do it.
-
I've been checking the bottom of the talkback for two days, and never finding anything, just thought everyone had given up.... I had my fourth viewing Sunday with my mother, who was riveted and agreed once was not nearly enough to take it all in. She loved "the trees" and questioned me about Gollum afterward. ***For some reason, the fourth viewing REALLY moved me.... Weepy moments so far: the arrival of the Elves (isn't it wonderful the way Shore turns the eerie Lothlorien theme into a march? - and those unearthly beautiful banners!), Haldir's death, veiled Arwen, Pippin and Merry's conversation when they think they have failed to convince the Ents, Frodo and Sam at the end (yes, I am BEGINNING to get over that dialogue not taking place on the Stairs).... Have been taking another look at the deleted scenes posted over on TORN, and it has doubled since I last looked: go see what the SEV may have in store! (Don't suppose there's any hope of it coming sooner than November, this time....) I REALLY want to see the elven rope used, the Ent Draught, the longer coney scene.... Most purely awe-inspiring moment: Frodo and the Nazgul, which is THE most amazing blend of beauty and horror I have ever seen on screen. I would gladly pay admission just for those few seconds. Very swoon-worthy, too. A few random favorites, out of many: the fireball plummeting into the dark cavern... and the cosmos in Gandalf's eye; Legolas telling Gimli, "Would you like me to describe it to you?" (such wonderful, open warmth between the characters); the exhausted, bleary-eyed joy of the look Frodo gives Sam, when Gollum tries to please him with the coneys; the oliphaunts; Gollum diving into the pool (and beating the fish!); the flooding of Isengard - and that gorgeous shot of the aftermath, with the sun breaking between the stormclouds and the mountains; Frodo's last look at Sam.... And that last shot of Mordor. (Somehow "ashes and pits" look the least of it.) ***Well, I am all primed for a fifth viewing New Year's Day, which will still put me one behind Alice, who has five under her belt and also has plans for New Year's... but like Gimli, I intend to catch up!
-
Fellowship Being one of the great films of all time, TTT was a huge disappointment. Having not read the books, this film was dificult to follow through the unskillful hatchet job cutting through all of the character's seperate journies. As astounding as Golem was, it would have been nice to understand even MOST of his dialogue. Not to mention his screentime pretty much watered down the Frodo/Sam piece of the film and made them background. That didn't work for me because amidst all the goodness, Elijah Wood is still glue that makes this story hold together IMO.
I know Harry would say it has to be judged as part of a the trilogy. But as three hours spent in a movie house, these films must be able to stand alone as well, and TTT just doesn't stand alone a fraction as well as FOTR. -
Dec 31, 2002 1:22:43 PM CST
WHAP! WHAP! WHAP! (sound of clod-hopper bering banged on a table
by skyway moaters
...Since we aint GOT no what dyer callit, gavool. I hearby move that all us tailenders reconvene over at Moriarty's "Standing in the Shadow" TB as it takes about 1/20th the time to load as this one. See you all there? (yeah right, as if anyone is ever going to even SEE this post, in this hyper-extended, hopelessly out-of-order, gosh-awful train-wreck of a TB)...
-
Hullo to all and various and sundry! ....So, at last count, my #4 will soon be tied by Miami Mofo (in about 30 minutes!) yet still falls short of Alice's 5, according to D.o.T., who's also recently tied my 4.... RESOLUTIONS: #1 To see T2T roughly as many times as I saw FOTR (ow, hey, leggo my arm, stop twisting it, you). #2 TO FIND A DIFFERENT FRIGGING TALKBACK than this bloated outta whack monstrosity. ...Anyone feel like hijacking the McKellen/Dumbledore TB once it's fallen off the front page? Or some other, more lightly posted one, regardless of the article? Cause man, I just find it impossible to communicate in a joint like this, and yet there's SO MUCH to alk about. Or rather BECAUSE there's so much to talk about, and yet I can't get up the gumption to paw through this whole damn thing and sort out some sort of conversation. Ya know? And it's gonna be SUMMER before this thing's off the front page. May the New Year bring a New, True Tail End! Have a Happy (and safe!) New Year everybody, and I hope your holidays were up there too! *** I'll try here again later in the week, see what's up, or where we mighta scooted to (ihopeihopeihope)...
-
...Skyway Moaters manages to beat my post by mere minutes to say roughly the same thing as mine in rouhly one quarter the verbiage. Bastards! ;)
-
Good link to Washington Post article, from TORN: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46263-2002Dec27.html. Though I would dispute the idea of orcs as in any way redeemable. Given their treatment of their own, I always took their criticism of Sam leaving Frodo's body to be nothing more than the constant bickering that goes on among the venomous and vindictive. (If they had caught Sam trying to retrieve the body, they no doubt would have sneered, "Typical elvish stupidity!" or the like. Put in context, their moments of orcish cameraderie last just as long as it takes to betray each other for gain. I can't think of an orc on record displaying a moment of real kindness, compassion, mercy or any quality other than the instinct to preserve his own hide.
-
admittedly I was in the same befuddled state watching TTT as I was during FOTR, ie: bemused by the glory and splendour of the movie making. I have nothing but praise for PJ et al for their work on these movies, apart from minor plot changes that don't sit too well with me. I didn't get the impression that Frodo was on the West bank of the Anduin. Granted I've only seen it once to date, but I don't recall Frodo or Faramir actually crossing the Anduin. Can anyone describe for me how they do it? (and that's not a challenge, I really want to know, so I know what to look for next time.) Anyway, I said the other day, I'd gather my thoughts and I have done that. I think I still prefer FOTR to TTT, but maybe that was due to the freshness of FOTR. I was literally awestruck when I beheld FOTR for the first time. I may have even cried too, when Gandalf fell. Although as a typical Aussie Male I would only admit that on an (relatively) anonymous internet Talkback... TTT will grow on me in time and I may come to prefer it to FOTR, but it still rates at No 2 for now. I think my other comments in my previous post are valid though. I seriously hope ROTK is not changed any further than TTT though. If they were I feel they may amount to nought but might have beens... Cheers.
-
Don't get me wrong, I am one of those who LOVE this movie (FOTR and TT). One of those who have no problem at all with PJ omitting whole storylines from the book, transfering them onto other characters, condensing them etc.
Book is book, and movie is movie.
I love both, have seen them both a dozen times.
BUT: You know how love is? How you can love a person passionately and still cringe at some things they do? Like pick their nose in public?
Well, for me TT picked its nose when they made Legolas shieldboard down the stairs of the Hornburg. That was not comical relief, it was out of character, out of the movie's theme and inner spirit. Out of mind.
Whenever I see that scene, I am grinding my teeth. -
he is sooooo fit and for all those who don't know who he is he plays legolas. he is one of the best things about this movie and I am really looking forward to seeing him in the other films because he is fantastic!!!!!!
-
The Star Wars prequels and LOTR are pretty much equal...equally brilliant or trash depending on how much a given individual can be fooled by a computer. They're basically the exact same story anyway only LOTR has many more (unneccesary) characters
Pretty sad, specially when a CGI character is thrown up as the best acting performance in a 3 hour epic with about 10 different heroes that can never die apparantly.
But for God's sake, nothing kills a film like plotholes and poor logic. At least those with half a brain have already pointed them out. Others i noticed were ***that the Orcs had Catapults when they were fighting against Faramir (quality actor wasted), yet simple ladders at HD. The enemy knew the strategy of Theoden. Sit tight and wait. I don't give a **** about how strong HD is built, a catapault is a catapault and the HD crew had nothing to counter them. THATS A RETARDED MISTAKE and i'd like to hear a realistic reason for why they werent there.
***When Gollum tries for the RIng. Why don't Gollum get a big mutha of a rock and drop it down on their skulls. Fair enough he must be captured for the story but it shouldn't be a fluke.
***The Elves' may be explained well in the books but they defy logic in the films in too many ways to list. At least send a few other Legolas/Jedi types to help and the whole war could be over in days. Anyone that flips onto a horse like that is gonna be your most potent warrior.
***They speak of the Uraks like they're to be feared but when the crunch comes... it was like Jedis v Bounty hunter clones (the 10 year old versions)
***Good points***The horse flip...an artistic use of special FX that wasn't cliched. Grima... nice and slimy. Faramir...his thoughtful looks were associated with character as opposed to everyone else just posing (specially Aragorn) That is it.
Gollum was a technical achievment. But that constant schizo act keeps breaking one of the most important rules of film (show don't tell)...something the whole film suffers from. -
I didn't think it was possible for me to be so crushed by a dissapointing film any more. After all, I 27 now, not 16. BUT this film fails on so many levels, & I was shocked that the same filmmaker could have been responsible for all the wonderfull choices made in FOTR. One miscalculation after another. We cut back & forth between stories like an episode of a TV show. People say it's better paced than FOTR, but NO WAY. Reintroducing the Ringbearer plotline in the beggining was mistake, I think. Build some suspense, for fuck's sake, Peter! The Gandalf/War plot is more than entertaining enough to let 20-25 min. pass before giving us Frodo/Sam/Gollum.
-
...was MORE than disappointed with TTT. Even if I weren't a 'Tolkien Purist' I would have still been disappointed with the tangent PJ's gone off on this installment of the story. Aragorn falling off a cliff with a cheesy-looking CGI "Warg" was retarded, as was the end scene in Osgiliath which made the Nazgul seem about as scary as buttered toast. Elrond and Arwen debating her relationship with a mortal was laughable and took away from the tension leading up to Helm's Deep. The scenes with Merry, Pippin and Gimli, I mean 'Treebeard' (heh) were choppily edited in and seemed hastily thrown together. In fact, most of the film felt that way.
I thought that a second viewing would rectify my negative feelings about this film that I'd nearly wet myself over seeing, annnnd.... nope. Instead, I wanted to bitch-slap Theoden even harder for being such a weenie and ship Liv Tyler off to the Grey Havens personally for making me loose IQ points with every second I endured her silly scenes. And someone... give Frodo some lithium, PLEASE.
The only people in the theatre who really seemed to enjoy this movie were adolescent boys and folks who looked like they didn't expect too much from films and enjoyed the occasional good explosion. Most films out these days hype the hell out of themselves, only to replace depth and character with fancy special effects and sight gags. When did we start lowering the bar for what makes a truly excellent film?
After Jackson hammered the fifth shot of some winsome-looking child over the heads of the audience, I realized that he had sadly fallen in with all the other directors out there who don't expect their viewers to THINK about anything. Rather than focusing on all of the excellent character-driven storylines PREWRITTEN for him (the bond between Gimli and Legolas, the development of Merry and Pippin into little warriors, the fate of Aragorn as a future king, et al.) he went off on some tangent to make the *target audience* (i.e. Those Who Haven't Read The Books) happy. Why bring in elves to Helm's Deep when we were told over and again in FoTR how the race is 'diminishing' and doesn't meddle in the affairs of men? Why focus on a hyped-up love triangle between Arwen, Aragorn and Eowyn when we could have seen more of Gandalf kicking Wormtongue's ass or Sauruman getting overthrown at Orthanc? There were plenty of good parts from the book for Jackson to play with, and that would have translated excellently onto the screen, rather than him throwing in his own inventions-- and as a result the movie felt bogged-down, dumbed-down and bereft of any of the first film's magic.
Tolkien's works aren't always perfect, I can admit, but Jackson really missed the boat by choosing to make this installment his own movie rather than an homage to a literary classic. He managed to capture all of the charm, warmth and heart of Tolkien's FoTR and created a beautiful and spellbinding work of art in the process. Why he chose to do differently with this film is beyond me, but oh well. Perhaps he'll redeem himself in the extended DVD version. -
Just in case anyone enjoys looking for continuity errors in the film, this is what I have noticed so far (after 4 viewings). 1) Pippin and Merry have their hands tied while with the Orcs. When the horse almost stomps on Pippin, he rolls onto his back and screams. He raises his hands above his head, elbows straight out, hands to either side of his head. His hands are untied. Pippin then rolls back onto his chest and crawls a few feet, finds a sharp rock, then cuts his bonds. Tied, Untied, Tied, then Cut. 2) Everyone with an elven leaf brooch has the leaf pointing at their right shoulder except Sam. His is always upside down for some reason. I don't know if this means something (by the books, ROTK is really Sam's story more the Frodo's). Also, all indications of swordplay and arrows by the 4 hobbits, Aragorn and Legolas indicate they are all right handed. This also appears consistent throughout FOTR (included the extended scenes). However, when Merry enters Fangorn Forest, prior to meeting Treebeard, his leaf suddenly points to the left. After Treebeard picks up the hobbits and brings them to Gandalf, it points back to the right. 2b) The same happens with Aragorn and Legolas. The leaves point to the right at the eaves of the Forest, to the left before meeting Gandalf, and back to the right when meeting Shadowfax.
2c) For one shot only, when Faramir says to release Frodo and Sam and Sam brushes the hand from his shoulder, both leaves are reversed. In all three cases, it doesn't look like the brooch is upside down, it looks like the mirror image of the film was used. I enjoy the film more with each viewing!!! -
I tried to read all this stuff, but gave up half-way. It's like War & Peace. Well, I actually never read War & Peace, so I'm not really qualified to say. However, I have read Tolkien since I was 10 years old, and it's cool to see such intensity in the debate. And my, such a loooong out-of-order debate, to which I am reluctant to contribute, considering the late date and hostility of a few folks.
Anyway, I did notice someone complaining about late arrivals on opening day, but *shudder* how many of you had the JOY of TTT on 12/18 with a BABY in the audience? Yes, it cried. Laughed. Shrieked. I truly DON'T GET IT. WHY WHY WHY would a person bring a BABY to a THREE HOUR MOVIE? And THIS movie, of all movies? On opening day? I have three children, so I am not clueless on the subject.
Imagine this, during the quiet parts of TTT... Baby: EEEAAAHHH!!! Mom: SSSHHHHHHH!!!! Baby: YIIIIEEEWWW!!!! Dad: SSSHHHHHHH!!!! Etc Etc Etc.
Several times, Mom & Dad would swap turns taking baby out into the corridor. Of course, they were sitting next to the wall, so they had to navigate thru all the folks to get to the aisle. This particular baby had a nice set of lungs, so we were able to enjoy its vocalizations even when it was removed from the immediate vicinity.
Anybody else have this experience? -
Can everyone just please stop ejacualting over this film? I loved the first one but this one had more story flaws than a porno. Why oh why are the Uruk-Hai supposedly so goddamn powerful when all one needs to do is ride through them on horses and have them fall over like dominos? Did Faramir even resemble a fully formed character in this thing? Let me hold onto Frodo and Sam and then at the last minute just completely do a 180 and let them go for no discernible reason other than some lame-ass speech about stories?
What else? The point of that whole Oliphant scene? Beats me. And if your only reason for it is "It was in the book", you suck too.
Theoden - did the movie make it clear enough that this moron was beyond incompetent? I thought Oliver Stone was directing his scenes. "Make some more assinine decisions! We want the audience clear on what a buffoon you are!"
Aragorn falling off the cliff - Isn't this in cinema 101? Was there a soul in the theater (read the book or not) who thought for ONE SECOND that this guy was dead? Anyone? Bueller?
Having said that, I still like Peter Jackson. For Heavenly Creatures, all is forgiven. -
Jan 03, 2003 7:56:06 PM CST
Retarded Talkbackers and Good Posts: Harry Proudfoot and Boss1
by dink meeker
Boss1: Man, my sentiments exactly...You got these assholes in here talking about how, "Lucas sucks" and how TTT had "pacing problems." Fucking pacing problems!? I wish someone would pace all over these idiot's faces. Give me a fucking break! LOTR took us right into the damn battle of Helm's Deep! It pulled us into a beautifully compelling, fully realized world, filled with some of the most fascinating characters imaginable! Damn it, you people are jaded. Let me explain something to you assholes...YOU ARE NOT FUCKING FILM-CRITICS. You can have your jaded, retarded opinions and live miserable overly critical lives if you so choose, but don't state your half-assed, ill-conceived OPINIONS as though they are based in ANYTHING resembling FACT! Wake up! NONE of the Star Wars or LOTR movies have crappy effects. ALL are INTENSELY entertaining. They are all STUNNING achievements! Quit acting like 5 year olds trying to pit one against the other. It only belittles you in the eyes of other talkbackers. *****Harry Proudfoot: Man, you hit the nail on the head. Very insightful stuff there. I, too, always felt as though Tolkien initially presented Faramir as a threat to the Hobbits. I don't believe Peter Jackson betrayed the spirit of Faramir's character at all. Jackson wisely avoids bogging the film down with a lengthy expositional conversation and allows the characters to be fleshed out through their ACTIONS. In short, I believe Jackson's Faramir would have behaved similarly to the way Tolkien's Faramir did under similar (more abbreviated)circumstances. ****
-
What a great movie. A cinematic experience that does justice in general to the book. Stuff that was in the book that was perfectly translated. 1. Riders of Rohan, Eomer with the hunters.
2. The healing of Theoden, pretty much how i nterpreted it.
3. Theodens'reckless hate line
4. the gunpowder at helms deep, the charge on the bridge, Gimlis bravery, the last defense of the hornburg
5. the sacking of Isengard.
DEVIATIONS
1. The warg attack did not happen, i liked it anyway brought goblins in, goblins are different than orcs.
2. Faramir. People he wasnt that bad. In the end he was good. the whole Osgilliath thing was just to show the state of Gondor, it is failing. the extended version will do him justice.
3. Elvs at helms deep, i liked it id dont care whos in the battle as llong as main points are in the battle, they bought them the dawn
4. Ents, i finally got to visulize the sacking of isengard. Great scene so the Ents didnt AGREE, the scene with all the deforestation was powerful. The ents werent stupid. breaking of the dam was in the book
5. Theodens actions. theoden was a fighter in the book, well he wasnt a coward in the movie. the refugees to helm's deep raised the stakes. all that matters is their was that the movie had a battle at helm's deep and it happened similar to that in the book.
6. I wish the hobbits would of been able to eat the rabbit
7. The cliff thing was no big deal, added to get arwen in and he wasnt dead. the arwen at aragorns crypt was very poetic.
8 the music was spectacular. the rohan theme, Gandalf falling, gandalfs charge, all great
some of Jacksons additins were good. i liked the grave, i liked the kids and women listening to the sounds of was
I wanted to punch that little girl. WHERE IS MOMMY. WHAP
Overal excellent, im glad they detailed shadowfax and the dunlanders. Next movie should start with the road to isengard and frodo seeing th army leaving Morgul. Cant wait for the attack on the black gates. Thank you peter Jackson and to all those pissed off, it isnt that bad it is Tolkien Faramir will redeem himself -
Let's end the debate now. Who cares if Faramir's character deviated from the book. That dooesn't mean anything to me b/c I haven't read the books. In fact none of my friends have read the books-- they don't care if it's not completely true to the book as long as its a great story!! Does it really matter to you all that much?! And who cares if you all thought there were pacing problems or if the editing was choppy. Still a superior movie and one that will be remembered for a very long time.
-
i really liked both films, but i've got a few complaints about both. for the first one, i hated the guy who was boromir. i dont know why, sean bean just really bugged me. when i read the book, i was like "o my god, i cant beleive he died" when i saw the movie, i thought "thank god hes dead so i wont have to see his annoying face in the other two." also, i thought they really under did the rivalry between legolas and gimli. they are my two favorite characters, and they REALLY cant stand each other until they get to lorien, whereas in the movie, legolas only gives gimli a few sarcastic words and gimli returns them with a few reproachful glares. i didn't like that. in the second movie, i absolutly hated the way they portrayed faramir. i mean, come on, this is like an all-around nice guy who literally says "i wouldn't take the ring if it was lying by the side of the road" ok, and what does the guy in the film do? try to take it and then, he takes frodo, sam and gollum to osgiliath for god's sake!!!!!!!!! and am i the only one who is sick and tired of elijah wood's "frightened and despaired" face? he uses the same god damn expresion that he uses in moria when faramir has the sword pointed at his throat. really. the blue eyes were nice in the first movie, but now they are just always wide and annoying and sometimes creepy. god, honestly, you'd think his eyes would have fallen out of his head by this time because there's maybe 5 minutes in each 3 hour movie when they arent the size of dinner plates. other than that, i think these are among the best movies ever made. my favorite scenes in T2T were gollum's conversation with himself where he tells his bad half to "leave us alone and never come back!" (gollum was amazingly well done) and the part where their riding into the battle with the wargs and legolas swings himself up onto the horse. i havent the faintest idea how the hell it was done, but i really really liked it. i also loved gollum's fish song. it was taken directly out of the text and was brilliant! oh and by the way, wouldnt you think sam would have lost a little weight by this time? i mean, he's been walking halfway across middle earth and all hes gotten to eat is some lembas. and yet he's still as fat as he was when he was trimming bilbo's garden. oh well. by the way, shagrat, how did you manage to find all those little mistakes? like with the pins and stuff? i guess i just don't really look for those things(except in FOTR,you know how legolas has blue contacts? well in that part where they do the closeup on him when he sees the crows and they all hide, just before the avalanche, they forgot the contacts and he's got dark brown eyes) anyway, i loved both movies and i think orlando bloom is still the best acter in the production ;)
-
Frodo should have hid the ring in the one place he knows he could hide something. His ass.
-
Some points:
(1) I guarantee, ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of "positive" reviews are from children not yet old enough to have enough life experience to know when to zip their zipper, let alone seen a spectrum of filmmaking. They "know what they like," certainly, but what they like is most of all they know.
(2) This is NOT about deviation from the book; its about respect for it. Otherwise, let Jackson, Walsh and Boyens make hundreds of millions of dollars on "PJ's World of Fantasy." Alas, this other film, this unrecognizable film, is what we got. I was a fan of FOTR, in spite of its changes, as were most of my friends; now, that smae lot DESPISES this defecation of a film, precisely BECAUSE of its commissions and its omissions. Again, if Jackson and Company thought they could write a better story, they should have had the fucking courage to take it all the way, and leave this work to someone who wanted to tell Tolkien's story, and not their own. For this most detested trio of writers to come on the well-done SE of FOTR, and actually say "everytime we looked to go in a different direction, we ended up turing back to Tolkien," THEN produce the "classic" I just saw is a betrayal worthy of Fredo Corleone (sorry, that's a CHARACTER in a real FILM...most of you snots aren't yet old enough to even see that).
Character development? Forget it. Instead we have time for lines straight out POLTERGEIST ("They're HEEERE..." - Frodo in OSGILIATH), or we get to watch Theoden and suspend all belief that this crumple of a man was EVER King of anything...maybe his lost the essence of his Kingness when he was in that other film, you know Exorcist IV: King Theo...COME ON! Saruman POSSESSES Theoden? Then why Grima? And why doesn't Theoden possess Eowyn, or Eomer or anybody freaking else he can, when he can? PUH-LEESE.
Are we supposed to believe that Sam is Frodo's gardener and servant, or his equal? With the shitty dialogue and dialogue delivery, I have no idea.
Faramir is the essence of storyline serving special effects; yes, it was COOL (the only barometer for you young idiots) to see the flying Nazgul, but what did that/those Nazgul actually fucking DO in TTT?
Nothing. They did NOTHING. Oops, I'm sorry, one flying Nazgul did "pay off" the whole Faramir change by flying up and getting shot.
BTW, and this is just the two films now...
Given that Gandalf has said, in the theatrical version of FOTR "Sauron is seeking it[the Ring], seeking it...all his thought is bent on it" and that "they are one, the Ring and the Dark Lord," WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS GOOD ABOUT FILM WOULD THE NAZGUL GIVE UP ON SNATCHING THE RING, OR SAURON FAIL TO SEND, INSTANTLY, THE OVERWHLEMING FORCES BUTTRESSED BY HIS WILL TO THAT PLACE TO GET THE RING, NOW HAVING FUCKING SEEN IT, WHO HAS IT, AND ITS EXACT LOCATION?
See, when you fuck with Tolkien, in Tolkien's name, you only fuck yourself... For you 14, 15, and 16 year olds, you love this shit so much, let me give you some context, just American context now, I won't get really international on you, but some context to go watch, then you come back to me and tell me this shit was great. BTW, I won't tell you to go read the actual fucking book ,I know you idiots don't read:
1. CITIZEN KANE (1941)
2. CASABLANCA (1942)
3. THE GODFATHER (1972)
4. GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
5. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
6. THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939)
7. THE GRADUATE (1967)
8. ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)
9. SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
10. SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952)
11. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
12. SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950)
13. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957)
14. SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)
15. STAR WARS (1977)
16. ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)
17. THE AFRICAN QUEEN (1951)
18. PSYCHO (1960)
19. CHINATOWN (1974)
20. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
21. THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940)
22. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
23. THE MALTESE FALCON (1941)
24. RAGING BULL (1980)
25. E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982)
26. DR. STRANGELOVE (1964)
27. BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967)
28. APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)
29. MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)
30. THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948)
31. ANNIE HALL (1977)
32. THE GODFATHER PART II (1974)
33. HIGH NOON (1952)
34. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)
35. IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)
36. MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969)
37. THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946)
38. DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
39. DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965)
40. NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
41. WEST SIDE STORY (1961)
42. REAR WINDOW (1954)
43. KING KONG (1933)
44. THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915)
45. A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE (1951)
46. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)
47. TAXI DRIVER (1976)
48. JAWS (1975)
49. SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)
50. BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969)
Just see that list, and then come back to me and tell me that the shit characters in TTT were as develped as they could have been in a film: MAN, THEY WEREN'T DEVELOPED AT ALL!!!!
Let's take the Ents. This whole sequence made no sense. It was shit; Merry and Pippin spent the entire time with their asses stuck to Treebeard's shoulders/branches/whatever, and even though Treebread is the fucking shepherd of the Trees, he HAS TO BE TRICKED BY CLOWN-ASS PIPPIN INTO STORMING ISENGARD?
You see, the problem is PJ dumbed it down. He knew he had to JUSTIFY THE COST OF THE FILM BY GUARANTEEING THAT IT WOULD MAKE MONEY. AND TO DO THAT, HE HAD TO MAKE A FORMULA FILM. THAT, IN A NUTSHELL, IS WHY MOST OF YOU FUCKING IDIOTS LIKE THIS DRIVEL. ITS A FORMULA FILM OF A BOOK YOU WANTED TO SEE ON SCREEN.
PERIOD.
FOr me, this is a hiccup on the way to the definitive version. Get cocksucking whore-ass capitalism out of the way, and you might see art. But until the world changes we are stuck with homogenized, sacrificed vision, all for the sake of the box office...
Am I concerned about the Aragorn cliff-diving scene? The fake Warg scene? Of course, more shit for the shitstorm...Boyens submitted this to C.H.U.D. on the 16th of December:
"Boyens: This film I was writing an eight act film. Fran was writing a six act film. Pete was writing something of a five act film - he was still catching up...Looking at Shakespeare is a really good thing to do..."
Yeah, NO SHIT YOU ALL WERE MAKING DIFFERENT FILMS AND IT SHOWS I AM SHOCKED THAT FOTR WAS AS GOOD AS IT WAS, BUT I UNDERSTAND NOW: IF YOU HAD MADE THE FIRST FILM WITH AS MANY CHANGES AS YOU DID THE SECOND, THE SHITSTORM WOULD HAVE CRUSHED THE ENTIRE TRILOGY, SO YOU DREW ENTHUSIASTS IN WITH FOTR, THEN CUT THEIR BALLS OFF WITH the 2nd, and in hopes of shit turning to SUNSHINE, you think you'll get our money for ROTK?
FUCK YOU.
You've turned a morality tale into a set of action films, and you ought to be told so.
I will never give money to a Jackson, Walsh, Boynes project again...ever. Any product associated with their work is banished from my house.
You have failed, utterly.
McKellen and Lee ought to be shamed for being part of such a whoreish work too.
Again, I'll finish with this: IF PJ wanted to make an epic fantasy of his own, he should have had the real courage to do so. To ape, only in part, someone else's work, then to use the great name of that someone to pass off your relative feces is unforgivable, and I give this film an F- with extreme prejudice...If you liked it, you are an idiot who knows nothing about film, see my initial start list above for introductions to CHARACTER, writing, drama, tension, pace, DIALOGUE, and SOUNDTRACKS...if you LOVED it, you are irredeemable. -
Harry, I read you review of SOLARIS: its a shame that the same superlatives DON'T FUCKING APPLY TO TTT. The shame of it is. I wanted them to very badly...let me take your SOLARIS review, part of it, and substitute in brackets where need be, TTT stuff: there you will see what this film should have been:
"For me, I come down on the side that [TTT] is brilliant. This isn -
"The Two Towers" is just fan-f***ing-tastic! The best sequel since "The Empire Strikes Back". I'm a die-hard fan of the books but I'm not an anal-retentive purist freak since I understand the story-telling differences between film and novels and Jackson has made the right choices yet again. About the only thing I can understand some criticism about is Gimli was the butt of a few too many jokes. Most where funny and in character but they did two or three too many. However I can understand why Jackson relied on him for humor since Merry and Pippen weren't in the big battles for comic relief and they needed to lighten things up a little bit since the films was so incredible intense. The only *major* change I noticed is Faramir was more of a shady character like his brother, wanting to take the ring to Gondor. However it added tension to Frodo's story. I liked the flashbacks with Arwen. It basically just covered what you'll find in "The Story of Aragorn and Arwen" at LOTR appendages. It made sense to have elements of that story put into the "Lord of the Rings" proper since without it people will wonder why Aragorn doesn't fall for Eowyn (who I prefer of the two myself). Oh and I don't think Arwen was leaving for the Gray Havens. I think Jackson just wants people to think that and she was actually leaving with the Elf party that arrives on the ships and walk the Path of the Dead with Aragorn, Legolos and Gimli. This is a deviation from the books just as Arwen riding with Frodo in FOTR was the right choice. It's interesting to see these people who say "I loved 'Fellowship of the Ring" but 'The Two Towers' was badly edited", since it's the same complaint "FOTR" bashers said. I really don't get the people who say they loved FOTR but where disappointed in TTT but they never read the books. WTF? They loved FOTR and yet still haven't read the books? That's just fucked up. As for the claim it's confusing for those who haven't read the books. That I can't say since I have, multiple times. However I think anyone who is confused will "get it" after two or three showings, there's just a lot of info to take in at once. Now I am normally a very cynical critic when it comes to films, especially new films and while I could of course nitpick little things in TTT I love the film so much I don't want to. However these films make me feel like I do when I watch "The Empire Strikes Back" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Just sure bliss. I feel like I'm a kid again. Just to finally see so many things I've wanted to see for so long, The Ents, Gollum, Helm's Deep etc is just a joy and Jackson has continued to bring the people, places and creatures of Middle-Earth to life. Personally I thought the acting was great (even Farirmir was good), as far as the new characters go I was especially impressed with Miranda Otto as Eowyn. Bennard Hill as Theodin and the always wonderfully slimey Brad Dourif as Wormtoungue. The battle scenes where the most impressive since Akira Kurosawa's "RAN", the effects where the best this year... Yes, while "Attack of the Clones" had impressive effects the fact is Gollum is the most impressive CGI character to date and a triumph for Weta Digital. Not since Yoda in "The Empire Strikes Back" has there been a synthetic character so incredibly real and alive. Yoda in AOTC and Watto in both prequels where very good but Gollum is just jaw-dropping. At first your brain DOES say CGI, but in just a couple of minutes you forget he's an effect and he becomes as real as anyone in the film. His character was handled perfectly by Jackson too. He was the Gollum of JRR's creation sprung to life. I was amazed at how Jackson managed to make us pity and even care about him when he's such a horrible and vile creature. - Yes it IS true, this film isn't as emotional or character based as FOTR but I still found the humanity powerful, like showing the villagers being attacked and killed. It made me care about the people of middle-earth and hate Sauron and Saruman. Plus this is the second act of the LOTR and therefore has no beginning or end. Lucas likes to claim that the whole Star Wars Saga is one big film bit but there's such a big difference between the OT and the prequels that they do not feel like the same film, just different films set in the same Universe. LOTR has been filmed as one film, in one long shoot and is being released one year apart per film. (Something Lucas said he would do with the SW prequels but didn't.) Once the extended cuts of all three films are on DVD it will be more like one epic 10 hour plus mini-series then three films. I really don't get people who complain about the editing and pacing of The Two Towers. The editing was no different then in FOTR except that it had three story threads to cut between. As for pacing, I was never bored even for a minute. Never so as much looked at my watch even once and the three hours felt more like 90 mins. Personally I think about 85% of bashers either are people who HAVE to have every detail the same as the book, or Star Wars fans pissed that Peter Jackson has stolen Lucas' prequel thunder and exposed the Star Wars prequels trilogy for the so-so kiddie films they are. I know people get mad when "The Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" are compared but so many SW prequel lovin' Lucas worshipers want to bash the film... Plus it's just hard NOT to compare them. Most the older die-hard Star Wars fans I know find the prequels disappointing and love LOTR. One thing the Lucas worshipers like to play the Box Office card but LOTR wins that too over the prequels. Where there was a sizeable drop-off in the grosses for AOTC from those for TPM, TTT is on pace to make even more then "FOTR" did (which I actually predicted would happen a month ago, here at AICN TB)and even "FOTR" out grossed "AOTC" although Clones might catch it with the IMAX release domestically, but not worldwide. I even predict "The Two Towers" will out do "The Phantom Menace" Heck it's so popular here in Toledo, the huge Multiplex I go to now has it on 5 screens and the showings are still packed. It's sister theater just 15 miles away has it on two screens. Also not only is this film making the moolah, it's also once of the most (if not THE most) widely acclaimed film of the year. At RottenTomatoes it has a 97% rating. These films have been like the original "Star Wars" trilogy all over again. I can understand anyone who doesn't like the film as a matter of taste, however it's BS for anyone to say the film isn't well-made but then you can't please everybody. I just know that the original "Star Wars Trilogy" and "The Lord of the Rings" will be high among my favorite films for a long time as they are the pinnacle of Fantasy Filmmaking. Oh and WTF is up with someone comparing "The Gangs of New York" to "The Two Towers". That's like comparing "Gettysburg" to "The Empire Strikes Back". Plus, "Gangs" is a great flick but if someone must compare it IMO it doesn't compare to the greatest novel (The entire LOTR) of the 20th century being made into the first great trilogy of the 21st century. But everyone is entiotled to thier opinion. Oh and WTF is up with someone comparing "The Gangs of New York" to "The Two Towers". That's like comparing "Gettysburg" to "The Empire Strikes Back". Plus, "Gangs" is a great flick but if someone must compare it IMO it doesn't compare to the one of the greatest novels of teh 20th century being made into the first great trilogy of the 21st century. However to each his or her own.
-
I have read the books several times. I was scared going into the theatre because I KNEW they would go no further than Helm's Deep, I KNEW their would be no shelob. I was mad when Gimli was a joke. I was mad that Gollum was funny in his schizo talk. I was mad when Faramir said "A mighty gift. But all that changed when I saw Gandalf and Eomer attack the Uruks with the rising of the sun. All that changed with the ents coming down and avenging their brothers. All that changed Whan Theoden and Aragorn decided to ride out of the Hornburg, all that changed when Faramir went back to the man he was supposed to be. You call these bad deviations. I went into this movie knowing it wasnt the book. And I wept at the theatre. It was beutiful. The music was inspiring the special effects amazing and they followed the story believe it or not. All I wanted was for things and chapters to occur and mjor points of the book to be followed. I saw Faramir release the hobbits like he did in the book.though it took time. I saw the ents destroy isengard like they did in the book. I saw Gimli and Legolas count their kills on the battlements. As long as the movie goes where the book does i care little how they get their. So the ents did not agree, but they sure as hell destroyed Isengard. All you people must realize that this was great and too short. What other director would have even put ents in. It was a big risk they could be fake as shit. Think of all the dialog from the books they put in."recless hate" "samwise the brave" "stay away from the lights". This was great. Lembas bread, Leaves of Lorien and elven rope and all. We are still on track. THe Rohan is still headed to Isengard. Sam and Frodo are still headed to Shelob, it aint perfect but ists still great, pull your heads out of your asses. If i ran into any of you haters at ROTK than you are hypocrits, take your books and jack off to wormtoung. Because though its not Word for Word it still has the aura of Tolkien. The Small talk, and the eating, and the horses. Its all therir. You still have the books, the movie is great realize it. When they first look upon the Rohan and the music is glaring. When Shadowfax gallops in, When The Rohirrim ride down. Take a chill pill and quit shitting on my movie
-
Gimme a break!! I don't care if your trying to prove a point U Noir. Your point is worthless! Big freaking deal--- so you know the top 50 cinema list!!! Snow White and the Seven Fucking Dwarfs isn't my favorite movie and neither is Citezen Fucking Kane -- no matter how revered those movies are. I'm not going to watch those over and over. You also have a problem with respect for the book. Who the fuck cares if it didn't follow the book. You heard PJ say it-- it would take too long to film the books page for page. Just enjoy the damn movies for what they are. Good fantasy entertainment! Stop shitting on the entire film crew who spent somewhere close to the last 3 years of their lives working their asses off to bring us these movies. Show a little respect. Damn high schooler.
-
while i would agrre that many of your points are valid, i have to ask; who's going to pony up the green for this art?
-
Of course we're all film critics, you idiot. That's why we're here. That's what the point of the site is. You clearly think you're laying down the law to lesser mortals, but in fact you're talking like an utter tit with no conception of what these talkbacks are for. Oh, and *great* comeback on the "pacing problems" issue, btw.
-
Hey, Universal, thanks a lot!
Thanks for telling us over and over again about your irrelevant age.
Thanks for showing that an older dude can still be a nitpicking geek and vicious loser.
Thanks for quoting the AFI top 100 list, which I could read easy enough for myself by making a few clicks.
Thanks for giving me several good belly laughs.
Thanks for bringing comedy into the world by your sad existence.
Thanks for defacing a lot of genuinely great movies by writing their titles so close to your idiot name.
Thanks for failing to appreciate how difficult it is to make a fantasy movie such as none have ever undertaken before.
Anything else I should add?
Have a nice day.
-
Dr. Death...I'm sorry, your name is so...13 years old...
Dr Death, you are a dictionary-definitive fool. Well, at least definitions 1 (One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding), 2 (One who acts unwisely on a given occasion), 3 (One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe), 5(A member of a household who provided entertainment, as with jokes or antics; a jester), or 8 (A mentally deficient person; an idiot) of the American Heritage Dictionary. Show a little respect? FUck you, you PJ apologist. PJ and his whore-pack should have shown respect or SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. Why do hacks think that they can spit out, with daily script changes, over 15 months, shit that could never possibly be better than a two-decade work of literature? To edit or change the shape of the story is one thing; to put your own foul shit INTO the story is another thing entirely... to change the actual reasons why characters someone else conceived and made great and intriguing do things is COWARDLY FILMMAKING...
AND TRUST ME, HISTORY ALWAYS GETS PEOPLE LIKE THIS. THEY WILL BE EXPOSED AS THE SHADOWS THEY REALLY ARE.
The best thing UniversalNoir exposed was the TRUTH about WHY TTT was made the way it was made. It was made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, to action junkies who can't stand for the action to stop for the people in the damn film to say anything of any meaning...for people like you.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE BY UNIVERSAL NOIR THAT if Jackson and his hags wanted to make their own film, they should have HAD THE COURAGE TO DO SO. They should have called it "PJ's Fantsy Trip," and came up with their own ideas...instead they came up with shit on top of or instead of good ideas, and we got shit justifying shit. Nazgul appearance at the end justifying some shit that was irrelevant, but that PJ just ALWAYS WANTED TO SEE. Well isn't that fucking cute, and a bit of goddamed rubbish. Aragorn going off a cliff, because they need him to be a scout, a captain and a lover...the ZORRO model...he's got to do it all... I'm certain that this formulaic shit is SOOOOO fucking original...RESPECT? WHY DON'T YOU HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR YOURSELF?
Tolkien isn't some hack writer, trying to get his first shitty novelette on the big screen... THIS IS THE SECOND MOST POPULAR-SELLING LITERARY WORK EVER...behind the Bible. If Jack-off, Walsh, and fat-ass Boyens wouldn't have MADE Moses' more focus-group-acceptable brother Aaron find the Commandments rather than Moses, and if they wouldn't change the Ten Cmmandments to "The Four Guidelines" because its been shown by the fucking marketing co's that you and your stupid, uncreative, failing, no-math (17th in the world), no-science (36th in the world), no-NOTHING-but-Xbox generation can't remember more than Four Rules...well, if they wouldn't have done that to the Bible (a similar work of fantasy, btw, with just as imagined stories), they should have similar respect for a work that is similarly popular, and similarly appreciated, worldwide.
We are not alone. There is NOTHING about this film that will be remembered, long-term. NOTHING. What's timeless about this shit? Special effects? SPECIAL EFFECTS BY DEFINITION ARE ONLY THE NEWEST-LATEST, and are ALWAYS supplanted by the next group of films. The acting? Please. Only Otto and DOurif, in ONE singular moment, got it right...everyone else was hurried or just plain bad...the Dwarf jokes? Goddamn. I can hear PJ now.."HURRY ALONG! BE FUNNY! We've got to get you to the next battle...the 13-year olds are almost asleep..."
Where is the wisdom? How, if you have any fucking IDEA YOU FUCKING SYCOPHANTS, is wisdom acted across the screen, without sticking a beard on someone? Do you have any fucking clue?
Sane Man...you are no better. Instead of ACTUALLY ENGAGING THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS FORWARDED BY UNIVERSAL, you attack the way in which it was delivered. I understand though, with regard to the actual arguments THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN SAY...this movie is shit. Maybe Uni Noir included the simple AFI list (Top 50, not Top 100) because that's the easiest, most simple way to refute IDIOTS who haven't watched ANYTHING worth anything, young fools who, given an "epic" set of films of a book they like, are willing to take any eye candy, not having any living context for what real acting IS... there is NO QUESTION THAT IF THIS FILM HAD THE MEDIAN BUDGET OF FILMS BEING PRODUCED IN 1999-2002, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER FILM. SPECIFICALLY:
HOW CAN ANYONE SAY, REGARDLESS OF ITS "DEVIATION" FROM THE BOOK ,THAT THE FRODO/OSGILIATH/NAZGUL/FARAMIR CHAGE SCENE MADE SENSE? AT BEST, FARAMIR'S CHANGE OF HEART WAS RUSHED AND WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CONTEXT, AT WORST (OR AT "TYPICAL" FOR THIS PILE OF STEAMING REFUSE) IT WAS SIMPLY BAD WRITING, AND BAD ACTING, AND AN EFFORT TO SHOW OFF THE FLYING NAZGUL, AGAIN, FOR THE THIRTEEN YEAR OLDS...
NOONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION POSED BY UNIVERSAL NOIR:
WHAT THE FUCK DID THE NAZGUL ACTUALLY DO, OTHER THAN WISH-FULFILL FOR THOSE WHO WANTED TO SEE A NAZGUL FLY AROUND? How, AT ALL, did they serve the story?
The ONLY answer is: "They didn't."
And it is bad filmmaking to EVER have one moment, to have ANY frame of film in a movie that does NOT serve the story.
And that's just one level of analysis on this pile of skunk-bile...it is bad on so many levels...
SaneMan..you go sit in your corner, with YOUR sad life (apologist for this pile of shit) and think about THAT...and YOU have a nice day.
In retrospect, given the forces of cash-raping soulless cinema whoredom that infect the very processes of art and creation in this civilization and this American society in particular, it was a mistake to expect anything wise, insightful, and profound from Hollywood.
The film-version of the type of person Tolkien was, someone who would take as long as it took to get it right (not ISSUE script changes every day BECAUSE, CLEARLY, they could not figure out what to do...as JR-Davies alludes in the SE) DOES NOT EXIST.
All that exists in Hollywood, at the "blockbuster" level at least, are whores and whore-like systems and processes.
And all of you, ALL OF YOU WHO COMSUME THIS SHIT WITHOUT CRITIQUE...
you all are the tricks.
How does it feel?
Universal...live long and prosper, you are a beautiful person and you bring a tear to my eye in that we are few and far between...are you an INFJ? They are only 1% of the world's population, you know. So don't feel alone...you are just rare.
-
See above.
Hypocrsy Exposed:
I'm an ENFP, but my spouse is an INFJ, and I do know how rare those people are...the types that can get along and be trusted by them are rare as well...I'm sure we'd all get along...LOL -
Both your tirades don't mean anything to me. As I have already stated-- I could give a shit less if they butchered the book, or changed Faramir's character, or altered the script 200 times. I still enjoyed the movie. I'm sorry both of you were looking for PJ to unearth Tolkein's profound meaning on life and translate that into film. I guess I can see why your disapointed. Either way there is no point in arguing this b/c I think it's safe to say that there are more people out there who liked the TTT than those who didn't. And regardless if you think the director is shit he'll still get the last laugh.
-
Havn't read the entire talk back
(should be split into sub topics methinks) so I don't know if someone might have touched on this, but I believe PJ's intention with the Nazgul perceiving the Ring in Gondor, is so that it get's communicated to Sauron that the ring is going to Gondor and therefore, rashly and overeagerly, sends out a force to
Minas Tirith, where he will believe the ring to be held, (ROTK)
shifting his attention away from Mordor rather than to it.
IMHO anyway -
You haters are fools. Cant you understand that you are blowing this way out of proportion.The only real out of nowhere things are the elves at Helm's Deep which was a good change and Osgilliath which was INTERESTING because for a split second we were all like WHAT THE... God if this movie is so bad and so many fucking people have read the books than how come I have Seen 2 negative reviews on all mainstream Criticisms. FARAMIR WAS GOOD. THE MOST POIGNENT LINE IN FOTR WAS BETWEEN BOROMIR AND ARAGORN WHEN BOROMIR IS DYING and he says FRODO,WHERE IS FRODO? ARAGORN SAYS I LET HIM GO. BOROMIR RESPONDS WITH THEN YOU DID WHAT I COULD NOT. WELL FARAMIR LET FRODO GO,LIKE ARAGORN DID SO THAT LEAVES HIM SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE TWO,MISSION ACCOMPLISHED Just what Boromir could not do. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! OFCOURSE THEY ADDED SISSY CRAP AND COMEDY AND WEIRD STUNTS TO MAKE IT MORE MAINSTREAM BECAUSE NEWLINE FORKED OUT 300 million and wants the FUCKING Action nuts, 9 year old girls and minorities. JACKSON WAS FORCED TO ADD THAT CRAP BECAUSE HARRY POTTER 1 OUTGROSSED FOTR.. I WILL ADMIT THAT FOTR WAS BETTER but it had meaningless comedy and shotty dialog at times. THe Movies you punks are describing are travesties like Planet of The Apes, Anaconda, Extreme Ops, and the Mummy Returns. Jackson followed the book. AT THE END OF THE MOVIE WE ARE IN THE BOOKS EXACTLY AT ROAD TO ISENGARD AND CIRITH UNGOL. YOU LISTEN YOU LITTLE WHORES YOU HAVE NOBUSINESS SEEING ROTK. THE ONE MOVIE THAT WILL PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER and End the Greatest Trilogy of all time UNIVERSAL NOIR your not special you are a pessimist who obviously is a bithch to his man you are all cry babies
-
Damn, this talk back should be dead but it keeps going on and on.
Well, the only people left on this thing should be die-hard fans so I hope you will have an answer for a question that has been bugging me.
In interviews, etc., it has been mentioned that Viggo wasn't the first choice for Aragorn. In fact he came in at the last minute to fill the role and obviously has done a spectacular job. But who was originally casted as Aragorn? -
You are the only biotch I smell in here, and the reason is you are a trick. Its the film example of the Sophia Loren bit by Bill Maher in his stand-up. Instead of you and your fellow tricks saying, rote, "Sophia Loren is the sexiest woman in the room," you are saying "Lord of the Rings is the best trilogy ever." Its just as pat, just as typical, just as common, and just as wrong. Only two negative reviews. Look outside America, and outside the whore mainstream media engine. Oh I forgot, you are a trick who loves being typical, and loves being common. Well, in the end, you are right, you got in TTT EXACTLY WHAT YOU FUCKING DESERVE...COMMON, TYPICAL FILMMAKING. JACKSON, OSBOURNE, AND THE REST OF THOSE FUCKING WHORES KNEW THAT THEY HAD TO DELIVER AN ACTION FILM, AND NOT THE EMPOWERING MORALITY TALE THAT LOTR IS...THANK GOD WE AGREE ON THE TRICK-LIKE NATURE OF YOUR FUCKING EXISTENCE. WE AGREETHAT NEW LINE, AFTER SPENDING 300 MILLION, HAD TO WHORE THE WHOLE THING AND MAKE IT AN ACTION FILM...WE AGREE THAT IT HAD TO, GIVEN ALL THAT INVESTMENT, FAIL TO EXCLUDE ANYONE...
THE PROBLEM IS, YOU FUCKING STUPID GODDAMN BASTARD...THAT'S NOT TOLKIEN.
jACKSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MAN, A TRUE MAN, AND MADE HIS OWN FILM. He FUCKING admits to the London Times that the beginning of the thought to film LOTR began with the initial idea TO MAKE A FILM LIKE LOTR. LIKE LOTR. LIKE LOTR. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID. TO INSERT HIS OWN FUCKING SHIT INTO THE FILM, TO CHANGE TOLKIEN'S CHARACTERS, IS TO MAKE YOUR OWN STORY...AND THAT'S FINE...
JUST DON'T CALL THAT THE LORD OF THE RIGNS, GODDAMNIT!!! CALL IT "PETER JACKSON'S WORLD OF FANTASY." BUT NO, says New Line, where's the whoreishness in that? This way, they get to do whatever it is they want to do, and place the name of a real artist on it...Tolkien. So they took Tolkien's name, and out his name on this shit, when he would not. A FUCKING DISGRACE. AND I KNOW EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT YOU AND YOUR KIND FROM YOUR STUPIS AS SHIT POSTS...YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT, YOU DON'T VALUE SHIT, AND YOU AIN'T SHIT...THIS WORLD IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKE SHIT HAPPEN, THOSE WHO STAND IN THE WAY OF SHIT HAPPENING, AND THOSE WHO ARE PART OF THE LANDSCAPE. YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE ONE OFTHE FIRST TWO, BUT REALLY YOU ARE JUST A WATCHER...you are nothing..your embrace of this fucking pile of shit as the best trilogy ever (as if that moniker even FUCKING MATTERS EVER IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE IGNOMINY TO WHICH THIS FILM IS SENTENCED), and its shows who you are...you are a failure as a human; others have evolved, and demand more, you are a lousy, shitty consumerist, who, when exposed, tries to justify his failed embrace of shit...fuck all you shitty ass people who believe that PJ had a right, (some of you believe a DUTY) to chagne this work in this way...I spit on your graves, and set fire to the detritus of your existence, and rip your reproductive organs out so that your gene pool can never pollute the world again...
Am I fanatic? Yes, but not about Tolkien. It is watching the rote, mindless embrace of what is actually shit that drives me crazy, and is indicative of the fact that the shit media culture owns you fools...you are looking FORWARD to watching Joe Millionaire and you love, Robot Wars, and you think that more than 30 minutes in front of the boob tube is not only ok, it is appropriate...you are NOT enraged because..of course...you don't read...and when you do read its only code secrets for games you are too stupid to finish...I weep for the future...Jerry Mander is right...you cannot escape your media-induced shit to see reality for what it is...this film sucks, but it is only a symptom of the disease which is the shitthat you are fed by the media like human pigs...and you love it...you love it...you love it...you love it...
Tricks, the lot of you...go fuck your whores....fuck them good and long...cause evey empire falls, and when this one does the first indicators will come from the center not holding in your media orgy...
NEXT!
I'm through with you.
PS BTW, to put the two words "Dunedain and "Knight" together as a name means you have NO sense of either as a concept, either fantastical and historical...I forgot, you people don't read...
GOODBYE! SEE YA! -
Universal slow down before you blow a gasket... Are you certain the Nazgul saw the ring. Or maybe he new it was close and was able to call the ring to him without seeing it. And who is to say that Sauron isn't going to launch a massive attack against Gondor...because now he knows where the ring is. Why am I debating you...my god if you are so bitter about it then stop coming back for more you masochistic bastard. Or if you are mad at PJ then perhaps you should organize a boycott. It sounds like you are upset because PJ made changes from the book. Why should he not make changes. It is his interpretation. He has kept Tolkien's major themes and I think he has done an admirable job of story telling for those who haven't read the book (the majority) and those who have. As for being your or old I don't think it matters... Youth have passion and elders have wisdom. But writing a critique requires a little bit of both. You have said what you don't like, what did you like about the movie? Or perhaps you are just trolling in which case you are in the wrong TB.
-
Never heard of him. I'll do a Google 'Image Search'.
-
ok, you are obviously educated, you obviously march to your own drummer I just wonder why you quoted AFIs top 50 list, that is totally unoriginal some of those movies arent that great thats what a bunch of fatcats like, you cross me as a Freddy got fingerd fan. My question is were you hyper at all in FOTR that Tom Bombadil was ejected, or how Bilbo the greatest was shitty, or how Celeborn had 2 lines. I mean jeez things were done, NO its not as good as the first 1 but its good. Its hard to make great adaptations. Tim Burton fucked Sleepy Hollow away with all kinds of crap, that was a travesty, then their was the joke that was Planet of The Apes with Mark I should be in Prison Whalberg. Seriously Universal you are entitled to your oppinion but i have never seen someone so passionatly hate an award nominated movie this much, unless its Moulin Rouge with Young OBI wan, god that guy is gay.
-
Jan 06, 2003 6:22:52 PM CST
Noir and Hypocrite: if you're this pissed that LotR is so widely
by minderbinder
On the AFI's list (2053): #'s 13, 19, 26, 29, 38, 44, and 47.
-
Dufusyte is behind the times, but here is his take on the extended fotr dvd: New hobbiton intro with Bilbo narrating = bad. The story arc of lotr is "Idyllic Shire's peace disturbed by emergence of evil Ring; adventure to destroy ring; return of peace to idyllic Shire." Now, for this story arc to work, you naturally begin by showing an idyllic Shire. The theatrical version did this perfectly. However, the extended dvd blunders by introducing the shadow of evil into the Shire all too quickly, with Bilbo's addiction manifested far too soon, so that the audience never gets the sense of an idyllic Shire, rather everyone senses that something is rotten in Shiremark right from the start. So it destroys the storyarc of "Paradise; Lost; ReGained", since the "Paradise" opening is never established. Moreover, Bilbo's narration is heavy handed and belabored. Rather than forcefully "tell" the audience what the Shire/hobbits are about (bad Extended way), it was handled much better in the theatrical version where the audience was *shown* what the Shire/hobbits are about. The *telling* (bilbo's narration) is belabored. Plus, the dude with wax in ears was a one time joke, and should not have appeared on screen a second time (some jokes only work once). ******* Similarly, Sam's comment, "Bilbo's stone trolls" is heavy handed and belabored and incongruous with the drama of the scene where it jarringly occurs. Tolkien fans already recognized the trolls in the theatrical version; it was a subtle touch which we appreciated. Meanwhile, the extended dvd's pointing them out by name will not make the trolls evident to the non-tolkien audience, but only serve to confuse and distract them. The non-tolkienites have no idea what Bilbo was talking about to the children at the party, and they frankly do not care that the stone trolls happen to be at the campsite, and pointing it out to them merely confuses and distracts the non-tolkienite viewers. ******* But there were many fine additions in the extended dvd, most notably Pippin and Merry's song on the table top = superbly done! Aragorn's pathetic rendition of the Lay of Beren & Luthien (did I get that right?) was a nice touch, even though Aragorn should have done a much better job intoning it, since he was raised among elves, and hence would have received proper formation in the choral arts. The singing of the elves leaving MiddleEarth was also nice, except that the melody itself seemed to be very modern/NewAgey, and should have had a much more archaic feel, like gregorian chant or some ancient eastern melody. It was in the ballpark I guess. The movie team seems to have focused greatly on the authenticity of the artifacts, props, and speech, but when it comes to the musical aspects of Tolkien's world, they appear to not have consulted any "experts" nor done any research, but just let Viggo sing whatever he thought up, and the elve's song similarly seems to have had no foundation in any Tolkienesque research, but rather be merely the whim of whoever got assigned to compose the melody. btw., Loreena should have been assigned to componse/sing that elven bedtime hymn, because she would have come up with something much nearer the mark. (I still want my Loreena in rotk; have I mentioned that?) ******* The rest of the additions in the extended dvd were commendable from what I recall. Lothlorien especially benefitted, and the pacing was improved. However Galadriel and her Dude still seem to be Zombies. I know PJ has a soft spot for zombies, so I guess he couldn't resist putting a couple into lotr as well. A pity Galadriel had to be the one that got lobotomized, since she was a great character in the novel. Someone observed about G. K. Chesterton that his heroines were more nuanced than his villains. This is rare, since normally authors create bland one-dimensional cookie cutter heroines and highly nuanced villains. This is because the vice ridden authors know all about vice but are clueless about virtuous character. Tolkien is similar to Chesterton in this regard: Tolkien was a virtuous man, and he created heros/heroines with great depth of character, whereas his villains are somewhat cardboard (Sauron = cardboard Evil Eye). If the film's writers were more virtuous, they would know better how to depict a hero/heroine/virtuous character with depth. But alas, not knowing how to depict virtue, they have made Galadriel a lobotomized zombie. Pity that. ******* I continue to be disappointed by how Boromir, also in his extended scenes, seems to have some craven whimpishness about him, whereas in reality (did I say in "reality"?) he was supremely self confident (bordering on obnoxiously egotistical) and one of the most politically imposing figures in MiddleEarth. He personally represents Gondor, which is arguably the greatest city on the face of the earth at that time. He was an important man who knew his importance and made sure everybody else knew it as well. The film appears to make him some kind of a villain from start to finish, whereas he was (in "reality") a stalwart defender of truth justice and the american way, who had one lapse, for which he heroically atoned. ******* So, in Dufusyte's cut, I would leave the Shire scene's unchanged from the theatrical release, nix Sam's stone troll comment, give Sam a box of earth at the gift giving, reshoot Boromir's stuff to show his greatness, digitize Townsend back in, snap Galadriel and her Dude out of their trance, add Loreena, and call it a wrap. ******* Dufusyte *still* has to see TTT; can you believe it? He promised to see it with Dufina, so that is what is causing the delay.
-
Hey, man. I know, I know--I'm right. You're wrong. We both know that. But that's OK. If you want to pretend that you are worthy to pass judgement on Pete Jackson's work, I'm sure you can use as an excuse the severe brain damage you quite obviously sustained while watching Two Towers. I understand that having a major cranial artery pop out of your skin every five seconds from sheer rage took its toll... and I'm sure that bleeding all those tears of red anguish didn't help the stability of your psyche, nor improved your ability to concentrate on enjoying the film. All the same, realize, please, that it is possible for others to be right. It's even possible for Pete Jackson to be right about the changes he made. Hell, why not? It's his movie. He didn't make it for just the book fans--if he had, it would have been seventy hours long, been boring as all f*ck, and would have taken an entire Second Age of Middle Earth's worth of years to film--not to mention, would have made no money. We are all the richer, crack-bandit, from what Jackson did. You can try to be richer from it too. It's not like Jackson came into your room and pissed on your copies of the books (of which I'm sure you have seven or eight, plus a gold-plated Silmarillion). Jackson's always been offbeat. A guy that obeys no authority... wouldn't it have been a cheap letdown for him to have obeyed the authority of the books on every point?
By the way--I will reply to the actual points you made about the movie when you post something that doesn't attack the intelligence of its fans. If you do want to hear what I've got to say about your specific criticisms... actually, even if you don't... please, cut out this stupid parade of inane accusations. Then we can get down to business. Otherwise, you're just another obnoxious cheap-shot artist who's barged into the room and started shouting rudeness. And I don't want to talk to an obnoxious intruder... my taste doesn't go for talking to unreformed morons... I want to talk to somebody who's calmed down and doesn't feel the need to mention other people's stupidity every five seconds.
Adios. -
I can't believe you cut and pasted the top 50 films in the AFI's (rather fucked up) AFI top 100 list. I mean you can't off the top of your head name 50 four-star movies yet you pretend to be an expert on film? Oh and FYI I'm 27 and I own every film you cut and pasted into your message in my video collection except for "Annie Hall" which I never cared much for. (Well it winning the best picture Oscar in '77 when "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" should have won but didn't even get a nom, might have tainted my opinion.) In fact I saw them all for the first time by time I was 13 (my parents are die-hard film fans.) That list sucks anyway since for Christ sake, only ONE John Ford movie? WTF is "The Searchers", "The Quiet Man" and "The Man who Shot Liberty Valence"? And only one Frank Capra? Where is "Meet John Doe" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". I won't even go into how they're all American films and you can't pretend to know anything about great and epic cinema if you haven't seen Kurosawa's films. It's really sad you have to quote a list of self-proclaimed film experts (who really are just trying to sell videos) to try vainly to pass yourself off as some kind of film expert. If you genuinely don't like TTT, then I respect that but proclaiming it's the worst piece of shit ever made when 97% of critics and film fans think it's great is just going to make you look like a moron. Oh BTW, using all caps for sentences at a time. It's the BBS equivalent and if you need to yell and scream, well you need to chill out. Intelligent people can make their point without yelling like a madman and foaming at the mouth.
-
Hey, I have been a fan of the site for some time now, but I just thought that lots of you would love (actually hate) to hear this, and seeing that many of you probably don't get the Devner Post, well here it is verbatim (any spelling errors are mine, sorry ahead of time) --- Title: Lord! Does 'Rings' ever end?
Article: Somewhere deep into the third hour of "Lord of the Rings:The Two Towers," as my eyes gazed longinly at the exit sign on the door 20 feet away, I had a stark realization: I've given birth in less time than it took to watch this movie. What do people see in this? A year ago, I suffered through "The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring" trying to identify a metaphor that would explain the fascination with this insipid fairy tale. "OK, what am I missing?"I said to my companions on the way out the theatre. "Is Frodo suppose to be Winston Churchilland the ring is the atomic bomb, or is this just 'Star Wars' with no sense of humor?" But this time I vowed that I would accept "Rings" as the vacuous entertainment it was intended to be, and, failing that, I would enjoy the scenery of New Zealand. I would strenuously aviod searching for meaning amid the insane dailogue and the tedious battle scenes. Simple-minded fantasy, I reminded myself on the way into the theatre. No subtlety. No ambiguity. Even old grey Gandalf was bleached white in this incarnation to avoid any confusion. So after six hours of cinematicindoctrination into the "Rings" cult, I think I understand. Hers's a synopsisof the plot as I saw it: Frodo is a guiless hero with no leadership experience, no facial hair and a sacred mission. He is pure and holy- boyish, even- and he is surrounded by evil. The evil creatrures are easily identifyable by their dental hygiene. You won't be confused. The ring is a weapon of mass destruction that must be destroyed before that evil ones get it. Only the good may be trusted with the ring. Why? Simple. They're good. Don't ask questions. The Goal os to take the ring to the two towers, which are visible in the distance and on fire at the top. The towers are the symbol of something- evil, I think. Or maybe Qwest, I don't know. The good guys have a big, modern army, but the evil guys have more soldiers, and those guys are fanatics, willing to die for their cause in phenominal numbers. They're clearly not human, so the good guys don't ask them what they're upset about or suffer any pangs of conscience about massacring them. Being good means never having to say your sorry. Still, no matter how many fall off a bridge or get an arrow in the neck, thousands more keep coming. It's exhausting, all this killing. Now, in order for the good guys to prevail, they need more than just a healthy defense budget. They need weak peasants with bawling children to weep and faint and be completely dependent upon them, and they need beautiful women to dream about while they're out killing evildoers. Aragon, a Middle Earth special forces dude and a hottie, has a cave full of peasants and two babes waiting for him at home. That makes him a potent killer. Still, the world is dangerous, even if you've got the ringand the girls. Frodo and his sidekick, Sam have to cross a swamp full of dead people who, from the looks of them, must have been from a past administration that didn't survive. Fortunately, this time the hobbits employ a wily consultant (E.T. in a loincloth). Gollum knows how to exploit evil to get ahead. He gets them through the swamp, alive, powerful and poised for war. The rest of the movie is darkness, battle scenes and a lot of dead evildoers. To be continued... Then they finally turned up the theatre lights and released us. All I can say is, I'm glad nobody thinks this is a parable for modern life or that there's some great relevant moral to the story. Now that would be scary. ----- by Diane Carman, E-mail: dcarman@denverpost.com
-
I believe that Universal Noir is a hypocrite for the following reasons.
1) You claim to love the books and the first film, but you can't understand why the Nazgul doesn't grab the ring. a) When one of the ringwraiths encounters the hobbits on the road within the Shire, he is literally inches away from Frodo, but leaves. b) At Weathertop, there are 5 ringwraiths, and one is close enough to Frodo to stab him in the shoulder with a Mordor blade WHILE IS IS VISIBLE TO THEM, but Aragorn alone drives them off. c) At the Ford of Bruinen, there are nine ringwraiths against Frodo alone (Book) or Frodo and Arwen (Film). They fail to storm Frodo and in so doing are trapped by the flood waters. In all three of these cases, the ring had far less protection than in Osgiliath with an army of men. In case you have forgotten, the purpose of the Mordor blade was to enslave Frodo so that he may be brought to Mordor in order to surrender the ring. "Come back! Come back!" they called. "To Mordor we will take you!" Have you ever even considered the possibility that in all of these cases, the ringwraiths do not simply take the ring because the ringwraiths would instantly become more powerful than Sauron himself. It is widely accepted by people who actually read and comprehend the books you claim to cherish that Frodo was wanted alive. The ringwraiths would NOT take the ring from Frodo, they would take Frodo. In Rivendell, Gandalf says, "You were in gravest peril while you wore the Ring, for then you were half in the wraith-world yourself, and they might have seized you. You could see them, and they could see you." Further, in Osgiliath, because of Sam, Frodo never puts the ring on, so he is even less exposed in Osgiliath than at Weathertop. You accepted all of these facts while reading the book and while watching FOTR (both of which you claim to love), but you cannot accept these facts while watching TTT. You, sir, are a hypocrite.
2) The ringwraiths are NOT telepathic. When the Nazgul passes over the company after Pippin looks into the Palantir, Gandalf specifically points out that this particular Nazgul could not be after Pippin. The distance is too great. Further, by the time a Nazgul could be sent from Mordor to retrieve Pippin, they would be well on their way to Minas Tirith. You accepted this fact while reading the books (which you claim to love), but you cannot accept this fact while watching TTT. You, sir, are a hypocrite.
3) The ringwraiths do not simply put themselves into dangerous situations, based on their ability to take new form. In Rivendell, Gandalf says, "Their horses must have perished, and without them they are crippled. But the Ringwraiths themselves cannot be so easily destroyed." In ROTK, Eowyn beheads one of the Nazgul steeds with a single sweep of her sword. This would CRIPPLE a ringwraith. The ringwraiths are not like some pathetic Gameboy game, where you have the ability to give yourself infinite lives. The Witch King is, in fact, killed by Merry and Eowyn on the Pelennor Fields. "... and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing, passing with the wind, a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up and was never heard again in that age of this world". The ring itself is not destroyed until 10 days after the Witch King is "killed", and he does not reform within those 10 days. This isn't Nintendo. You accepted this fact while reading the books (which you claim to love), but you cannot accept this fact while watching TTT. You, sir, are a hypocrite.
4) On your list of the top films (terribly original), you cut and pasted Gone With The Wind, Wizard of Oz, and Grapes of Wrath. Each of these films are based on books, and each of these films diverge from the original text by orders of magnitude more than TTT has. In the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy should have been about 4 to 6 years younger, and the departure of the Wizard from Emerald City is about midway through the book. The entire return trip from Oz to Kansas in the book is condensed into a 3 minute "There's no place like home montage." Similarly, less than half of Gone with the Wind appears in the Film version. The Grapes of Wrath, which everyone should have read in High School hardly constitutes the script for that film either. You can accept changes, omissions, condensations and other people's vision in these films (which you claim to love), but you cannot accept these while watching TTT. You, sir, are a hypocrite.
If you consider that it has been about 20 years since anyone has tried to make a film based on these books of Tolkien, it is entirely possible that you may live to see another attempt at some point in you live (baring any brain damage from your insipid tirades). God forbid, you actually go to film school and try to make this your long term goal in life. All I can say is that if [you] wish [this film] need not have happened in [your] time, [...] so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. Obviously, you have decided that you will use your time being a douche-bag. And if you don't recognize the quote, you are most definitely a hypocrite. -
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/jaromir.html
-
You say: "The ringwraiths would NOT take the ring from Frodo, they would take Frodo." I say: This may be true in the books, but it is inconsistent with Saurman's assertion in the film version of Fellowship (to Gandalf at Orthanc) that the nazgul would take the ring and kill the one who bears it. So either Saruman is mistaken/lying, or your theory has some problems. Which is it?
-
Thank you for asking. Since none of the lines spoken by Christopher Lee throughout these two films are Tolkien's, they may represent either 1) poetic license on the part of the screen writers for dramatic effect, 2) Saruman being wrong, or 3) Saruman being overly dramatic to screw with Gandalf's head. I would again point to the scene at Weathertop in both the FOTR film and book. The Witch King ringwraith had the Mordor blade in hand as he approached Frodo. Frodo extends his hand against his will, then regains control and pulls the ring back. If the Witch King ringwraith's sole interest was in grapping the ring, he could have cut of Frodo's hand (ala Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker) with a single backhand tennis swing and the entire trilogy would have ended right there. But this does not happen in film or in the book. If turning Frodo into a lesser wraith serves no purpose other than to be "cool" in both the book and the film, then the weakness in the plot is at Weathertop, and would fall on Tolkien's shoulders, not Jackson's. However, if you accept that turning Frodo into a lesser wraith is integral to the story, then having the wraith simply grap the ring at Osgiliath would be inconsistent with these scenes in FOTR. It is on this single point primarily that Universal Noir and others are screaming bloody murder and saying that the entire film is shit. There are people who believe the entire trilogy is shit and the books are shit. For them, why even bother. However, to claim that you love the first movie and the books is to at least accept the internal logic presented there. The scenes between Frodo and the ringwraiths at Weathertop and at the Ford of Bruinen both demonstrate that simply grapping the ring is not that simple. It may be possible, it may even be probable, but it is not the Middle-Earth equivalent of a street holdup/armed robbery purse snatching. These things must be handled delicately (Oz again).
-
Sorry about spelling grabbing wrong, not once, but twice. I am sure there are others.
-
The ring is so close at hand, sauron should be sending his troops to look for it, rather than attack minas tirith
and even if the ring does go to Minas tirith, the question beckons whether sauron cares, to even attack minas tirith. He could easily wait for the wearer to go corrupt and have another ringwraith.....
the MAJOR question beckons is whether we see Aragorn using the palantir, run the path of the dead, sail in to the rescue, in teh first 30 min of the ROTK -
I agree with you lilHobo. If Aragorn uses the Palantir and shows himself to Sauron, everything should continue from this point pretty much the same as in the books. In Harry's diary of visiting the set, he does describe being there when this scene was filmed. Being filmed and being in the movie doesn't necessary mean the same thing though. Also, I checked Tolkien's map in the ROTK, an it looks like Osgiliath is about 15 miles from the outer defenses, 30 miles from Minas Tirith proper. It is also about 20 miles from Minas Morgul and at least 150 miles from the black gate. Since Osgiliath and the River Anduin appear to be the line of skirmish between Sauron's forces and Gondor, the issue of having everyone jump in at this one spot with overwhelming force needs to be weighed against the time it would take to simply get Frodo well behind the line of defense. If the men of Gondor still hold the bridges and the defenses at Osgiliath at this point in the attack (as described in the book and indirectly referenced in the TTT), Frodo could easily be well behind the defense line in an hour or so. Since the Nazgul cannot telepathically communicate with Sauron (see "The Palantir" chapter in TTT) and would need to fly round trip to Mordor before Sauron would know and provide new orders.
Math Problem: A horse carrying a man an a hobbit travels west at 20 miles an hours. At the same time a Nazgul flying 200 miles an hour travels northeast towards Barad-dur. If the horse has 30 miles to cover and the Nazgul has 200 miles to cover each way, will the hobbit arrive at Minas Tirith before the Nazgul can make the round trip.
In the end, I believe all of this could have been avoided if this Osgiliath change and the Palantir scene had occurred in the same movie. This would then simply fall into the category of turning up the pressure a few notches on the Sauron/Aragorn thing and not be this confusiom/anger. -
Dunedain Knight submits that he does not know how Universal Noir can rip such an "awarded" film. Well, 2 Golden Globes is certainly not bringing the house down, and IMHO the truth is that the overwhelming majority of awards this film will receive will be for outstanding special effects, particularly along the lines of the manifestation of Gollum. When Universal Noir submits that this film is primarily that, and not the acting and characterization and dialogue that great films are known for in the long-term, IMHO Universal noir is dead right. As a fan, in spite of the changes-from not only Tolkien's text but from his intent- inherent in FOTR, I found it engaging and a relatively good film (even though I do not think that Elijah Wood or Sam Astin are good actors at all, and I do not think that Orlando Bloom has yet learned HOW to act...an aside). But TTT is, in a word, lacking. It is vacuous. It is Jackson's work, and not Tolkien's. Who here thinks that Tolkien, were he alive today, could even be argued to about the validity of this film in terms of it representing his work? Would PJ have made this film this way if he had to face Tolkien and explain it? I do not think so. One critic of my criticism elsewhere of Jackson's intent posited that "if you ask 100 different artists to paint a flower, you will get 100 different paintings," making an analogy of course to the making of this film. Which is both true and irrelevant. While it is possible, even on my stunted salary, to commission 100 paintings of a flower, it is certainly impossible to have 100 versions of TTT executed in this cinematic environment. It would be currently impossible to have two competing cinematic trilogies, let alone 100. So, for all practical purposes, this IS the definitive cinematic expression of Tokien's work for my lifetime, and that revelation is heartbreaking. I do agree with both Hypocrisy Exposed and with Universal Noir that Jackson lacked courage in two areas: One would be Jackson's failure to outright strike out and make a fantasy film of his own (i.e., he knew the "bankability" of the Tolkien franchise, and had established no bankable fantasy-film credentials of his own), and Two, if he was going to make a film version of Tolkien's work, as has been said by others before, slight modifications to the process of cinematic storytelling HAVE to be accepted if one accepts a film version at all. Changes like the enhanced significance of Arwen and the Ford of Bruinen change, while not tasty, are palatable (i.e., its lima beans, but I'll eat it to get to the Tira Masu). Wholesale INSERTIONS of your own material to make someone else's characters DO something they did not (or often would not) do in the original text is tremendously foul, incorrect, abhorrent, and plain WRONG. Changing Faramir and dumbing-down the Ents were two of the saddest book-to-film moments I can recall (the saddest being JOHNNY MNEMONIC in its entirety, lol). Again, Jackson wants to make his own film, and "modify" certain things for the brutish expediency of notably Western, particularly American, mass market appeal....? Fine. But this is someone else's story, period. The whole of Middle-Earth doesn't belong to Jackson, he is only a Steward. And like the last Steward of Gondor, he is failing, and he is deluded. I celebrate both Universal and Hypocrisy for standing, Helm's Deep-like, against the mass, orc-like sentiment of their Enemy (n opinion, not necessarily in anything else)...lol. BTW, notice, in doing your own global Google search of critics Top Ten lists of 2002, how the VAST majority of them do not even have TTT as one of their Top Ten? Is that because they consider TTT a 2003 movie (which they should not), or because while they might have been intrigued with the effects genreally, and Gollum specifically, they thought the rest of the film to be, well, underwhelming? Yes, I've been to ROTTEN TOMATOES and seen the reviews, but again...if it doesn't make the Top Ten list of most critics I've seen even there, how much of a long-term impression can the film have made? Sorry, in my opinion, it gets a D; only the look and landscape, which Jackson got imminently correct, save it from an F. Look forward to more posts; I hope that the good-bye from Universal doesn't mean he/she has abandonded us...Universal, remain, as Antwone Fisher submits, "still standing! Still strong!" There are many, MANY others out there who share your sentiments, and who reject Harry's acceptance of this work out of hand.
-
Yes the film was great but im sure I would have appreciated it a whole lot more if there wasnt a bunch of bratty children sitting behind me; whinging and whining about the length of the film. Oh yeah and standing up to spill coke in my hair. Very enjoyable. This is all due to the wonderful new 12A certificate we now have here in England which I'm pretty sure was influenced by the ol' PG-13 thing you've got going on over here. So I have you all to blame.(punching fist suggestively)
-
Wait a second... I realise that the Osgiliath incident will give Sauron the impression that the ring is going to Gondor thus drawing his eye away from his doorstep(and likely prompting an attack on Gondor), but think of what this storyline might replace. Aragorn's looking into the Palantir- which I would love to see- could well be cut. I mean aside from challenging Sauron, the main reason for him doing this was to keep Sauron's eye well away from the Hobbits, yeah? So if you think about how Jackson substitutes things for efficiency, he may use Osgiliath as an excuse for such a rash attack on Gondor instead of Aragorn's challenge. I'd love to see the latter but knowing the amount of cuts Id love to have seen, I might just have to live with it. Also, I don't think Pelennor Field will be as big as Helm's Deep battle cos they'll have to fit in that and the Black Gate battle in a relatively tight space (relative to the book that is) and we know that the Mouth of Sauron (whom I'm reeaally looking forward too)has been cast. It would be daft anyway to completely cut either of these battles. I love them so much more than Helm's Deep. We also know that battle scenes in ROTK are promised to be magnificently larger than those in either FOTR or TTT, but surely not both battle scenes? My bet is we'll get brief visions of the scale of Pelennor Field then the biggie will be The Black Gate Opens...
-
Jan 10, 2003 8:41:34 AM CST
Bujin, Universal can't be "right", he's just stating an opinion.
by minderbinder
So you agree with him? That's nice. Frankly, since your complaints all boil down to typical purist bitching that it's not exactly the same as the book, I don't really care about your opinion.
-
LOTR of the is not the Orwellian metaphorical ultra-allegorical quasi-socio-political mega-character-driven uber-epic that some of you have built it into in your minds. Stop the trendy pseudo-intellectual bullshit and stop reading the tale of the human race into every prepositional phrase Tolkien wrote. LOTR is primarily a narrative, part of a much larger mythology. Like many "real world" mythologies, the battles are the most important parts. It's when the one-dimensional, totally moral and unconflicted heroes are able to stand against all odds and perform outrageously heroic feats and thus define themselves as legends among men. This isn't sarcasm, its a major component of classical mythology, which is what Tolkien was primarily interested in. ROTK is one big battle, with one heroic deed after the next for christ's sake. Elaborate battles are absolutely necessary; they're not New Line simply pushing "mainstream fare" into the story. Yes the stories are metaphorical, yes they are a rather simple morality play, but above all they're an action story written in the style of classical mythology. The same goes for characterization: Faramir was written as a veritable pillar of honor who COULD NOT even be tempted to take the ring. Aragorn was never conflicted about his destiny, he was dutifully biding his time until he would reveal himself, defeat the evil and claim his throne. Frodo was not a brilliant piece of characterization -- he was a completely pure martyr who was being slowly poisioned by the ring (that's an external struggle not an internal one). Sam was a dimwitted gardner who never really understood what the fuck he was doing, all he knew was that he wanted to protect his master -- he's heroic not for his strength and understanding, but for his blind loyalty. Sauraman didn't even have much of a personality, he was just evil and petty. Merry and Pippin did absolutely nothing important until ROTK -- all they did was drink ent-draught and wander around while the ents decided to attack Isengard. Recognize a pattern here? Almost without exception, these characters are symbolic: they represent ideas and ideals, not actual personalities. With the exception of Gollum and Borormir, they're clearly dillineated -- good or evil, moral or amoral. With the exception of Eowyn and Sam, there's almost none that you can really relate to on a human level. You want to emulate their heroism and morality, but not their personalities. That's the way classical mythology and legend works, and that's the way Tolkien wrote his stories. Making an honest attempt to add conflict and humor to "humanize" these characters and therefore make them more accessible to the audience (particularly an audience that has not read the books) is not "making the movie more mainstream", or making the movie "your own". It's just good film-making. And ironically, it's probably closer to what Tolkien intended then a verbatim adaptation would have been.
-
well i finally saw the film today. i must say, i was pretty disappointed. i'm not sure what i was expecting but i didn't get it whatever it was. i found myself rather bored a couple of times. pretty much every scene involving the tree ents (except when they stormed the tower). the film just seemed like filler. it didn't resolve much at all. frodo and sam are still trying to find an entrance into mt doom, aragon, legalos and gimli are still wondering around but now ghandalf is with them again...i really wanted more of a movie. but i guess thats what i get since this is filler in a trilogy. it had its moments though. i loved the scene of ghandalf falling with the beast and then fighting it on the way down. freaking awesome. all in all it was worth seeing, but no where near as satisfying as AOTC or SPIDER-MAN. way better than COS though.
-
Jan 13, 2003 10:22:02 AM CST
Hypnos, you have driven me to participate, refute, deride, and o
by description
Just skimming the vicious debate when Hypnos' vapidity reached out to me..had to register and respond...this will take but a moment. This particular film fails absolutely and comprehensively, and it has been made easy to tell you why by simply refuting the post-hoc ergo propter hoc of Hypnos...Like most mythologies (I have no idea what a "real-world" mythology is), what is most important are the decisions, usually relating to some noble or hubris-laden moment, SURROUNDING a battle, and not the battles themselves. The "drama" comes from understanding what the victory or loss in any given battle will really MEAN. To submit further that myth is about "one-dimensional" heroes succeeding against all odds means, again, that you haven't read, or that you fail to understand that which you've read. People claim that Tolkien is weak on characterization, but the opposite is true. Tolkien allows you to understand characters the way humans understand them: thought, word and deed. Most often, we can never know what someone else is thinking, and can only trust that their words represent them accurately until their words become inconsistent with their actions; then, we can only go by their actions. Throughout this work, Tolkien takes us through that authentic dynamic with most of the locomotive agents of the plot and the drama in his work. They extend what you think you know as classical mythology, yet this film (IMHO unlike FOTR) fails to capture that essential nature, and focuses rather upon action-oriented crap, with little to no context. I might try to feel for film-Aragorm because I know the story, but there is no way to feel for film-Aragorn from what is actually presented in the film. Folks who have never read Tolkien say to me "Great action film!" I say "Right, but do you care what happened to these characters, what happens next, and to whom it happens?" The answer is invariably one of two: either "Not really, just give me more slideboarding elves!," or "Huh?" The only people who give a damn about these characters as presented by Peter Jackson are those so invested in the telling of this tale on-screen that they will take pretty much anything they are given. The "Spohia Loren" Bill Maher analogy to these people is SO accurate by someone above. Once a consensus emerged that Jackson was trying to do it "the right way," and once FOTR hit the screen, all but the most die-hard "purist" was swept away by love for this man and his work. Again, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because FOTR got it right, IMHO, forthe most part, doesn't mean that anything else will be right. You make the assinine assertion that "Merry and Pippin did absoutely nothing important until ROTK"...that is key to understanding you and those who embrace your viewpoint. To further elucidate, what you mean is "Merry and Pippin did absolutely nothing important until ROTK THAT IS USEFUL IN A TYPICAL ACTION FILM." Period. Now that is far different than your statement, but it makes clear the intent of Jackson: to execute, as you describe it, "good filmmaking." I guess your reduction of Frodo to "pure martyr" and Sam to "dimwitted gardener" is also enlightening: The simple truth that redcuing them to these movie-industry archetypes cancels their ability to evolve before us, particularly given that Jackson has apparently been ceded over 500 minutes to do so, is a devastating one, and indicative of an earlier post which submits that you, and others like you, are getting exactly what you deserve in films today, and in TTT specifically. Aragorn not conflicted about his destiny? I can point to three passages off the top of my head where he is CERTAINLY conflicted about his ability to lead, and obviously that HAS to extrapolate to his destiny....your memory of what the author ACTUALLY WROTE into his characters is found wanting...you submit that Gollum and Boromir are the only characters not clearly delineated into good and evil...again, you haven't read. Grima, Saruman (in that he is given a chance in "The Voice of Saruman" to turn his back on the Shadow and aid the West), even Sauron (if you have read his history) all have conflicted and redeeming qualities about them; its the chocies they make with regard tothat which are interesting, and which, for the sake of a rather average and forgettable action film whose digital mastery will be supplanted by the next big thing in 2003 (HULK? MATRIX?). The fact that you fail to see these fundamental points in not only life but in basic storytelling means that your conclusion (this is simply "good film-making") can be exposed as the weak accomodation that it is. So long.
-
I must admit I cringed a few times at the changes when I first saw TTT (much as I loved it at the same time). I kept bouncing up and down in my chair, whimpering, ''that didn't happen that way!'' And then, of course, I'd get swept away by something simply breathtaking. Since that first night, I've allowed myself to be a little (little?) obsessed and I've seen the film several times, so I am better able to separate the film from the book. For those who find little or no character established or developed in the film, my comments will seem absurd. So too will those who feel that the film should reproduce the plot exactly (however different the media of novel and film are, especially considering the film's modern audience which has been brought up to expect psychologically explicable/logical behavior). I feel that all the story changes not only compressed and condensed an extremely complicated and often leisurely story into something filmable, but characters which Tolkien left iconographic or otherwise undeveloped are fleshed out (except for Fangorn, whose role was reduced). // For example, in the film, Aragorn is possessed of self-doubt in FOTR, and a reluctance to take up his heritage. In TTT, we see him slowly accept the role of a leader of men. Another character who benefits is Theoden. In the text, Theoden snaps out of his depression quickly and, except for an understandable moment of doubt in the pre-dawn light at Helm's Deep, he is hearty and enthusiastic (of course, his situation is not weighted with the same 300 against 10,000 odds as the film). The film's Theoden has the 'shadow' linger a longer, and it creates a more complex character. Instead of a generic wise old king, we have a man who is has only just returned to this side of despair and his reformation of spirit is consequently all the more powerful. The introduction of a company of elves at Helm's Deep is necessary to explain how Theoden will later choose to go to Gondor's aid (''Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?''). In the book, much is made of the history of Rohan owing allegiance to Gondor, but the film doesn't go into that. Middle Earth Politics 101 is already straining the seams for those unfamiliar with the books. Instead, we discover an insular Rohan entirely cut off from the other races of men (which harkens back to Elrond's ''scattered, divided'' comment in FOTR). Honor is still an issue, the greater good is still an issue, but the motivation for Theoden to participate in a desperate last stand which may exterminate all of his able-bodied men for a neighboring country that has not helped him gets a bit of weight with the arrival of the elves. Also, it helps reduce the idea that the elves are no longer concerning themselves with Middle Earth. Since Tolkien himself only reveals in the appendix that Lothlorien suffers 3 (I think it was 3) massive attacks at the same time as the races of men, even readers are left wondering why these powerful elves do nothing. PJ has reduced the elvish population, which helps but doesn't by itself eliminate the problem. // Oh. And there is Faramir. I must admit that the Faramir of the book is one of my favorite characters. He is a lesser Aragorn, and almost as iconographic as Theoden. He is who Boromir should have been. BUT. Since PJ has made Aragorn more complex, he must needs make Faramir more complex. It doesn't make sense that Faramir would be able to resist the ring more effectively than Aragorn. It doesn't work with the way the ring's temptation is being played. In the text, Aragorn is never tempted, so Tolkien draws a parallel to him when Faramir (after a moment of ambiguity) asserts that he would not take the ring if he found it on the roadside. This demonstrates Faramir's nobility without challenging Aragorn. However, if in the film, Faramir isn't tempted, then Aragorn's temptation at the end of FOTR makes A seem weaker than F. One thing I love for it's subtlety is that the film's Faramir never tries to take the ring himself. F chooses to send Frodo to his father, still in possession of the ring, unlike Boromir who had always wanted the ring for his own use. // Alas the ents. I miss the great wisdom of Fangorn and the wildness of the Huorns. I understand why they are so diminished, though, so I won't gripe. // Re: Osgiliath. Actually, it sort of works. The distance to Cirith Ungol is comparable, and it gives us more time to get to know Faramir (now that he needs getting to know). Someone else here mentions that it obviates the need for Aragorn to look into the palantir (although I'm not so sure it would be necessary anyway, the military tactics are a little fuzzy) and draw Sauron's attention away from Mordor. The other thing to remember is that Ringwraiths have very bad vision, and while they may think that it is the ring, they don't know for certain until someone puts it on. OK, OK, their vision can't possibly be that bad, but it is a thought! // Anyway, those are some thoughts that have been buzzing around in my head for the last few weeks. There are more, but those are the most pressing. :)
-
the soundtrack for both films have been outstanding, but was a bit disappointed at how the closing song for TTT sounded like a james bond song...any moment i was expecting images of legolas doing slo-mo gymnastics on a huge bow
-
Yes, I finally saw it. The first hour is simply masterful, hopping from story line to story line, like an artist who puts a dab here, a dab there, or a conductor calling on one instrument then another. The new characters helped *alot*. King Theoden holds the screen in the palm of his hand every time he appears; Eowyn provides an emotional attachment with the audience that PJ often has difficulty communicating; Gollum turns in one of the best performances of the entire cast. These three charcters are a big boost to the film. Wormtongue is also excellent in his creepy way, and Eomer and Faramir are serviceable enough. ******* The score continues to rock mightily, and the cinematography featured a number of unforgettable shots which I have forgotten since they were so numerous. All in all, a better film than Fellowship. I could go on in a vein of praise, but let me nit pick since there is always room for improvement. ******* Emotion. PJ (or the film editor, or somebody) just does not have the knack for portraying sincere heart rending emotion. For example, the young lad being pulled from his mother's arms to fight at Helms Deep, or the Death of the Elf Dude at Helms Deep: these were potentially heart rending vignettes, but they just do not have the emotional punch that they could have had in the hands of another director. When the Elf Dude dies, I have to ask, "Who cares?" We never bonded with the elf dude, so we don't really care when he dies. With the mom & son it is similar, perhaps: we never particularly bond with them, so when they are torn apart we do not care. There needs to be a shot where we bond with them, like a closeup of their face as they exchange a look we identify with, and then show us the tragedy. See how Cameron handles such vignettes in Titanic (did I mention it is the greatest film of all time?). For example the elderly couple lying side by side in their bed as the waters of the sinking ship rush in to drown them in their cabin: isn't the shot of the tragic waters *preceded* by a shot closeup of the couple exchanging a tender glance that we can all identify with, and then the camera pulls back to reveal the tragic waters? So first you have the closeup shot where you can bond with the people intimately and identify with their mind and heart, and then you have the wider shot where you see the tragic event engulfing them. When PJ shows emotional events, they are always shown from a safe distance, and we are spectators rather than participants in the emotion. Plus there is always the sense that he is one step away from mockery, as with the Olympic Orc running with the torch to light the bomb at helms deep. Come on, are we supposed to laugh at that guy or feel the horrible suspense of the moment. It makes the blowing of the Wall a comedic punchline rather than a heart-rending blow to the defenders. Similarly with Gollum being almost shot by the archers at the pool: the comedic lines of Gollum are funny, but they break the emotion of what could otherwise have been a very emotional scene for him, where the poor fellow is almost shot down in cold blood. The director seems a bit uncomfortable showing truly emotional moments, and is always ready to crack a joke to break the moment. TTT is more emotionally sincere than Fellowship, but it is still somewhat emotionally guarded, and mishandles what could have been its most emotional vignettes. ******* Arwen's Immortality Crux: ok, there was plenty of focus on this crucial aspect of the love story, and Elrond's narrative accompanied by the images of Aragorn dying certainly got the point across that Aragorn would die, but what remained confusing is Arwen's fate, because the film seemed to be showing that Arwen would continue to live immortally as a widow forever in MiddleEarth, wandering the forests alone. Now, that would be a touching destiny in itself, but that is not what Tolkien says. He says that Arwen will herself *die* if she weds a mortal, and *that* is the painful destiny she embraces. This still has not been communicated clearly by the film. The audience knows she is an elf; they know elves are immortal, and based on the images of Arwen walking mournfully in the forest, they conclude that her fate will be an immortal widowhood in MiddleEarth. As I said, that makes a good story in itself, but it is not Tolkien's story, and I'm not sure the filmmakers were trying to give such an impression. ******* TTT attempted to clear up another cloudy issue from Fellowship, namely the relationship between Frodo and Sam as Master/Hired Hand. True enough, Sam says point blank, "I'm his gardener," but the audience in my theater laughed at the line, interpreting it to be a sarcastic remark by Sam. "Are you his bodyguard?" asks Faramir sarcastically; "No, I'm his Gardener," replies Sam (sarcastically). So this line, just like Sam's line in Fellowship, "I was just trimming the hedges" comes across as a sarcastic joke, and the audience still does not believe that Sam actually *is* Frodo's gardener who trims the hedges. The audience believes the two hobbits to be peers; to be close friends. It would be more touching if the audience knew that they were Master/Servant, because then the fact that Frodo befriends Sam becomes all the more touching. The journey is one of Sam being elevated from the status of Servant to the status of Friend. This progression is lost on the audience because they believe the Sam already enjoys Friend status from the beginning, so there is really no *development* in the relationship between Sam/Frodo, other than that they move from Friends to Good Friends. It would be more touching if they moved from Servant to Good Friend. ******* Some clips in the trailers were better than in the film. For example, the shot of the armies assembled in front of Isengard, where the camera pulls back through the spears and banners. In the trailer the camera pulled back at a breakneck pace (very fast) and it added tremendous excitement to the shot - one of the classic shots of all film making! But in the film, the camera moves much slower (it seemed to me at least), and the leisurely pace lost the fabulous energy of the shot. Another example, the trailer where Eowyn and Aragorn clash swords, and without any dialogue being spoken they exchange glances, and she looks at him with love in her eyes, wide open like a deer caught in headlights, like she is a girl who has never been in love and now Girl sees Boy for the first time, and Aragorn without a word shakes his head no, as if to say, "Do not love me," and then Eowyn looks back at him with eyes wounded and questioning, Why Not? This was another classic of filmmaking - a fabulous romantic exchange, all conveyed without words, masterfully! That was the trailer. But in the film, the scene is much different, much less powerful; there is dialogue, and the scene is not about the love relation of Eowyn/Aragorn, instead it is about Eowyn's aspiration for glory on the battlefield (which nobody cares about except perhaps some literally "militant" feminist), and the powerful romantic moment has been frittered away into something very much less emotionally powerful. ******* TTT was, however, a more sincere film than Fellowship. The scenes between Arwen/Elrond were fabulous (go Liv!), and alot of the cast turned in heartfelt performances (mainly the new characters, Eowyn, Theoden, Wormtongue, Gollum). The actors who were in the first film (Gandalf, Gimli, Sam, Frodo) never seem to be taking their roles very seriously, and their performance was not heartfelt in Fellowship, nor in TTT. Frodo always looks like he is about to crack a smile and his mind seems to be on surfing New Zealand as soon as the shoot wraps. Sam seems bored with the film and seems to be thinking, "Are these the best lines you can give me?" Gandalf is wondering, "Is playing a wizard too corny for my career?" and Gimli sees his part as "just another comedic role" rather than being on a life threatening quest. They all do OK, I suppose, but Fellowship needed a few actors with more heartfelt sincerity like Miranda and Mr. Theoden (forget actor's real name) have. TTT strikes a nice balance between heartfelt sincerity (new characters) and people who do not take the film too seriously (old actors from Film One). ******* Oscars: Gladiator was an action flick that won best picture because: it had a tragic melancholic ending, and Crowe died. If Crowe had not died, Gladiator would not have been Best Pic. A Happy Triumphal Ending reduces a film to mere Action Flick, and removes it from Best Pic Eligibility. So far lotr has fallen into the Star Wars syndrome of having a happy triumphant ending: the defeat of Lurch in Fellowship, and the defeat of Saruman in TTT (btw, thank you for not skewering him. It's much more exciting to have him running scared in his own tower. Btw, I was expecting to see the Ents topple Orthanc; why was that not shown??). So Film One and Film Two are both basically films about Sad Hopeless Quests, but they both end on a Happy Triumphal Note. Ending on a Happy Note removes them from Best Pic eligibility. The twist will be Film Three, which is about the *Triumph* of Good, which will hopefully end on an unexpectedly sad and melancholy note, with an epilogue (preferably all shown in images and music, without dialog - like in Titanic, did I mention it is the greatest film of all time?) an epilogue that shows Aragorn's death, Arwen's melancholy widowhood and Death, elves slinking away foresaking MiddleEarth, a Shire that is Scoured, and yet will never be the same even though it has been scoured, etc. There needs to be a very melancholy epiloge at the end of Rotk in order to finally get PJ his much deserved Best Director award. Everybody should leave the theater crying, and there should be a sense that even though Sauron has been defeated, the magic of MiddleEarth has died, and the grim era of Man is beginning, and it is an era without the magic and charm and grace of the prior world. So in a sense, all has been lost. The Baddie has been cast out, but also all Charm has left the world, and all that remains as the curtain closes on Film Three, is the bleary dawn of the age of Man - not an Era of Peace and Happiness, but a bleary dawn of warlike man.
-
I waiting in line 2hrs to see the midnight showing of, 'The Two Towers' and I was really disapointed. Don't get me wrong, it was a great movie but I think my expectations were too high. I felt let down. About a month earlier I had seen, 'The Chamber of Secrets'. I love this movie!! Even more than the first one. I just feel the 'Harry Potter' series is better than 'LOTR'. Both movies were about the same lenth, (COS,TTT) but 'Chamber' kept me interested the whole movie and '2 Towers' didn't. All in all, I look forward to the next 'Potter' and 'LOTR' movie, even though 'Goblet of Fire' is a year an a half away :(
--BOYCOT KANGAROO JACK-- -
I couldn't agree with the critique above more. First of all, it's a motion picture people, not a book. Images that are caught in the reader's mind are totally different from images captured on the screen, and so must be photographed and dramatized differently sometimes. Whereas a book can take its time developing plotlines, introducing a myriad of characters, names, and places, a motion picture cannot afford this luxury; it must keep moving the audience along. That is why some parts had to be tweaked. To quote Peter Jackson himself, "The Two Towers is quite a slender volume. It's not as complicated in its plot as The Fellowship of the Ring, so we added a few scenes (such as the warg battle) and built a climax around Frodo and Sam (that explains the Nazgul/fell beast scene). Of the three movies, I look on The Two Towers as the one where we deviated from the book, but only as enhancements." I agree totally with his assessment. The Two Towers is very short and concise compared to The Felowship of the Ring, and The Return of the King is about the same size when you remove the extended appendices. This is why Jackson can afford to pad this second installment out and even forward some events from The Two Towers into his next movie. After all, Tolkien himself stated that this was to originally be a work in one book, not three, but was convinced to split them up. All of you so-called critics should judge The Two Towers as a movie, not as a filmed book. Like the reviewer above stated, this series will be a cinema achievement for the ages. Put yourself in Peter Jackson's shoes and see if you could've done one-millionth the job that he has done! I can't believe how petty amateur critics can be. And while you're at it, why don't you so-called critics bother to get off your rear end and go purchase a magazine or book and read some of the behind-the-scenes stories that went into the making of this amazing trilogy! I am getting fed up with the usual complaints of "oh my favorite such-and-such part was not in the movie" or "this is a totally crappy movie because this one detail was not right". Finally, give me a break and stop whining about Faramir already; he wasn't interested in the One Ring for himself; he wanted to bring it to Gondor. The scene was only extended to Osgiliath in order to heighten the tension between Faramir and Sam, and to add the scene with the Nazgul/fell beast, which heightened the tension between Frodo and Sam and to show the increasing transformation of Frodo. He eventually lets them go when he hears the story of his brother from Sam, and proves that he is not interested in the One Ring. Message to Flamingmonkey and Ryalto2, and the other 6% who gave it a mediocre rating: Get over it! Geez! Just enjoy the movie for what it is.
-
Jan 23, 2003 2:58:19 PM CST
Enjoy the movie for what it is? That's rubbish; cinematic myopi
by hypocrisyexposed
"Enjoy the movie for what it is"?
What, exactly, is it? If its an independent work, then it should not be called LOTR: TTT. If its an adaptation of Tolkien, then it should endeavour to be as close to Tolkien as is possible. This big-budget cinematic THING that has been produced fails either test, and can be "enjoyed" only in the context of sharing with our children, and thier children, the penultimate example of the maxim: "Just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it OUGHT to be done." This film is a failure. Its lack of award appreciation worldwide (in addition to its failure to make the VAST majority of global critics' Top Ten lists) makes it clear that stepping outside of our DESIRE to have a great trilogy, the middle film, without question, doesn't make the cut...period.
I won't be waiting with bated breath for ROTK. Jackson has shifted most Lucas-like in his final product, and I fear the worst for this supposed "definitive" cinematic version. FOTR started off very passable, but TTT reveals the fuller intent of the writers and the director. Living intheir own little world, they have forgotten (or they never knew) what Tolkien was really about. He is no doubt spinning in his grave, as those who stand against the masses deride Jackson Walsh and Boyens for their lack of artistic, spiritual, and emotional courage. Financial courage...well now, tey have that in abundance, but that doesn't make them special...it makes them...typical...common. And typicality, commonality wee qualities of which Tolkien's work was bereft, making this one of the biggest cinematic hypocrisies of all time. Big budget means big-time marketing, means big-time compromise. Someone said it before: Coppola had to literally have a "life-threatening" seizure in the office of one of the top suits before they let him finish "Godfather" his way. If Jackson and Company had one tenth that level of courage, maybe this trilogy would have stood a chance...What an unmitigated failure... -
i thought both FOTR and TTT are the best!! I think Peter Jackson, cast and crew did a great job and i cant wait 2 see the 3rd movie!
-
TTT rocked! A great movie and I heap upon the film many of the same praises that you have already read. However, I haven't read what I think was the worst part of the movie.
The worst part was the dialogue in the beginning. I realize that this is a middle part of a grand film, and the script worked to bring the audience back up to speed with the story, reintroducing the characters and giving you an idea of why they are there, but it wasn't real dialogue. Particularly, many of the lines (not all) that Legolas says within the first 20 minutes. It just wasn't believable.
I don't think these LOTR films are really doing justice to the Arwen/Aragorn story. I like what they have in there, but the films don't explain the significance of their romance. Arwen IS the reason that he if off to war. He wants Arwen's hand in marriage, and he must prove to her father (who happens to be a mighty and royal elf) that he can be the man that he is destined to be, for there would be no world for them if he didn't find his calling and strength to lead the people of the land and become king. At the same time, Elrond doesn't want to see his daughter die, and that is almost certain in the world they are living in.
In the film, the story is basically a "Romeo and Juliet" style romance, in that Elrond doesn't want to lose his daughter to death, and that is certain with this romance. And this fuels his doubts about Aragorn and their love.
This part of the story isn't portrayed well, and it might be some of the source of the disention about the Arwen/Aragorn scense in the movies. If the dialogue was stepped up to include this, I think these scenes would earn the weight that they were ultimately given. -
Feb 13, 2003 1:21:48 AM CST
TTT = Award-LACKING failure! Is anyone surpirsed? Face it; thi
by description
Lacking a meaningful win - or nomination, other than PJ's "directing" - at the GG, lacking a significant number of Top 10 List finishes, lacking ANY Oscar or GG actor nominations, and suffering the humorous "token popular film" Best Picture nom at Oscar...
what else do you people need to see that this film is regarded as weak the world over?
Better question: What other film, having been treated with such disdain in the above ways, went on to be regarded as "great?"
I would submit NONE. Face it: TTT is a failure, and pray to your gods that ROTK can somehow salvage the series...PJ, when you f with Tolkien, you f yourself...
-
I told myself i wasen't going to do this but.......star wars 1, LOTR:TT 6....oscars that is
-
The action was your typical CGI fare and the characterization felt like a carbon copy of Fellowship. Gollum also got on my nerves after a while. I kinda yawned through this one. Mind you I think Fellowship was a near masterpiece, marred by the too-slick CGI work of the Cave Troll battle. -
Feb 18, 2003 7:08:43 PM CST
god bless Peter Jackson and the people who funded the ( 300 mill
by fini
OH DAMN, TTT was soooooooo fucking good, i've seen the movie more than any other movie in the cinema. IT was good , good,ohhhhhhhh man it was good.
And i have to tell you people knowing the book before hand made the movie more incredible. Peter Jackson nearly matched any images we could have dared to imagine.
It was toooo exciting to see the ents and the fight at Helm's deep.Gollum was creative GENIUS, to hell with the Academy of arts if they couldn't see the brilliance behind that character.
AND COULD SOMEONE find out WHY in Hell the movie DIDN't get nominated for CINEMATOGRAPHY.......oh heck the movie was STUNNING
oh, well , Star Wars was the movie phenomena of one generation and LOTR is ours, plain and simple, so allllllll u assholes out there stop comparing the two.
IF LOTR came out first and star wars was out now....we would still compare and complain...so shut the hell up...there are stupid movies to complain bout, i.e austin powers, screams, arghhhh. BUT THE TWO SERIES OF SW and LOTR are good
-
Hey, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. I just cannot believe...no, wait...I believe it, I just don't understand it...how anyone could hate these movies! I loved FOTR like I have never loved a movie before, and after seeing TTT, "love" doesn't even come close to describing how I feel. These are the most captivating movies I have ever seen, and I've seen lots. Even though my butt was getting numb from sitting in that theater seat for so long, I didn't want them to end. I just wanted more! I wanted to go back to Middle Earth and stay there! I could go on and on about how wonderful these movies are, but for now I will just say, "Hats off to Peter Jackson!"
-
less than 10 months to go...maybe I should go get in line now.
-
May 27, 2003 6:01:15 AM CDT
Matrix Reloaded and other "talkback" forums. Bashing on TTT. TTT
by krylite
Check out the talkbacks in other recent movies. It's so laughable how the other competing franchise fans are bringing up how TTT sucked out of the blue just they because they know their franchise movie failed to take over the phenomenon that is LOTR
-
TTT was by far one of the best movies I've ever seen! The score was amazing *congrats to Howard Shore*, in my opinion that is. The basic theme to Rohan has been one of my favourites thus far. I've never gotten any kind of music stuck in my head that MUCH before. To the movie, TTT was amazing, maybe not like how to book EXACTLY said, but it was still to the point. Jackson did the job a director is supposed to do, make the original text easier for everyone to understand. Not everyone was interested in the books before, therefore, not familiar with the text. THANKS TO PETER JACKSON and his crew. Thanks to him, now most of the world knows about LOTR. Even though Tolkien wrote the most amazing book in the world! Jackson helped boost it's popularity. And if people watch the movies, then everyone will have a chance to read the books (or at least be interested in reading them). This movie is definetely amazing!
-
Was there a review somewhere in there? Harry's out of his mind.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts