Ian11

Ralph,

Exactly how doesn't FOTR and TTT hold true even to its own internal logic? Where were those lazy dramatic devices and where were those plot points "that suddenly appear with no explanation? If the LOTR movies were really that shoddily made I doubt the majority of its audiences who know nothing of Tolkien would be flocking to TTT right now. Sure there are details that are vague (which can be quickly explained by someone who's read the books)* but the major plot points and characters that keep the movie going are clearly explained by Peter Jackson.

*For instance Gandalf is a Maiar spirit (immortal) in human form, that was sent to Middle Earth to combat another Maiar spirit (Sauron). Saruman and the Balrog are also Maiar spirits.

I liked the first Harry Potter book and the movie for what it was, a fun fantasy story for younger kids thats simple to understand. For serious adults its hard to swallow a story where wizards and witches live side by side with ordinary people and neither worlds are affected by it. (LOTR on the other hand is a world onto its own) Potter's "mean" step parents know Harry is going to a school for wizards and so do other "muggles" but the real world keeps tottering along like nothings happened. But I gave into its conceit because its a fun release for kids to have "cool" magical powers over adults.

Dig deeper into the Harry Potter books and movies and there's really nothing more than what's onscreen. That "Gee-Whiz!!" quality to it. Dig deeper into LOTR and you'll find layers and layers of meanings, symbolism, archetype, myths, folklore, tradition, music, poetry, and history.

C-Mart

I only have a few things to say:

Number 1: For those that have not read the Lord of the Rings, whether you are into fantasy or not, it is worth the effort to read it at least once. I am having a hard time reading it the 2nd time through, and in the first book, the first 150-200 pages are pretty boring, but they set up a lot of back story and character, and once you get past it, it is much better... Once Frodo leaves the Shire. You may hold the same opinion when you are done, but I don't think that any other author has ever created a more complete fantasy world than Tolkien has. As they say in one of the features on the 4 disk FotR set, they couldn't buy any props! They had to make everything because the descriptions from Tolkien were so complete, that nothing else would look right. Actually, start with The Hobbit, it is a much easier read, and introduces a few characters, mainly Gandlaf, Bilbo, and Gollum. It also introduces us to the world of Middle Earth. Then delve into the depths of LotR.

Number 2: Yes, a movie should stand apart from the book, and since I have read the books, I can not give an unbiased opinion on this. Others mentioned Harry Potter, well, my friend saw Harry Potter 2 with me and had a huge problem with the addition of new characters. It was quite funny. I explained everything to him of course. He did not have that problem in TTT at all... or at least he didn't mention it. I guess when you realize that this is an epic with a cast of thousands, there are going to be some people that we will meet, but shouldn't again. For example, Treebeard. He shouldn't be in the next movie at all, except they truncated this movie by about 7 chapters, so they have some catching up to do in the next one. There are really only a couple of the new people that we need to remember for the next movie, so don't worry about that, basically just Eomer (Horse guy that was banished) and Eowen (shield maiden that was flirting with Aragorn), maybe Theoden (the possessed King.)

-CM-

atlantamoi

I find it kind of funny that people take offense to someone who didn't like a MOVIE. Big deal. Maybe because I'm in a agreement with many of the things El-Kabong said helps me see how funny it can be when others think a movie like this is the end-all-be-all.
El-Kabong, I really feel the same as you do except for one aspect... Gollum didn't bother me at all. I sat there amazed how life-like they made him.

I saw the movie with my family. My 63-year-old mother was the one who was dying to see it and wanted to stay to the end and even listen to the closing music. Yes, I find this bizarre. She loves the books and loved the movie. I only read the Hobbit as a kid and have very little interest in fantasy stuff. I'm sure that is one reason I found LOTR 1 and 2 to be too long, too silly at times and not up to the hype. I think it really is true that having not read the books it CAN be a bit confusing.

I liked the 2nd flick better. But if the movie had ended at the halfway point I would have been a harsh critic. The second half of the movie though was brilliant. Top-notch effects and a lot of fun. But my lasting impressions of the film are that it's perfect for someone who is 14-years-old. Obviously, from my mother loving the film, it's one for all ages to enjoy, but I think I would have liked it better as a teenager who hasn't seen so many movies already (saw Star Wars when I was 13 in a theater... hard to beat that).

El-Kabong

Ah - but I didn't pay! My company picked up tickets for the whole office and let us see the film on the clock. Yeah, I could have stayed at the office instead - but I've never been one to turn down a free movie (you cant imagine some of the free dogs I've sat through. It's Pat, that talking parrot movie with Cheech - the horrors I have seen would boggle your mind!)

As for the Battlefield Earth analogy - yeah, that was probably a bit of hyperbole. More realistically, I'd say that Lord of the Rings 1 was on the same level as say ID4 or The Rock. An slick looking yet ultimately vapid movie that I reacted to very negatively because of the hype.

Josh H

I could care less what others think about a movie. I'll disagree with them on certain points, but that's the point of a discussion movie.

But I can see why some people jump on these guys. I mean El Kabong obviously started this thread to get a rise out of people. He could have just posted his opinions in one of the numerous existing review threads, and not posted the lame "Battlefield Earth" comment.

Plus it's annoying when people repeatedly post bitching and whining about a movie they hated. If I see a movie I don't like, I may post my thoughts once, if at all. I've already wasted a couple hours of my precious time sitting through the movie, no way in hell I'm going to waste more bitching about why I didn't like it on the net.

jim_cook87

Just to comment on some of the original comments and questions:
I'd say it's safe to assume you went in prejudiced against this movie and probably weren't trying to pick up all the details. So, maybe your criticisms are a bit biased...
Any movie can be summarized in an overly simplistic manner. A great deal took place in this movie, just some high points:
Frodo and Sam meeting Gollum. Frodo beginning to empathize with Smeagol. Sauron massing his army. Saruman constructing an army that is larger than anyone believes possible. Us discovering the ecological destruction Saruman has inflicted on Middle Earth. Saruman trying to conquer Rohan through wizardry and subterfuge, failing, and being driven to war with Rohan. Rohan seeing it's precarious position, falling back to it's last ditch defensive position for what could be their final genocidal end. The orcs that captured Merry and Pippin turning on one another, Merry and Pippin escaping, and learning that the storys they heard as children had some very real basis. Frodo and Sam being caught by the men of Gondor. The Captain of Gondor being tempted by the power of the ring, but realizing the evil inherent overcoming the temptation. Learning that the elves are leaving Middle Earth as their time is drawing to a close. Seeing that there is a conflict inherent in Arwen's love for Aragorn.

And for a movie that was thin, you sure manage to find a lot of plot to criticize.
You thought wrong. Watch through to the conclusion, you'll find this is a much larger story than just a journey to toss a ring into a volcano. It's has many plots and subplots, numerous themes. It's an epic on many levels.
You know, my wife said the same thing about 5 or 6 episodes into Band of Brothers. But by the end she knew Maj. Winters, Buck Compton, Shifty Powers, Joe Toye, Bill Guarnere, 1SGT Lipton, Cpt. Nixon, and the other significant characters. Like in all epic storys some characters drift in and out and it's not NECESSARY to know exactly who they are. By the end you'll know the important characters.
It's not really important to the plot to know that he's a Maiar. It adds depth and background, but the story goes on whether you know that or not. If you are truly interested in understanding the details of this, read the book, but the story plot does not require understanding Gandalf is Mithrandir and Mithrandir is not an earthly being, but a Maiar (essentially a servant of the gods you might think of him as an angel.)

Besides which, the movie avoids saying he died. If you've read the books and appendices you know he did, otherwise, maybe he was just exhausted after the battle, collapsed in a coma for several dies and awoke stronger his experience vs. the Balrog...
No pacing? There was the initial attack by the orcs which is repelled. The second wave the orcs start breaching over the walls. That starts to stall. The orcs then blow a hole in the wall. They encounter resistance, but eventually the defenders fall back to a more defensible position. The orcs mount another assault forcing the last remnants of the defenders into their last defensible position. They recall Gandalf's words, decide to stage a last gasp assault and just then Gandalf comes to the rescue with the Rohirrim. Flanking the orcs, seizing initiative and overwhelming them to the point they retreat in defeat. Quite a bit of ebb and flow...
First, you apparently missed the fact that this force of 10,000s was an unheard of size for an army in that day and age. In all other battles they had faced forces that the defenses could withstand. This is like saying, "How could the Japanese be so stupid, letting a nuclear bomb destroy their buildings. They should've reinforced them sooner."

Second, catapults and explosives are technological/industrial weapons. One of Tolkien's major themes is that this is a battle against industrialization. Can't really have your heros using the weapons that represent their enemy, can you?
First, refer back to FOTR where Gandalf said that Gollum may yet have a part to play. Second mercy is a recurring theme of Tolkien's. Third, better off without him? They were lost, he showed them the way. Without him they'd have been captured trying to get in the gates of Mordor. He knows another way in.
Again recurring theme, mercy.
I thought this was well established with Bilbo and Gollum that the holder of the ring becomes QUITE possessive of the ring.
Does it matter? Was Obi Wan Kenobi's father or mother a Jedi? Where did Yoda come from? Saruman was the head of Gandalf's order, the most powerful of wizards, maybe he did die, maybe not, but it certainly doesn't matter to the story line.

------------------------------------

It seems to me that many of your comments and criticism's stem from one or more of the following:

1. Predisposed to find something wrong with TTT.
2. Weren't paying attention during FOTR or TTT.
3. Trying to watch this movie as if it doesn't depend on FOTR or ROTK.
4. The source material is far more comprehensive than just about any other work of fiction. Doubling the running time of all the movies still would not allow for all the material to be introduced. As such, we have answers to almost all the backstory questions you might have, you see this as a failing of the movie. We see it as the beauty of Tolkien's work and concessions necessary to bring any work of fiction to the screen.

Now I'll go along with some of your complaints, Legolas' stair surfing was goofy, his swinging onto the horse (while meant to show the agility of elves) was an awkward moment, they skipped explaining why Merry and Pippin did not go with Gandalf (extended edition?) and why didn't Saruman use magic to combat the Ents (extended edition, ROTK?)

And you are certainly entitled to find the story not to your liking. I'm not going to say "I can't believe you don't like this, everyone must like LOTR." But it appears to me that either you're trolling or you don't realize that most of your points are baseless and/or skewed by the fact you just don't care for the story being told.

Dr. DVD

This guy must have come in here lookin for a hurtin!

raithen

Actually, I disagree here. While the scene was not present in the book, it provided a way to present the information that an army 10,000 strong was advancing towards Helm's Deep. In the film, Aragorn's disappearance leads to him discovering Saruman's army and thus creates a sense of hopelessness that ends up affecting even Legolas.

While it was outside of the source material, I thought it was a brilliant device and added to the already mounting tension.

-matt

jasonbird

I haven't read the books either and didn't have a clue about
Middle Earth. Heck, I'm not a huge fan of fantasy either...Well
wasn't I guess. Fellowship of the Ring is currently my favorite
movie ever (I'm in my 30's for reference sake). I agree that
there's a ton of information to learn if you haven't read the books
and it requires thought. This is not a popcorn flick by any means
(I think it had been compared to ID4 and The Rock), but I can see
if you check your brain at the door as some movies force you to
do to enjoy (like the ones mentioned above) you might be quite
confused.

I like these movies so much that I can't wait to read the books,
but I decided that I'm enjoying the movies so much that I'd wait
until I see the third flick as to not change my point of view that
I started my trek into middle earth with.

I certainly don't think that anyone HAS to like these movies, but
a lot of the arguements brought up by those who dislike the films
have me scratching my head wondering where they were during
the film (mentally). I don't think the film required any pondering
at all. I just paid attention and got it. Can I remember every
characters name? No, heck I have a hard time pronouncing the
ones I do remember, but this is still the best epic I've seen in my
life (as of yet) and I've only seen two acts.

Damn I can't wait until next Christmas. Thanks to Peter Jackson,
I'm having that incredible anticipation for a group of films that I
hadn't felt since I was younger with the First 3 Star Wars movies.

My 2 cents

Jason

jasonbird

BTW, did anyone else hear the "rebel scream" during the battle
of Helms Deep? It happend as one of the Elfs were thrown from
the top of the Wall down to the ground below.

The rebel scream is a recurring scream in the Star Wars Saga that
you hear the extras make when the get killed.

I did a double take when I heard it.

Jason

Duckie

Oh, COME ON!
Not threadcrapping... I can understand why some, many even, would like these films but the overpraise they are getting is like some mass HYP-NO-TISM! You are in your 30's and you would rate LOTR above say, Seven Samurai (for just one example)? Doooooood... you need to get out more!

Even FOTR (great popcorn movie in my book) wasn't THAT good a film. FOTR made it's mark in the fantasy genre no question, but I'm afraid the series so far (and I don't expect the third installment to 'solve' all of the failings of the first two) doesn't hold a candle to Barry Lyndon... or a matchstick to Lawrence...

Perspective, man... PERSPECTIVE!

jasonbird

Okay, I think you might mean to say I need to stay in more?

I don't see the hype thing applying, at least to me anyway. I
stayed away from the hype completely until I saw the first movie
and THATS what hooked me.

Seven Samurai, I would put in a different catagory (at least in my
book) as classic cinema. But please, I don't mean to offend anyone
with my opinion.
That was the point of my thread. Having not read the book (thus
not knowing the detailed background coming in) didn't have any
"failings" as you say(again, my opinion) sorry you didn't have the
experience that I had(as this and my previous post were based
on my experience). To each his own, I guess.

Jason

Groucho

Well, I'm not going to jump on the flaming bandwagon in this thread. As somebody who has read the books and is loving the movies, I always find the opinions of anybody who is seeing the movies "fresh" interesting since it is an experience I cannot share. Thanks for the review, El-Kabong.

C-Mart

Opinion is a wonderful thing. Everyone can have a different one. It is funny that so many people will come into a forum based on something they don't like, post negative comments, and then scream that they are entitled to their opinions when they get flamed... and they knew that they would get flamed before they posted. But, when someone else doesn't share their views they scream Hypnotism, or brainwashing. Are you the only one allowed to have an opinion?

Here is my side. The Star Wars Saga (All of it) always has, and always will be my favorite. The Fellowship of the Ring trilogy is an extremely close second, and I will admit, is better as a movie. I just like Star Wars better. I am 26, and I have not seen any of the 3 movies that you mentioned. I have been meaning to see Barry Lyndon, but haven't really been interested in the others. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

The point is, if you want others to respect your opinions, then please respect theirs.

-CM-

Duckie

Indeed... and a forum is a good place to express those opinions. Ranting in disagreement isn't necessarily a bad thing if the poster is making a point relevant to the topic (which, in THIS case happens to be "potentially unpopular opinion," need I remind you).

There was no disrepect intended in my post. The point I was making in writing it was that most criticisms I've read of TTT whether from professional critics or on this forum are uncommonly forgiving (even of flaws they may point out themselves) and lacking in perspective when rating it. I DO find it astonishing that someone in their 30's would consider these films to be the best they've ever seen, in any category.

chanster

Give the guy a break!! He is just posting his reviews. Its not like he was trying to force you to dislike the movie. I never understand why some people view an attack on their movie to be some personal taunt or insult.

GET OVER IT. Its just a movie. And a book.

For those that have not read the books (including me) the re-appearance of Gandalf is probably somewhat confusing...I meant I still think Saruman is Saruman the White at the end of the movie..and what does White mean?

caligulathegod

Saruman was already "powered up" to the White robes. There were 5 wizards sent by the Valar to assist MiddleEarth in its battle against evil. They were Maiar spirits but were sent in the bodies of old men, with all the weaknesses of Men, including hunger, weariness, and even moral weaknesses. Saruman was the leader and had the rank of "White" and was more friend to Men. Gandalf was more independent but alligned himself with the Elves and took on the Grey robes. The other wizards really don't come into the story (Radagast the Brown was the friend of beasts and cameos in the book-he sends the Eagle that the movie has the Moth send. The other 2 Blue wizards traveled East and even Tolkien didn't know what happened to them. He suspected they either created cults in the Far East, were killed, or were captured by Sauron.)

Saruman desired to control men and became corrupt. The film doesn't go into it, but he actually wanted the Ring for himself so he could become the new Dark Lord. When Gandalf was killed, he was sent back by Eru (God-Himself) to finish his job, since he was the only one that held true to his mission. He was given the Rank of White while Saruman had rechristened himself "Saruman of Many Colors."

Now, most of us have grown up on Merlin and parodies of Wizards and have a preconceived notion of them. Tolkien was very careful in his use of "magic". His Wizards (Istari) power was more in the way they spurred Men and Elves to greatness to fight their own battles. Gandalf was especially good at this. Saruman twisted this ability to control Men, instead. The film shows Saruman causing avalanches and such, but the book doesn't say who did it. It hints at either Sauron or even the Personification of Caradhras (the Mountains themselves). Tolkien's wizards can't just hurl spells at oncoming armies. Even Sauron can't do that. His power is in how he controls his Ork armies and his Ringwraiths. He's basically like a dictator, more than anything.

Despite appearances to the contrary, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is NOT Dungeons and Dragons. Magic is not bandied about willy-nilly.


As far as criticism is concerned: A lot of the complaints about Fellowship's lack of characterization and "run-fight-pause-run-fight-pause" pacing is answered in the Extended edition DVD. That extra half hour really fleshes it out better. There's just so much story going on that the theatrical cut could not really do it justice. It's kind of like the Abyss. The extended version makes it a real movie and helps the ending make sense rather than just be a Deus ex Machina.


Not every person is going to like every film. Nothing wrong with that. It's kind of a shame when people let hype get in the way of enjoying a movie, though. The studios paid $400+ million on these films so of course they are going to try to sell them. I'm sorry, but it is a business. I thought the hype was much less for this movie, anyway. Just a few trailers and a TV special. Not that unusual for an event film. Joe's Apartment got that much. It's a shame, too, when people who love the stories going in over-sell them to non-fans and cause them to maybe watch them with a jaundiced eye. I know when I saw Harry Potter, I was more in the "impress me" mindset and didn't enjoy it as much as others seem to. Those books are way more hyped right now than Tolkien is. Tolkien might have gotten that back in the 60s and 70s, but no one was bidding $50,000 for a 90 word plot description. It was word of mouth hype.
As much as I love LOTR, it in no way "cures cancer". If you felt that it was hyped to that degree, I'm sorry. It's just a movie. If you really went in with that kind of expectation/chip, you were never going to enjoy it. That's ok. I'm just surprised when people really don't care for a film the expend so much effort and thought on it. I despise Once Upon a Time in America, but you know what? I just pull out Godfather instead, because I enjoy that one.

There are some people that seem to take criticism about LOTR personally. I don't. I might bristle when criticism comes from a complete misunderstanding of it, though. I usually just explain it and go on with my life. On the otherhand, if you don't like it, don't take it personally when others do. No one says you have to like it. Relax and just wander about the subjects you do like. No one has to insult or be insulted. It's just a movie.

El-Kabong

Well, I went in with considerably lower expectations this time around. I was hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Surprisingly, the movie was somewhere in the middle. It was much better than I was expecting.

It would have been nice to be able to keep everyone straight - and I imagine that I would get much more pleasure from the story if I knew that Spear Carrier #4's brother was really Frodo's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former room-mate or something. But I got by just fine categorizing everyone into sweeping generalizations like I did.

It just seemed that there was the same level of intensity. It was always push-push-push with them. Of course - perhaps my perception of this was intensified by the fact that the fight itself was nearly 3/4th the length of a normal film.

I guess I did miss that - I don't recall anyone mentioning that.

I don't necessarily agree that the two are mutuality exclusive and that thematically a balance between technology and nature can be struck - but then, it's not my movie.

Ah - but not letting the slimy traitor guy go doesn't instantly equate to killing him. They could have thrown him in a dungeon, locked him up or something. Letting him flee back to his masters was just a tactically stupid Blofield thing to do.

(And really - if mercy is such a big concern, which is more merciful: whacking the traitor guy or allowing several thousand of your loyal subjects to unnecessarily die in battle?)

No, it doesn't really matter - it's just one of those logical explanations that a viewer might question. I don't expect an answer in the movie, but it'd be nice to know.

And yes - I *DO* think finding out where Yoda comes from is of vital importance. At least the fan boy in me does.

Oh, no - if I were trolling, my criticism of the movie would be something along the lines of "this movie SUX!!!!!!!! you all SUX0r for watching it!!!!!! star warz rulzzz!!!! im 1337!!!!!" or something equally well thought out. That and I'd never be back in the thread again.

No, I'm harsh like this because it pains me to see a movie (any movie) get really close to the mark and yet fall short of true greatness. If Jackson had taken some more time for polish (or didnt do all three back to back like this), then perhaps he could have really rocked the house. As it stands, I feel that it's an ok flick loaded down with all kinds of missed potential.

chanster

CaligulaTheGod-

Thanks for an explanation of the various wizard things. I agree that the Extended Edition of FOTR is much better and solved my main problems with the pacing..

Moogz

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and after hearing a fun line from Adaptation, have decided that a lot of people find attacks on movies they love as personal attacks on themselves.

D. Kauffman put it into words that I'm sure I'll misquote, basically saying that "We are defined by what we love, not what loves us."

I can't point a "fanboy finger" at anyone, since here I am typing on this message board myself, but it's quite obvious to anyone who observes posts here that there are some people who are fanatically devoted to particular stories, films, characters, or series that may care so much about them due to an impact they had on his or her life that they may "love" a story, such as that of the Lord of the Rings. These same people, when reading negative reviews or comments regarding something that they hold so dear to their lives, may see a personal attack on themselves, and may not be able to separate the medium from the personal experience; thus leading to taking offense to someone else disliking "their movie".

There will never be a "solution" to such a problem, especially one so simple as telling a fanboy to "get a life", which only increases the personal attack, causing said fanboy to become increasingly protective of his or her loves.

That being said, I loved every single minute of FOTR and walked out of the theater feeling like I had seen a masterpiece. I really enjoyed TTT, and walked out of the theater saying how good it was, but that FOTR feeling wasn't there anymore. I dunno if it was because I was expecting too much, or because I was expecting too little from FOTR and was pleasantly surprised, or if it was because I had watched FOTR EE immediately before TTT and wasn't ready for 6 and a half hours of movie that stretched to 3:30a.m. on a night before I had to be at an airport by 10:00 a.m., or if it just wasn't as good. I'm withholding all final decisions until I've seen it at least twice more in theaters; once again tomorrow, and once when I get back to school with my friends, where I'll have a slightly different "point of view", I guess you could say.

Captain Harlock

If you had paid better attention you would have caught Gandalf saying "Look for me on the dawn of the 5th day". In the book that's where he marshall's the aid of the Huron's to come and defeat the Uruk Hai Orcs at Helm's Deep. In the film he enlists the Riders of Rohan, but he result is the same.

As for Gollum. Again in the first film in the prologue Galadriel's narration states that Gollum found the One Ring and took it into his cave and over the course of 500 years he became addicted to it. Over that time it made him deformed and evil.

I hadn't read the books myself untill after I saw Fellowship Of The Ring, and still I had no problem following the story. When I read FOTR, I found the first 150 pages pretty long and drown out, but I stuck with it and I can say that the book, while not 100% faithful, is pretty damn close to the movie.

One of the problems you said you had was that you called it "the sequel" to Fellowship Of The Ring. What alot of people had trouble with is that these are not "stand alone" movies. Unlike Star Wars where Luke destroys the Death Star, and you see Darth Vader fly off into space and say "Gee I wonder if he'll be back", this is three parts of the same story. I remember when I saw Fellowship Of The Ring, I heard more than one person groan when they saw the "ending". Again it's not the "ending" but only the end of that part of the story.

Unlike alot of pure "action" movies Lord Of The Rings requires the viewer to pay a little more attention. One of the problems is, however, when adapting a story of this size to film, some plot elements get left out that would help better explain certain aspects. The only advice I can give would be to give the books another chance. And if that doesn't work....well c'est la vie.

kilamon

Enjoyed your sardonic review. It was very funny, although I do not share your feelings. The movie was well-crafted and beautiful. But, it requires a level of concentration and surrender to fantasy that many can not muster. The "box office" suggests that many can, though, and for those it will be a lasting treasure.

GenMcClellan

Warning: potentialy unpopular opinion inside
(First - let me get this right out of the way: I've never read the books, and I've only seen the first movie once. Hell - I didn't really even pay attention to the trailers as they came out. I'm about as complete a newbie as you can get)

What did I think? Well, it was much better than the first one. However Battlefield Earth was a better movie than the first one, so anything is a step in the right direction. I think the big problem was - at least with Rings part 1 - was that all my friends pumped the hype machine into high gear overdrive. "It's the best story ever committed to film in the history of the human species. It'll cure cancer, restore your receding hairline, solve global hunger and give you a hand job before the show. Oh, and you'll receive a brick of solid gold upon exiting the theater."

So when Rings episode 1 delivered absolutely no story and all the character development of an average episode of Knight Rider, I was more than a little bummed. In fact I was intending on giving Rings 2 a complete miss - but my company bought tickets for the entire office, and we saw the movie on the clock. Getting paid 75 bucks to see Rings 2 really took out of the movie any sting it may have had.

So - what did I think? It was ok - a rather average movie. It's probably the weakest of the films to have come out this fall - both 007 and Equilibrium trump this movie hands down. Given all that, it's probably worth an early 5 buck showing at least.

The good:
There were some really good action scenes. There were some stupid bits here and there that killed the moment for me, but overall I'd have to say I was muchly impressed.

The effects, for the most part, were really good. Cecil B. DeMille would have been proud of the artificially created cast of thousands. The only issue I had with the effects was the two hobbits clinging to the Tree Dude - the worst blue screen work I've seen in a while. But beyond that, everything looked pretty good.

I really liked the setting, the "look" of the world. The really cool gothic towers and funky armor and whatnot - mad props go to the art director. The vast amounts of technical artistry that went into the movie really is staggering.

Christopher Lee, although sadly underused (more of a cameo than anything) is always a pleasure to watch.

The soundtrack was pretty cool. It had a very Basil Poledouris Conan feel to it.

The bad:
Gol-Gol Binks -
I didn't mind Jar-Jar in episode 1, so I never had "The Rage" back in 1999. However, I now understand what everyone was going through back then. Man oh man, did I have Jar-Jar Rage in spades. Please, for the love of god someone bust a cap in Gollum! The cute little antics and Yoda-ish speech got on my nerves about 45 seconds after he showed up.

Before I proceed, I'll freely admit that the CG work on him looked amazing. Clearly this was the strong point of the character, and he looked really, really good - well, as far as a shriveled and naked 3 foot tall bald freak can look, that is.

And from a story standpoint too - the two would have been MUCH better off if they had whacked the little freak and rolled his body into a ditch by the side of the road. Talk about a liability! It's like carrying around a crate full of unstable dynamite - yeah, it could turn out to be useful or it could blow up and take you out.

The Story -
It was still pretty threadbare. Aside from being a hundred miles closer to the All Powerful Volcano of Death and having routed the bad guys from their stronghold and whupped their army, not a hell of a lot happened.

Also, the movie was WAY too long. Much like the first one, there are way too many shots of Dwarf Guy, Scruffy Looking Human and Blond Elf running through open fields. Or, the whole sub-plot of the Tree Guys, for another example, could have been trimmed way back. I think the problem is that Jackson spent so much time, energy and love on The Money Shots that he couldn't bear to drop them and tighten up the movie.

The Ring: now just a Subplot?
Now wait a second - I thought the whole point of the saga was Frodo dumping off the ring in the All Powerful Volcano of Death. Then why do they only get a small fraction of the screen time, while the bulk of it is made up by Scruffy Looking Human, Dwarf Guy and Blond Elf Guy's story arc.

(While I'm on the subject - the whole bouncing back and forth between the three story arcs was total narrative poison. I thought this style was jarring and ineffectual, totally breaking up the pacing. Jackson should really study Star Wars in this respect, where two or three subplots can run parallel and feel totally natural.)

You can't tell one player from another without a scorecard -
It is really hard to follow all the characters in the movie. Not only do you have to keep everyone from the first film straight, there is a batch of all new characters this go-round. Throw a whole bunch of strange names and seemingly random places and it becomes quite a mess. Many times during the movie I found asking myself "Where did these guys come from? Who's that again? What's this character's relationship to that character?" Eventually I just gave up on the details - this group of characters are Bad Guys, this group of characters are Good Guys and that's all I need to know.

Gandolf back from the dead -
I got no problem with a character coming back from the dead. However for a major plot point involving a significant physical and psychological change to the character, we are offered nearly no explanation at all. Hell - the guy died! We should get a little bit more than "I got better."

(While I'm on the subject - Scruffy Looking Human Guy and his 'death'. What the hell purpose did that little sub plot serve?)

No real climax -
I didn't feel that there was any real pacing to the battle. Lets take a look at, oh - say the trench run in Star Wars, to go with an example everyone knows. It starts out big and wide, focusing on dozens of ships all over the place. Eventually the focus is narrowed down to just two pilots while the intensity is cranked through the roof. Along the way, we've had slow moments, action bits and character moments - there was a definite ebb and flow to the battle.

In Ring 2 however it felt like someone rang a bell, both sides came out swinging, and everyone just pounded on each other until "Oh, hey - guys. We're done!" I felt that there was no rise in intensity at all, and felt so drained at the end by the hour-long fight that I really didn't care.

This and that -
The Blond Elf Guy surfing down the stairs on a shield. Oh give me a break. "For my next trick, I'll ollie off the handrail and grab some wicked air!" Whatever.

The Blond Elf Guy leaping onto the horse. I guess the laws of gravity work differently in middle Earth or something than they do here.

Dwarf Guy = WAY too much comic relief. Dwarf tossing? Cant see over the castle wall? I surprised there weren't any banana peels around for him to take a pratfall on.

Did I mention how much I hated Gollum?

Other ramdom thoughts (questions - not necessarily criticism)
The human castle wasn't very well thought out, defense wise. I can forgive the MacGuffin hole in the wall - I mean for years I've been living with Star Wars where the bad guys build superweapons with exposed shafts so the good guys can shot missiles directly into the reactor core - so I can over look this. The front door, however - "Lets wait until the enemy is breaking down the door before reinforcing it!" - or at the very least they could have blow up their own bridge so the enemy didn't have such an easy time of walking right up to their front gate. How about some catapults or explosives of their own? The king really needs to execute his tactical advisors.

Why did they let the King's Traitorous assistant go? Aside from Its In The Script, I mean - that was a total James Bond master villian moment. "Goodbye, Mr Bond - I will now lower you slowly into a pit of tigers so you can escape cause me trouble later."

Why didn't the two hobbits stay with Gandolf instead of going with Tree Dude? That's another Its In The Script moment, I guess.

Who were those elephant guys? Were they the same guys who captured Frodo and his friend. How did they sneak that huge army past the Big Gate of Doom, anyway?

If Frodo is freaking out because of the ring, why doesn't he let his friend hold it for a while?

What's up with that whole Elves leaving on the boat thing?

What was up with the ork creation process? Are they hatched full grown from that gooey egg thing?

If Sarman is such an all powerful wizard, why didn't he just start casting spells at the attacking Trees Dudes instead of just hanging around and looking out of the window.

Did Sarman also have to die in order to power up to the white robes like Gandolf?

So what's next? The bad guy fortress has been taken out of commission and the bad guy army spanked - all that's left is to round up the little guys with the ring and roll right into the temple of the burning eye, right? I assume we get to see a big ass fight between Saormon (The burning eye guy, not Christopher Lee) and Gandolf and the army of goodness, right?


__________________
- El Kabong
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Click on it - you know you want to!
http://www.the-chaos-crew.com

Well I normally dismiss ignorance and I usually let someone have their own opinion.....but come on!!!! I have the rope......lets have a hangin!!!!! Why waste your time and ours with such nonsense? I believe you actually loved the film and just want to be contrary. You are like one of those people on IMDB that always feel they should vote negative just to bring a great movie down. Your whole dissertation is pointless and without merit. And as far as being on the clock.....yeah right....

Mr. Cornell

Director Peter Jackson consciously made his movie trilogy to appeal to fans of the book. To that end, since you are not a fan of the books, I can understand why the movies do not appeal to you.

File this one under people who basically think: "I don't know, I don't care, but I hated it anyways." That pretty much sums you up.

Duckie

The previous two posts qualify as thread-craps do they not?

Ok... well, maybe Cornell is saying something by noting PJ's allededly intended audience. I don't necessarily have a problem with an adaptation relying on it's source to be appreciated if that is the artist's intention (though I'm not certain I believe that is the case with LOTR, else why make so many changes to the content?).

But just in terms of film-making, there are things that are just plain BAD about TTT. Things that I would suggest are the reason a number of posters admit they were uninvolved with the film, compared to the seductive nature of the first installment. Cheesy dialogue, distracting anachronistic jokes, bad editing, bad acting (the last scene WAS over the top in homoeroticism... I knew I wasn't chuckling just because I'm queer.) So if you want to talk about the director's intentions, I think he missed the mark on a number of points with TTT that have nothing to do with LOTR and everything to do with film-making.