Lord of the Rings

I really think you have to have read the books to like this movie a lot. The battle scenes were great, the scenery was beautiful, and the acting was good, but I really didn't like the movie at all. I think the main thing was that I haven't read any of the books, and also that the genre doesn't interest me at all. So, I won't say you're stupid for liking it because I can understand why you would.

On a funny sidenote...my brother is one of those idiots who won't let his kids watch or read the Harry Potter series because it's "evil". However, LOTR is OK mainly because the author was Christian. I was going to call or e-mail and tell him that this movie probably wouldn't be so great for an 8 and 6 year-old, but he should learn his lesson by taking them to this movie and them getting the crap scared out of them.

 

I'm stunned. I mean, to each his own, but I just can't see how anyone could possibly not like this movie. I've bled Star Wars my entire life, and I have to admit that LOTR was the hands-down best movie I've ever seen. I'm also a huge fan of fantasy novels, but the one I haven't read is LOTR, the grand daddy of them all. (I've read The Hobbit, and I'm nearly through with Fellowship.) So, I don't think reading the books is a necessity at all. But if you're not a fan of the genre, then I guess all I can do is call you a blithering idiot, but I won't. I still think you're weird, though.

 

i didnt read the books either and some friends invited me to see it earlier this week and it was awesome, in my case i liked not having read the books because i don't like watching movies i know what's about to happen next, but i came out saying i would've loved it even had i read the books

 

Just saw it tonight. Damn...that was cool. I hate cliffhangers though. I'm gonna really anticipate the next one.

As for people not liking it, that is understandable. Not everyone likes fantasy and epics. I know people who don't like Braveheart. I just found the settings and scenary to be amazing...not to mention the action and characters and story.

 

sweetness..i just got back and damn...it's like the director was reading my mind...some of the scences were exactly how i had amagined them...ahhhhh 1 more year till the next one...but the dvd comes out in august...

 

This movie was awesome. A instant classic. One of the best movies I have ever seen. Wow!!! During the movie you could just tell that you were watching something special.

As others have said before. The visual backgrounds were just amazing. I have not read the books and the only thing I had difficulty with was keeping up with everyones names. But that was it. Everything else about this movie was great!!!

Man I loved the Ranger and the archer. Man does that guy have an unlimited supply of arrows??? He seemed to be firing them like a machine gun.

Can someone tell me a little more background regarding Liv Tylers character. She mentioned to the Ranger that she would give up her immortality to be a mortal and spend her life with him.

At the end of the movie I was just hoping they would show some scenes from what we could expect from the next movie. Man waiting another year is going to be tough...

 

Im not a big fan of the fantasy genre either. I thought this movie was good (especially the action and scenery), but by no means one of the best I have ever seen. To me the movie was a tad hard to follow (if you havent read the books), and at times I think that there was WAY too much dialogue (again probably due to the books). To me it FELT like a 3 hour movie, and it dragged ass in a lot of parts. Maybe this makes me a moron, or a sucker for easy to follow movies.

I really think that this movie SHOULD have been rated R for all of the intense violence. There is no way in hell I would take even a 13 year old to see it.

 

Well, I took my eight year old daughter to see it. She had already read the books, so I didn't see any harm. Violence doesn't concern me that much. I was extremely pleased that a movie that will be so marketed towards kids (which doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it - I thought it was awesome) was devoid of sex and foul language. I have found that even movies that seem harmless these days are filled with sexual inuendo if not outright lewdness. LOTR was a pleasant experience in that regard. Violence shouldn't be a problem as long as a child understands the difference between real life and a movie (although I told her that if she gets cornered by an orc she can feel free to swing away )...

 

I thought it was a pretty good movie, overall, but I had a few problems with it:


(1) I was expecting an epic that kind of "captured me", where I cared about what happened to the characters and such. But honestly, when the Wizard and the dodgey Human died, I was like "that sucks, oh well". This connects with #2 below.

Also, each scene just kind of seemed separate and "here's another set of bad guys to face" so there wasn't the "well, now what are they gonna do? how are they gonna fix this?" type of thing that keeps you on the edge of your seat.

(2) The characters weren't that well developed. That's part of the reason why there wasn't the emotional connection. A few obviously were (Strider, for example). But the archer dude -- all we know about him was that he's damned good at shooting arrows and he's a seemingly nice guy. There was nothing about who he was or his history or anything like that. Granted, this may be a reflection of the books (I've never read them), but for a movie, I think some of these characters needed more depth. That in turn would make me care about what happened to them and thus keep me "at the edge of my seat" more.

These two things really took away from the experience, in my opinion. The rest of it, though -- the scenery, the background, the concept, the acting, etc -- were all extremely well-done and it was a fun movie to watch for me (although not so much for my companions, I don't think!).

On a sidenote, it really sucked that there was no ending. I understand it's a "trilogy", but I figured each story was relatively separate and concluded itself, which wasn't the case. Now I see why people are annoyed that there's a year between each movie.

 

My wife is from New Zealand and is a long-time Peter Jackson devotee and she was just brimming with pride when we saw the film. I am not really into the fantasy genre (I like Led Zeppelin's music, but not the lyrics, if you catch my drift), but this movie really enthralled me. There is a clear plot, the characters are much more clearly drawn than I would have anticipated and the pace was phenomenal for a three hour movie. But, I agree with you, Smeggy, the New Zealand scenery was really spectacular.

 

Can anyone who hasn't read the books honestly say they could remember the names of some of these characters after the movie? I think not. If you remembered more than Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragon then give yourself a prize. They should have spent less time in the Shire and developed some of these characters more. They tried to stuff too much in here without explaining it IMHO. It was an entertaining movie but the Star Wars trilogy is still better in my book.

 

I thought the movie was excellent. Extremely well done. Where George Lucas failed, Peter Jackson succeeded. It sprung up as I wanted it, and my childhood visions were realized on the silver screen. Gandalf, in particular, was spectacularly acted. Exactly how I had imagined.

But I agree with major on one thing: character development was spotty at best. I don't think this was the director's fault. After all, he *couldn't* develop 9 characters that well in a 3 hour movie. And he couldn't really have made it any longer. I think that's just the way that books have an inherent advantage over movies.

It didn't affect me that much personally: after all, I knew Legolas, Gimli's, Peregrin's, and Merri's persnalities already. But anybody who hadn't read the book would not have.

 

Hmmm, I don't know. How about the worst line ever uttered by a movie hero, "They can take our women, but they can't take our freedom..."

What??? Braveheart sucked.

 

Character development?

Frodo's character was developed.

SamWise character was developed.

Gandalf's character was developed.

Aragorn's character was developed.

Those are the 4 main characters in the story.

I think the movie is a classic, and am getting it on DVD real soon.

DaDakota

 

I wouldn't say that Sam's character was that well-developed.

Incidentally, in the novels... Legolas and Gimli are important to receive huge chunks all to themselves. Maybe they will later in this, but you really didn't get a good impression of them at all.

All you got was this sort of "elves and dwarves hate each other!" characterization. And what happened to Galadriel and Gimli? I thought that was one of the best parts of the book.

Merriadoc and Pippen play *huge* roles in the book, as well.

Boromir was also not well represented. They characterized him, but in the book, he's one of the more interesting characters. He's so close to being noble and good... but his pride ruins him. Since they didn't have time to portray this well, they made him seem a bit worse than he did in the novel.

I'm not asking for exactitude - but I do think that some of the characters weren't fully fleshed out.

 

I have to admit that I wasn't going to even see this movie at all... that is until I came here last night and read this thread.
Jesus!! You guys have hyped this movie up so much that you even moved ME to go out and see it. That's a big deal because I'm not the least bit into the fantasy genre and normally would have waited until it came out on dvd to see it..if at all. After reading all the posts in this thread I wanted to go out and see it immediately last night but the theaters were closed at that hour. I caught a late showing tonight and it was amazing. I was so wrapped up in it I felt like I was a part of the whole experience. I was sorta dissapointed with how they ended it though. Sheesh... i wanted to see just how Frodos journey ends.

 

Software piracy bad, movie piracy good eh?

 

Hydra,

As soon as it is out.

DaDakota