Peter Jackson is not the right director. He is a horror director. 1st movie: What was the deal with Galadriel? My friends can make that voice effect on our ****ing computer. What trash. 2nd movie: SPOILERS The marshes? What was that. That was a scene right out of a "B" horror flick. Oh no, let me guess, the eye will pop open. OHHHH big ****ing surprise. Gimli's comic relief- ah ha ha. ha. ha. Gollum - ha. ha...ha. I detest gimli, and frodo and sam. It would have been much better to just focus on the story of Rohan. What is up with Treebeard's voice? They couldnt hire another voice actor so they use John ryes Davies again? What kind of 3rd rate movie is this?!?!? Merry and Pippin are much better in this movie though, which is a plus. Good things: Theoden, Rohan, Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Eomer, Saruman, Wormtongue (Very well done). Bad things: Every single thing else. Faramir: completely butchered. He is supposed to be Gandalf's protoge, and Numenorean blood is supposed to flow nearly true in his veins. I will say this: I hold out hope for ROTK. It was my favorite book out of the three by far. PJ can redeem himself. PJ: This isnt a horror flick!!! Treat it as such!!!!! Maybe in 50 years somebody will make a remake...
I'm glad you think it rules. I'm not looking to ruin the movie for others. I hope other people like it. That would be fantastic. But I just didn't think PJ did Tolkien justice. LOTR is supposed to be a majestic story, far above anything else. I was just bored a lot. And cringing a lot. Guy Ritchie, is a fantastic director. I think his camera angles and various shots are the most creative I've ever seen. I think a compilation of all star directors would have done better. Ah well.
i think nomar would be happy if creed did the soundtrack to the movie and tom cruise and other a-list actors were in it. maybe brad pitt as faramir wearing middle earth gucci products and guy richie spining the camera around in matrix style fashion... but then again maybe the movie sucks. i havnt seen it yet.
This is very confusing, Nomar. You loved the Fellowship...but now that you have seen Two Towers, you suddenly realize that you don't like Fellowship anymore? That's pretty screwed up.
What is the big draw to the Lord of the Rings? It seems to have a cult-following, but I'm curious as to what is attracting so many people to enjoy this series. I myself have never read any of the Tolkien books, but I do own Fellowship of the Ring (thanks to my laziness and Columbia House's persistance). I have never viewed it, though. Will someone please clue me in as to why Lord of the Rings is so popular?
Oh god oh god, Nomar, your posts in this thread made me start thinking last night that you, as a BBS 'persona', are an elaborate trolling joke... but you aren't, are you? You're a real person... it's actually kind of awesome that you exist. OK: a) Guy Ritchie may have a nice grasp of camera angles and soundtrack (I really enjoyed Lock, Stock and Snatch), but he has no idea about scope, character development, or any other genre than, as the Fast Show so memorably put it, A Right Royal Cockney Barrel of Monkeys. The guy wants to be Michael Caine and make The Italian Job mixed with Pulp Fiction over and over again. And that's fine. But he doesn't have the chops for this. b) Speaking as someone who stopped reading after There and Back Again (and as someone who really detests all that hey-nonny-nonny fantasy dork bullsh*t), I think this movie transcends geekdom to appeal to a broad audience, and that's *immensely* important. Yes, geeks are great. Yes, we love them and smile fondly at them (and in the case of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, mock them mercilessly). But there is absolutely *no* point in making a movie for a limited audience like that, unless - well, unless it's not taken from books as well-loved as the LotR trilogy are. c) Of course Jackson had to change things! Did you want everyone to sing lameass songs in the middle of the action and recite thousands of epic poems? Did you feel the need to dwell lovingly upon every minor character? The film is already *three hours long*. d) Jackson began in horror flicks, yes. But if you've seen Heavenly Creatures (my favourite NZ movie ever, I think) you'll note that he goes beyond the limits of that genre - he broadens himself hugely in that film. (It's too much for anyone here to have seen his mockumentary, Forgotten Silver, but that's a really key work for him too.) So his touchstones are horror, but he is not a horror director. In other words, I liked this movie more than the first film. I was really scared during the battle scenes, and those Ent things were great, and the dam breaking, wow. And Gollum was a wonderful character. And I'm so proud of Jackson. You know a movie's a really big deal in a little p!ssant country when your Prime Minister goes to the premiere. http://entertainment.nzoom.com/entertainment_detail/0,1846,156769-129-132,00.html
Nomar, Tolkien wanted people to interpet his work and to spur debate. He did not hold it up as some holy grail that should not be touched or updated. His son Christopher is the one that has done that. Tolkein wanted people to like the story and to create a mythos for Englane, he did, and people are far too INTO what they THINK Tolkien wanted. I think people will just have to wait for someone to do a video game that completes the story. DaDaokta
Nice post, dimsie. You summed up my feelings on it, exactly. There were lots of changes in Two Towers, but most of them either worked better than what was in the novel, or was a completely understandable change based on time constraints. I had a great time, and I laughed a lot more than I expected I would. Going into the movie, I was seriously concerned that the Gollum character would kind of ruin things for me since he was all CGI. I was afraid it just wouldn't look natural and would kind of knock me out of the world PJ was creating. It didn't. Gollum looked great, the interactions of Gollum with other, "real" characters looked great, and I was mega-happy with the result.
Watched the midnight viewing last night at Loews Fountains in Stafford. Man this movie absolutely blew me away. Peter Jackson really outdid himself this time. The battle scenes were ****** incredible. Apparently the battle scene at Helms Deep took over two months to shoot. The trees were badass, and the CGI on Gollom was incredible. They show scenes from Eisendorf, Gondor, Rohan, and Mordor, all of which have a different landscape. The forest was well done also. Boromir's brother and the Rohan King and his daughter were introduced. I'm not going to give any spoilers since this just came out last night, but there are almost no boring parts in the Two Towers, unlike the Fellowship. I was left wanting more last night. Man, December 2003 can't get here soon enough.
Just saw it. Very exciting, but the pacing seemed just a tad too fast... not enough places to stop and catch your breath. I would have to say that I liked Fellowship better, but Two Towers is certainly worth seeing... in fact, I'll probably go see it again this weekend... multiple times, Tolkien fanatic that I am. BTW, the opening scenes, with Gandalf fighting the Balrog... now that was cool. Lastly, to those who have seen it, do you remember this line: "You wouldn't deprive in old man of his walking staff, would you?" Everyone in the theatre busted up laughing when he winked.
A) I didn't say Ritchie could handle this by himself. I said a combination of several directors working under the vision of Spielberg. B) You may have a point here. C) Not songs in the middle of battle. Not "dwell" on minor characters. But at least portray them correctly. D) We disagree here. The scene in the marshes? With the dead body, and the eyes, and then the demon spirits that look like something out of army of Dead? Come the **** on. Like I said, I'm glad you liked it. And I'm glad that most people like it. I'm not even saying that it was a bad movie. It is a great movie. Probably one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. But it doesnt do Tolkien justice. I guess that shows what expectations I had for the movies.
"What can I say: This was a major disappointment. It was contrived of everything cliche and loitered with ridiculous editing. What was good about fellowship is all gone in this uncannily incoherent and malformed production. The magic is lost. And sadly, so is the viewer. It cuts from one story to another so abruptly that no sustainable coherence is left behind. And, unlike Fellowship, this movie is as cheeseball as it gets. The costumes, the acting, the "surprises" all seem so utterly contrived that I was left squirming in my seat. I have read the Two Towers and to say this movie takes advantage of Tolkien's works is an understatement. Within the first twenty minutes I gave up all hope that what I read in the book would be actualized on screen. With the exception of the Frodo, Sam and Gollum storyline and a few breathtaking visuals (the Oliphaunts, Nazgul and the Black Gates), this film had nothing that floored me to my seat. Even the much anticipated "Helm's Deep" battle was a mess. Just when tension and suspense would build in the scene, it would cut somewhere else. None of the characters are more fleshed out by the film either. They are more trivialized than anything. The characters are more walking insults to the audience's intelligence than anything. They are more like a joke than a character (Gimli for instance). I don't understand how people are actually heralding this film as monumental. It's just not worth it. I appreciate what Jackson is trying to do, but ultimately he's transformed a rich, lush, enlivened world into a Saturday morning, cheeseball serial. That alone, is a real shame." A fan review that mirrors how I feel about the movie.
WARNING.....CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!!!!!!! I just got done watching it, and must say that the complaints that I have heard ring true to me also. 1. The comic relief was clumsy, overdone, and waaaaaaaaaay too often. Shall we count how many kills during a battle. "Hey Legolas I have 2 kills now!" "Yeah, but I have 17........19 now" Yuck. 2. Was it impossible to use Gimli as an actual character that wasnt a bumbling, stumbling fool. 3. It was too fast paced, and jumped around incohenrantly too much. Unlike the first part, I had a hard time just following along and actually enjoying the Movie. There was absolutely NO developing of the New characters, except for the King of Rohan. Thats it. 4. Just had a cheese feel to it. The whistling for the white Horse, maybe it was right, but It was done pretty terribly. The whole scene where the Horse finds Arogule (Spelling I know). The Secret door on the side and the flinging of one dwarf into a HORDE of enemy soldiers to ward them all off. 5. Some scenes just took way to long to develope. Some editing needed. i.e. At the beggining when the three were chasing down the enemy carrying the two hobbits. To me, it took too grandiose an approach. The scope was actually too big. It did have its good points, and overall if my Expectations were not so big......and I mean they were big......maybe I wouldnt be so critical of it. But To me the Two Towers was the equivolent to "Phantom Menance"
Some spoilers. Well the comic relief was a bit off, and the scene with Gollum had the audience laughing which I don't think it was meant to be. I have to say Jackson is an amazing director given the material he has to work with and the material he has come up with. The thing about Legolas and Gimli counting their kills is just a nod to the book, the characters actually start counting their kills while they are looking for Merry and Pip. Whenever someone purses their lips to whistle they are gonna look a lil silly, try it sometime. The fast pace isn't all Jackson's fault, I think his contractual obligations with New Line was that none of the movies would exceed 3 hours. So, he made the movies 179 minutes...which is 2 hours and 59 minutes. It looked like Jackson's reasons for showing the three fellowship members running every once and awhile is to show that they were running for days looking for the hobbits. I'm thinking a lot of scenes that seemed rushed, like Aragorn's horse finding him, are going to be in the extended DVD, blame New Line for that. To those saying that the editing of the movie was a joke, Id have to wonder how they would edit this movie and make it an enjoyable experience to a general audience. I'm sure geekdom would love to watch the movie like the book did it with the Hunters storyline spliced with Merry and Pip ending at Isengard. Then to pick up again with Frodo and Sam heading to Shelob's cave. But that would confuse the hell out of a lot of people. Jackson's chronological edit of the story, although I do agree is clumsy at times, is actually a lot more entertaining then how Tolkien wrote it. But, thats just my opinion. This is a movie that requires multiple viewings to really enjoy it. I honestly thought the Fellowship was boring when I first saw it, I even fell asleep halfway through, but now Im a big fan. This movie will do the same to a lot of people. Also, for almost everything, if you've read it beforehand, whatever you imagined it to be, will always be the best visual version of it for you. This is Peter Jackson's vision of Lord of the Rings, and its pretty damn good cinema too. Unlike the Star Wars excuse you don't have to think of yourself as a 2 year old to enjoy it. Just don't put yourself into an elitist Tolkien is God state of mind and you might have a good time.
More comments: After my 3rd viewing, I've noticed other things. 1. Faramir's cuirass sports the symbols of the White Tree of Gondor, AND the Seven Stars which is the sign for the Kings of Gondor, which aren't supposed to be used by their troops at this particular point in Tolkien. It's not until Aragorn unfurls the banner do we see the two symbols reunited. 2. It's kind of sad that the best lines of dialogue in the whole movie are "Fell deeds await. Now for wrath! Now for ruin!" 3. Because of Jackson's handling of the Evenstar, there is basically no chance of one of my favorite lines being in Return of the King: "It takes more than a piece of elvish glass to make a king" said by the Lieutenant of Sauron. There is no leadup for the Elfstone. 4. Because of Jackson's handling of the Dead Marshes, I am convinced that he will botch the Army of the Oathbreakers. It will be a scene right out of some 'b' horror movie. Oh good god no. 5. The exorcism scene was a crock. 6. Sam's speech about "there is still some good in this world" was a crock. 7. Comic relief sucks. 8. Elves at Helm's Deep was a crock. Thats all that I can remember for now. Also, question: Was Wormtongue's tear when he saw Saruman's "Tens of Thousands" a tear of joy or of sadness?
The only reason I go to movies is to escape reality. If The Two Towers takes me away from reality for 2hrs 59mins 9secs, then I'll have no problem with it. I hate people who over analyse films- it drives me insane. I have some tickets for the opening day, and I doubt anyone will ruin this film for me.
I liked the first movie better. I thought the second Book was horridly boring with the incessant details and poetry. This is a good movie, but it was very long. I loved the battle scenes, but it was pretty much the opening sequence in the first movie strectched longer. The beginning took too long to set up while the action sequences were too rushed. Incongruities with the fights also linger. This is my first viewing. I enjoyed the Fellowship of the Ring more the second time around. Considering that I hated the Two Towers book, ackson did a great job setting up the good stuff in part 3.
