Welcome to DBSTalk
- Start new topics and reply to others
- Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
- Get your own profile page and make new friends
- Send personal messages to other members.
Lord of the Rings = LONG incomplete movie
Posted 19 December 2001 - 03:13 PM
I just got back from seeing Lord Of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.
I knew this was part one of a trilogy, however, EVERYTHING was left hanging at the end. There was NO resolution of even minor plot points. Nothing!
I'm sorry folks, but the definition of a Trilogy is NOT having one movie in three segments. A Trilogy is three complete stories with beginnings middles and endings and combine to make a longer story. Each segment is self-contained, but all three together are greater than the sum of its parts. That is a trilogy. This is a sirialization.
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back had a more complete ending than Lord of the Rings had!
Now for the positive notes:
This movie was VERY true to JRR Tolken's series. There were some geeks sitting behind me that reminded me of it by prognosticating the upcoming dialog and scenes. At one point I had to tell them to please keep their comments to themselves and let us watch the movie. (Reason #1 why I hate going to the theater)
The visual effects were absolutely incredible! There were a couple of scenes in the Dwarf city that you could definitely tell it was CGI, but other than that, it looked very realistic. The world written by Mr. Tolken was conjured up pretty well. It almost made the $5.75 for a MATINEE almost worth it.
The story's pacing was PAINFULLY slow. The tone was constantly forboding. It was relentless. Unless you are a Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan, I really cannot recomment this third of a movie.
Audience reaction at the end of the movie was mixed. Smattering of applause and several boos.
Posted 19 December 2001 - 04:06 PM
Thank you very much for that review Tony. I was debating whether or not to go and see it. I am not a big "hobbit" fan in the first place but if the movie is incomplete I will wait until all three are done and then see the whole thing.
Posted 20 December 2001 - 01:32 PM
The books are just like that. One ends and the next picks up at the next moment. Very little is closed until the end.
Posted 20 December 2001 - 11:29 PM
Rick, I was just about to say the same thing about Tony's review. Painfully slow development, everything left hanging until the very end, sounds exactly like the books.
Posted 10 January 2002 - 11:42 AM
Being someone who read the books, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. The only indication I felt that the it was long was that my butt was sore. My wife and two other friends also felt the same way. They had not read the books, but I had warned them of the abrupt end.
Posted 10 January 2002 - 11:56 AM
I finally saw it was well last week, and I have to say that I disagree with Tony's review. I thought that the pace of the movie was rushed. I've read the books many times, and while the movie was a reasonably accurate representation of the 1st book, and beautifully done, it needed to be at least an hour *longer* to impart the character development that happens in the book. There was no sense of time in the movie - that it took Gandalf 20 years to research the ring in Gondor before returning to Frodo. That it took weeks of travelling to get to Rivendale, and then months after that to get to the Falls of Rahros (sp?) where the fellowship broke apart.
Don't get me wrong - I thoroughly enjoyed the movie...just a couple of things that bugged me about it. I hope that we see a 4 hour version on DVD!
Posted 11 January 2002 - 10:58 AM
Thank you for the review......but......
Sorry Tony.....I DISAGREE.
Movie was long, but it kept my attention. I would highly recommend it to anyone considering going to see it.
I give it a 2 thumbs up!!
Posted 13 January 2002 - 05:38 PM
I finally got a chance to see the movie as well. All I can say is, WOW. Slow to develop? I suppose that the setup in the shire was a little "slow." And the movie slowed down some in the Elf sanctuaries. But other than those instances, it was a matter of "grab ahold of something and hang on." After two hours I looked at my watch and as I feared, it showed there was only an hour left to go. I could easily have sat for another hour. After having read the books a minimum of fifteen times, I had been afraid of being disappointed once again by the movie made from a favorite book. I was reassured when my 22 year old daughter saw it and the next day offered to go and see it again with me. She liked it better the second time than the first. There were a few inconsistancies from the book, but considering the massive undertaking of translating the book to the screen, it wasn't bad. I wasn't to dissapointed in seeing the story portrayed on the screen, because Tolkiens descriptions are so complete, and the movie is so faithful, that it was much as I had already visualized it.
As far as whether this story is a "trilogy" or not, Tolkien did not write The Lord of the Rings as three individual stories. It was written as three volumes, (consisting of two books per volume). For example, in writing the story Tolkien wrote books four and six at the same time, book four from volume 2 and book six from volume 3. The copy of the Lord of the Rings I am currently re-reading has the entire story in one volume. So yes, this is more a miniseries (or maxiseries) than a trilogy such as Star Wars. But it is faithful to how the book progresses. I suppose I could pick nits and point out that in the book Boromir dies in the third book, the first part of "The Two Towers," but I won't because its only a matter of a few pages and does make the parting of the fellowship more clean at this point. See, it does to tie up loose ends.
I am now counting the days until part two is released, and have vowed to buy the DVD the day it is released (not to mention a new big screen TV to watch it on. I do need to take my wife to see the movie so she realized how much of a necessity this is going to be.