posted on December 28, 2001 11:19:41 AM
Have you seen it? What's the verdict?
I'm debating between seeing Vanilla Sky and Lord of the Rings this weekend. Both movies interest me. Which one have you seen or which did you prefer?
I reread Lord of the Rings a couple of months ago to refresh my memory of the story for the movie. Got bogged down towards the end of The Dark Tower though.
posted on December 28, 2001 12:10:57 PM
Enchanted I have not seen either movie. I did hear, from a fairly reliable source [my daughter] that Lord of the Rings was three hours of "where's the ring, who's got the ring" . She wasn't impressed.
I am sure there are others that loved it. Peace on Earth ~ Goodwill twords men
posted on December 28, 2001 12:14:33 PM
I have not seen it yet myself, but I have two friends who have.
One loved it, the other didn't...isn't that the way it goes???
Both agreed you had to have read the books or you will not have a clue as to what is going on most of the time.
The one who was disappointed, has an annual reading of the books, so she is a purist...
The other one is into what a movie "looks" like and it's "feel"...(she's a tad strange, but I love her just the way she is)...
She said it is an absolutely georgeous movie and the characters are asthetically pleasing ...
Both agreed it was probably geared for an American audience and has lots of special effects and action which, of course, isn't 100% true to the original work.
Both agreed this movie does not lay the ground work for the 2nd movie (like the book does) so they are wondering how #2 will be pulled off...
Final verdict:
Thumbs Down will see the other two just to say she did....
Thumbs Up plans on seeing it at least 1 maybe 2 more times so she can catch all the subtle stuff!!!!
posted on December 28, 2001 12:23:28 PM
good info thanks everybody!
I'm leaning towards Lord of The Rings myself. I can always catch Vanilla Sky on Pay per view or rent the DVD later. I'm a big Tolkien fan but not a purist, I'm open to any interpretation.
posted on December 28, 2001 12:29:26 PM
I saw LOTR on Tuesday and enjoyed it immensely. At the risk of having curses rained down upon myself, I must say that I have never been a big fan of the trilogy, or the Hobbit for that matter. They didn't thrill me all that much when I read them. But I did like the film, and thought the F/X were incredibly good, the acting well done, and the story easy to follow.
Word of caution--do NOT buy a large soda as you might not last til the end of the film
posted on December 28, 2001 12:38:42 PM
One of the best fantasy movies I have ever seen. The special effects were unsurpassed. Great entertainment and it will win many awards.
posted on December 28, 2001 01:18:32 PM
I saw this LOTR film on the first day of it's release, first showing at my local cinema, first person inside the doors!
That being said, I'll say that I thought that as a Tolkein fan of over three decades, I was both satisfied and a bit disappointed. Two-thirds of the books were descriptive narrative that the scenery could replace. The last one-third could be edited down to fit tightly into a nearly three-hour movie. Of note, Peter Jackson tended to film the dark side of the story, it being action-oriented and misses out on the cultural beauty and light side that made the characters come to life.
The big question for me was: what was necessary to cut out or outright alter that was either necessary to make the film work and be good to watch or what was the equivalent of Peter Jackson's painting a moustache on a Rembrandt?
As expected, minor characters and a good deal of plot development went to the wayside and that was a reasonable sacrifice to receive the kind of film that we ended up with. And, I felt that by his creative expansion of the role of Saruman, it lent the film lots of good that Tolkein might have had an oversight with. And while the books had a lot of light and joyful parts to it, the changing of Merry and Pippen to pranksters was an enjoyable touch of comedy relief to an otherwise very dark film.
Then, there was the changing of Glorfindel to Arwen that was done for no other reason than to try to make the film politically correct and to appeal to more women and it skews Tolkein's story and intent quite a bit. I wasn't happy about that. Nor was I happy at Peter Jackson omitting critical plot development; such as Sam Gamgee's looking into the Mirror of Galadreil, which foretold the future of the characters and instead, added into the story a part about the crumbling stairway in Moria to enhance the action sequences. I also did not like the tidbits of facts that was absolutely untrue and made unnecessary changes to the storyline.
Don't get me wrong: this will be the most enjoyable film that you'll see for a long time to come. The film is fast-paced and seemed to flow well; the imagery is superb and incredibly detailed and true to Tolkein's description - an unimaginable feat, as the use of computer graphics was seamless with the realistic and detailed backgrounds.
Once again: do not drink anything for an hour before the film starts and go to the bathroom before it starts. The film is such a feat for the eyes that you can't imagine having to blink your eyes in case you miss another eye-popping scene, let alone make a quick trip to the bathroom.
posted on January 1, 2002 01:17:32 PM
I saw the movie and liked it.
I was a fan of the books and reread them many times but eventually could not enjoy reading them again, thus have not read them for 15 years or more. The visuals and casting are fabulous. About the only cast choice who failed to match my conceptions amazingly well was Elrond.
I'm not sure how well it'll play for those who have not enjoyed the books.
A bit pointless to quible with the choices of omissions needed to translate to a movie, but - I have no problem with Arwen substituting for Glorfindel or dropping Bombadil; but didn't really care for the added historical preface or crumbling stairs, and think that Boromir's prophecy should have been included. Given that they showed Gollum's acquisition of the ring, I can't understand not mentioning Smeagol or Deagol. Maybe my memory is off but I don't think that presenting Merry and Pippin as pranksters was a change.
posted on January 3, 2002 11:44:34 AM
I went to go see it a second time yesterday. I amde sure that this time I could sit through the whole movie without needing to go to the bathroom.
I think that I liked it much better this second time around. I was not so over-awed at the imagery on the screen (although still impressed) and paid more attention to the music, dialog, and character development.
I have to agree and say that Arwen should be a Warrior-Princess, although the part should have been played by Lucy Lawless reprising her role as Xena (Yi-yi-yi-yi-yi!) And the music - it was like an Italian Opera: it too should have been modernized with Rap Music for instance, or just some good old fashioned Acid Rock 'n' Role, buddy! And swords are passe' -- any fool with a .45 handgun can slay the best swordsman ever! They should have modernized the weaponry to guns, if not to just to Light-Sabers! Yes, that would have made the film so much more marketable and real! Tolkein and his original story was just too old-fashioned!
posted on January 4, 2002 12:10:37 PM
Before seeing LOTR, I watched an hour long special on TV about the making of the movie. I was so impressed with the length they went to in making the movie that watching the movie became that much more enjoyable to me.
I liked the movie so much I nearly cried when I learned the second won't be released until 2003. ...isn't there something we can do about that?
by the way, I'm a visual person, so I'm not surprised this movie appealed to me. You just have to appreciate all the efforts put into the making of it.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate, our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.~Nelson Mandela
posted on January 9, 2002 10:25:02 PM
Saw the movie. Liked it. Definitely worth seeing, but don't go with my parents as they had a hard time shutting up.
The plot line was of course similar to the book, but I was disappointed with some choices the director made. The movie was darker than the book, relied on special effects for emphasis (at the cost of character development) and was a bit more sword and sorcery than should have been allowed, considering the time constraint.
I agree with Borillar about most, except I thought the expanded role of Saruman again took too much time away from development of the characters, especially Sam, Merry and Pippin. Most of the fellowship were hardly more than hollowed-out shells of the book's characters. Figmente is obviously a purist, which is cool.
On the other hand, this was a Hollywood-type movie in every sense of the word. Spectacular effects, mind-boggling computer generated scenery and plenty of action to keep movie-goers happy.
I felt right away that they should have tackled "The Hobbit" first, and left the trilogy for later. That would have provided the necessary preparation for the epic story.
posted on January 10, 2002 09:36:51 AM
Here's how I feel, having read Tolkien back in the 60s and 70s: ANYthing--ANYthing that encourages kids to go back to books, to read, to turn off the TV and video games--should be applauded. My biggest regret, and the one thing I'd do over if I could, with our children, who are now young married adults, would be to turn off the damned TV. One of them is a big reader and non-TV watcher; the other two don't read, even newspapers regularly. College educated, too.
posted on January 10, 2002 10:20:06 AM
Well, since no one has said that they saw Vanilla Sky yet, I'll put in my 2 cents.
I LOVED Vanilla Sky. I had done no research on it. I had only seen the previews on tv. It was great! I don't want to say too much, because it's best to see it without knowing much about it. From what I have heard after seeing it, it is one of those movies that you either love or you hate... no inbetween.
Since seeing it over New Year's my husband and I (who also LOVED the movie... as a side note, he also like LOTR) have purchased "Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)" which was the 'inspiration' (or original) for Vanilla Sky.
