|
|
Oh, shut up. It was great. The firstst film was Gandalf's, the second...well, Gollum's and Aragorn's - that's why he didn't do much. He DOESN'T do much in the original text as far as I can remember.
The opening sequence...mmmm....camera tracking around the mountain...and then a voice....and then you realise whose voice it is and what's going on and what mountain yr looking at....and then....in....and we're back on the bridge with Gandalf and the Balrog...but this time we follow him over the edge. Nggh! Yes!
I actually thought TTT was really well balanced. The intercutting between (and pairing down of) each little splinter of the Fellowship's story arcs was just....neat. Neat and tidy and good. This one hit more of an emotional cord with me, too. I could go into loads of detail, but there's so much and I really want to see it again before I say anything. I feel sorry for impulsivebloke, I really do, because it's much more fun to go WOAAAH! HELM'S DEEP!!!! than it is to yawn.
Thing is: the LOTR films are the best example of cinema as spectacle out there (and spectacle, of course, is something cinema SHOULD do really well, but, generally, DOESN'T); they're stylisticaly and narratively experimental, risky and exciting; they don't look like anything out there; there's no product placement; they're brilliantly acted; each shot is as perfectly framed as anything on the art cinema circuit and y'know, they're going to be remembered. They've got that Star Wars thing going for them. Only they piss on Star Wars.
And I love Jackson's endings. |
|
|