Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

L.O.T.R.-Moviegoing Experience

Page: 1(2)3 4

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:37 / 25.12.01

Flux, saying "nothing happens" is as stupid and downright easily to prove wrong as the fuckwits who say Kid A has "no tunes". Get a grip.

It really is a very good movie. Made me want to be an elf, and you can't say that about many things, can you? Well, not if you're me...

Matthew Fluxington

12:30 / 25.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
Flux, saying "nothing happens" is as stupid and downright easily to prove wrong as the fuckwits who say Kid A has "no tunes". Get a grip...

When you put in those terms, I see exactly what you mean. It really bugs me when people say that about Kid A, which i think is the catchiest thing that band has done to date...

Anyway, yeah, sure, loads of things *happen* in Fellowship of the Ring, the whole movie has events going on, it's rather jam-packed full of them. But none of them are terribly compelling, by my reckoning.

I've never cared about elves, wizards, magic, etc, and I'm not about to start caring anytime soon. My geek territory is mostly limited to superheroes and science fiction, and I'm cool with that.

Regrettable Juvenilia

17:20 / 25.12.01

But... but... nor do I... and that's not what it's really about! Surely you can see past these external elements if you can appreciate superhero comics?

I'm so going to see it again next week. Possibly on drugs...

Matthew Fluxington

23:26 / 25.12.01

If someone would like to attempt to point out any subtext in Lord of the Rings I may be missing (besides the unintentional homoerotic subtext), please tell me about it. Because as near as I can tell, the story is shallow and one-dimensional to the point of absurdity.

23:34 / 25.12.01

It is what it is.

What's wrong with that?

23:54 / 25.12.01

Something that stays with me is this idea from Henry James --either from Art of Fiction or Art of the Novel-- that what a novelist does is recreate in his work something very like life. The closer to life, the better the work... but the trick is, life and what is like life are different things to different people: not all novels are going to be home to everyone. I find this especially excellent because, to me, reading a Henry James novel is like chopping through a dense briar patch with my bare arms.

That said, LOTR (the book, I haven't seen the movie but will be dragged thither) was not a congenial home for me. But, you know, nothing wrong with that. I'm OK, you're OK...

00:04 / 26.12.01

I don't think I've ever seen anything adapted with more love and integrity. I was in tears through so much of this movie - everyone involved deserves a medal.

Boromir's last stand had me bawling my eyes out.

00:13 / 26.12.01

Seconded. And Boromir was never a character who did much for me--he always seemed to be there as more of a plot device/object lesson: see, kids, this is what the Ring does to people! That his character came off as well as it did is a testament to the skills of Peter Jackson and Sean Bean.

Everybody's been raving about the [look of the film, but fuck that noise--even George Lucas' movies look good. There was some crackin' actin' as well; mad props to Jackson as director of actors.

Bean gave Boromir real character--showing us the essential nobility, the righteous frustration, the genuine affection for the hobbits--and then showed those qualities twisted by the Ring into arrogance, hostility, and patronizing smugness. His reaction when he comes to his senses was heartbreaking.

Oh and Flux: how about this--the Ring = The Bomb.
Better now?

[ 26-12-2001: Message edited by: Jack Fear ]

02:38 / 26.12.01

I've never enjoyed LOTR (the books) and I loved the movie.

It had me crying in various places also and it also made me (the biggest hobbit bigot in history) actually admire the race of 'hobbits' for a brief while.

From the movie I found Samwise to be the most brave of them all (he chooses to go along without any legacy of crap prodding him on, just because of friendship and a promise he made). I never got that from the books.

And Boromir rocked, with his flaws, pride, and tarnished nobility.

Anyone who doesn't think there are any characters in the movie should go back and watch the subtleties of the actor's portrayal of Boromir.

08:33 / 26.12.01

By FLux:
quote:Because as near as I can tell, the story is shallow and one-dimensional to the point of absurdity.
At least it seems to be faithful to the book - I have just read "The Fellowship Of The Ring", and... it's really shallow. Those hobbits, severing orcs arms as if they were made of butter...
And what's the deal with Frodo and Sam, anyway, running naked on the hills? "Lord Of The Rimmings", should be the title of the thing. I won't read the other two, but I'll see the movie. Can't help it. Cate Blanchett, you know...

Jack The Bodiless

08:33 / 26.12.01

Jack Fear, Moominstoat, expressionless, Flyboy... you all got the groove. This film is so far and away the most faithful, and yet at the same time, the most invigorated, adaptation of a book I've ever experienced.

Everything is there that you remember and love of the first book, but writ large and gorgeous, transformed into an experience for the first time, because the translation of the imagination, no matter how valuable and personal, cannot match for immediacy the thrill of seeing what you've always had in your head translated so perfectly to the screen with no filters to interrupt your enjoyment of it. It's lazier, admittedly, but evokes something beautiful inside.

Anyone who thinks of this as 'sword n'sorcery' needs their head examined. Or rather, an immersion in what 'sword n' sorcery' actually means - what kind of rubbish the genre usually spits out. Dungeons and Dragons (the game, not the movie, natch) is actually the best it gets, when played by dedicated roleplayers, because it actually feels like you're all collaborating on a wonderful giant, sprawling rollercoaster of a book of your own - and reading it at the same time. It's so difficult to find a group of people willing to put that kind of creative imagination into a game for a few hours every week... mostly you get fools who like to invent muscly hero-avatars to kill things and have sex a lot, because they don't get to do that.

In terms of cinematic 'sword n' sorcery', The Fellowship Of The Ring could have been a quarter as well-drawn and viscerally exciting, as evocative as it was and stil easily been the best 'sword n' sorcery ' film of all time.

By the way, something that's not been mentioned - this film sets the standard for the remaining two. Whatever happens, there is no way they will be anything other than amazing. Anyone else in dire need of a time machine right now? Maybe a Flux = Capacitor?

Matthew Fluxington

13:41 / 26.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Jack Fear:
It is what it is.

What's wrong with that?

Well, it's a pretty big problem if a person is not really into wizards and elves and things like that. It offers little more than a surface, even your attempts at finding subtext in the story is very flimsy...So, if you happen to dig little adventures, magical rings, and all manners of little people with pointy ears, then it's hard to dislike the film...but if that doesn't do it for you, you're totally screwed.

13:51 / 26.12.01

'Lord of the Rings' was the source. Everything that followed, the whole sword & sorcery genre is degraded and second-generation by comparison. I think some of that's precisely [I[because[/I] LotR is so sexless, so pre-adolescent. I reckon it stirs some deep childhood hankering...

14:41 / 26.12.01

Brilliant movie, can’t wait for the next.

My main disappointment: Gimli. Even that wonderful old ham Brian Blessed couldn’t pump any life into the one-dimensional script he was handed. I would have liked to see his change of heart towards the elf queen make it to the screen; his love of beauty was his defining quality.

Imagine splicing together every scene of Elijah Wood staring wide-eyed into the camera. Fifteen minutes? Twenty?

17:57 / 26.12.01

Brian Blessed? I thought that was John Rhys Davies. Which made the computer shrinking of him that much weeeeeeirder.

18:54 / 26.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Flux = New X-Mas:
Well, it's a pretty big problem if a person is not really into wizards and elves and things like that. It offers little more than a surface, even your attempts at finding subtext in the story is very flimsy...Interesting... see, I thought it was about people. People with pointy ears and goofy hats and such, yeah, but people. That's what really hooked me--the characters, their friendships and rivalries and conflicting loyalties.

If it "offers little more than a surface," then it's a surface beyond which you apparently cannot or will not see. No big deal: that prejudice against wizards and dragons is very common, and can be very hard to shake.

My "attempt at finding a subtext" was completely tongue-in-cheek, by the way--a poke at the idea that art has to be "about" something to have value.

Matthew Fluxington

19:25 / 26.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Jack Fear:
Interesting... see, I thought it was about people. People with pointy ears and goofy hats and such, yeah, but people. That's what really hooked me--the characters, their friendships and rivalries and conflicting loyalties.

See, if the movie spent more time developing the characters, I would've felt a lot more satisfied. I'm just guessing that the original novel fleshes the individual characters out, and that the personalities in the film were glossed over to make sure all the events fit into three hours...

Given the character development in the film version, I can't really get a feeling for the personalities of anyone besides Gandalf and Bilbo, maybe Samwise and Frodo to a lesser degree. The characters all seem so cardboard to me... and there's so many of them, and not all of them are really explained as to who they are and what they are doing. It's like, halfway through, suddenly the cast doubles, and that isn't really fully explained. It's just a lot of clutter...

I totally understand why you liked it, and that's really a lot of the reason I've liked a lot of the sci fi and superhero stuff I've read in the past, especially as a kid... I'm just having trouble sussing those qualities out in Lord of the Rings, whether my prejudices are there or not.

The Damned Yankee

00:35 / 27.12.01

Personally, I was in awe of this movie. I didn't know what to expect (visions of Highlander and Crow sequels whirled in my mind; movies that sounded way cool but sucked), and happily, I found my fears to be unfounded.

Alas, the experience was not all I could hope for. It wasn't the movie's fault, but rather the fault of the idiot two rows back from me. He had brought his five year old son.

SPOILERWARNINGGO!

This is not a kid's movie! this is not fucking Willow or any of that shit! People get killed in many of the very nasty ways available in medieval-style combat methods. And the monsters are genuinely scary critters! This idiot was buying himself a good week's worth of his kid waking up screaming in the night about balrogs, nazgul, and trolls (especially the troll! Or was it an ogre? The guy was never properly introduced.).

The kid had a five year old's attention span and could not follow the plot. Instead he subjected his father to a constant stream of questions, and Pops, of course, answered them all, encouraging even more questions. By the time Boromir bites it (a dramatic moment spiked by a young voice saying "He's going to die now, right? Right?"), I was seriously beginning to question my solemn oath not to take human life.

The stupid should not breed. And if they do breed, then they should look at the fucking ratings for the movies to which they take their little monsters. But of course, they don't. That's why they're the stupid. ARRRGH! YANKEE SMASH!

[ 27-12-2001: Message edited by: The Damned Yankee ]

05:19 / 27.12.01

I saw it at the 9pm session last night and, despite being tired and not as rapt in Tolkien as a couple of the friends with whom I went, I did enjoy it. I thought the casting was good, and the respective disparities in physical appearance of hobbits and elves, dwarves and men, managed to be very convincing. The elves always looked taller, paler and more willowy than the men. Actually I wondered how they'd managed to make the hobbits always appear half the size of men, when in real life some of the actors surely must be of similar height.

Unlike the purist in our group, I was happy with the change of having Frodo rescued by Arwen - and also of leaving out Tom Bombadil's rescue of Merry and Pippin from the tree. I did find the continuous battle action a bit exhausting though - it would've been good if there could have been one or two more 'rest' sections as counterpoint, as there are in the book.

I though the music was OK for the most part - the flutes and violins in the Shire scenes, deep drums and Gregorian chant accompaniments to the scenes of evil darkness, and the Enya tracks. What did anyone else think?

[ 27-12-2001: Message edited by: Cavatina ]

The Return Of Rothkoid

07:57 / 27.12.01

Funny you mention that: I thought that the soundtrack sounded like it was pieced together from offcuts from Titanic and Vertigo. Damn you, Howard Shore. It just seemed a bit - predictable?

Interestingly, perusing the cast list, I note some strange appearances: Bruce Spence as the mouth of Sauron? Hee hee. David Wenham as Faramir? Miranda Otto as Eowyn? Jesus, why didn't I pay more attention? The last two are great!

08:05 / 27.12.01

Yeah, 'predictable' is probably the word for it. It was adequate, but nothing out of the box.

08:26 / 27.12.01

Well, er, I thought it was DAMN GOOD.

I could never be arsed to read the book all the way through, but it was kind of a defining childhood experience for the friend I went with (he can still sing all the songs and everything!)

And it was a ROCKING film quite frankly .. far better direction and exposition than any blockbuster I can remember - Peter Jackson is great at directly producing spot-on emotional reactions in the audience - the eye of Sauron WAS evil and powerful and ancient, and so were the Dark Riders (until they all got rather unceremoniously duffed up - but I digress). Gandalf WAS benign and wise and powerful, the Orcs WERE grotesque and malign and ugly - everything was spot on!

And it dragged me fully into the story too, which is something an epic fantasy novel has never really been able to do - I actually found myself wanting to find out about the characters and the places, their histories and so forth.. (so being accompanied by a Tolkien fan helped).

I think one thing that's clear is that it beats the living shit out of the Phantom Menace.

Miscellaneous incidences of 'WOW!' factor:

The flashback battle scene at the start - WOW!

The wizards duelling in their big, black tower - WOOWW!!

The landscapes - all the cities, and the mountainscapes, and the Dwarven halls - WOOOWWWW!!!

Stirring stuff!

08:55 / 27.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Dekapot Mass:
Brian Blessed? I thought that was John Rhys Davies. Which made the computer shrinking of him that much weeeeeeirder.

It WAS Rhys Davies.

I'd like to think that they asked Blessed first, but the mighty one had more important things to do.

quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
I think some of that's precisely [I[because[/I] LotR is so sexless, so pre-adolescent. I reckon it stirs some deep childhood hankering...

Definately!

The way it actually managed to make me excited by watching elves and goblins hit each other with swords .. it reminded me a being 10 years old, Marvelling at Citidel Miniatures like they were the greatest thing in the whole world. A total nostalgia trip for any geek..

14:08 / 27.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:

The Ring-Wraiths worked well, particularly their hissing horses - even if their defeat at the crossing of the ford had been pre-empted by the award-winning Guinness ad of a year or two back.
...

Watching a programme about the movie, they showed a clip from the Bakshi animated version, complete with stream foaming white horses,<pretentious> The circle is complete. </pretentious>.

And it was the best film I've seen in quite some time.

16:46 / 27.12.01

One thing that I noticed that was strange about the music was that sometimes, there wasn't any. I didn't notice until I went to see it a second time with my parents when we needed something to do Christmas Day... the fight in the mines with the cave troll had no music, at least at first. I think that it probably kicks in again about when Merry and Pippin jump on the troll but I wasn't paying attention.

yawn - thing's buddy

18:16 / 27.12.01

I agree with Jack Fear and someone else who've admired Mr. Bean's acting skills in this film. He really was very good.

I enjoyed this film. The elves were a tad dull mind you. Best bit, no contest, was Bilbo in Elf city lusting after the ring for all but a split second - the contortion in his face and teeth was truly shit scary.

Orcs, stormtroopers - lambs to the slaughter - canny beat it.

Tentacle creature was superfluous action and a bit shit.

Samwise's character was worn extremely well by the actor - fucking bravo.

Ring wearing was scary shit - blasting blurred wind and nearness to 'hell' was pretty terrifying.

Dark Riders were a bit unscary for me. The cartoon does them better - or scarier - or my memory's fucked.

Dwarf guy lacked character, true, and was he a fuckin scotsman or what? And pippin, from Glasgow - eh?!! kep it west cuntry jackson.

Liv Tyler was very beautiful in this movie. Never been a big fan - but she was very....
beautiful here. Lovely wee scar on her cheek, ahhh.

Overall, smashing stuff, though the Ents were a bit wooden.

[ 27-12-2001: Message edited by: captain roaring ]

20:46 / 27.12.01

quote:Originally posted by captain roaring:
I agree with Jack Fear and someone else who've admired Mr. Bean's acting skills in this film. He really was very good.

I enjoyed this film. The elves were a tad dull mind you. Best bit, no contest, was Bilbo in Elf city lusting after the ring for all but a split second - the contortion in his face and teeth was truly shit scary.

Orcs, stormtroopers - lambs to the slaughter - canny beat it.

Tentacle creature was superfluous action and a bit shit.

Samwise's character was worn extremely well by the actor - fucking bravo.

Ring wearing was scary shit - blasting blurred wind and nearness to 'hell' was pretty terrifying.

Dark Riders were a bit unscary for me. The cartoon does them better - or scarier - or my memory's fucked.

Dwarf guy lacked character, true, and was he a fuckin scotsman or what? And pippin, from Glasgow - eh?!! kep it west cuntry jackson.

Liv Tyler was very beautiful in this movie. Never been a big fan - but she was very....
beautiful here. Lovely wee scar on her cheek, ahhh.

Overall, smashing stuff, though the Ents were a bit wooden.

[ 27-12-2001: Message edited by: captain roaring ]

Crazy accent veering ahoy!

Recieved english, west country and Scots hobbits, all from the same region?

And I heard a bit of the "let's be kind and call it a "brouge"" in Sala/sorry Gimli's voice.

But good grief, that elf is god with a bow, and the double swords. It's intereseting how a questionnaire which defines you as a character can change the moviegoing experience.

yawn - thing's buddy

16:12 / 28.12.01

thank you for quoting my entire post duncan.

as for the west country/glasgow connection:

Fred West lived in Glesgae before heading for Much Markle.

was he Bible John?

no. he wasn't.

Matthew Fluxington

16:18 / 28.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Rizla Year Zero:

I think one thing that's clear is that it beats the living shit out of the Phantom Menace.
!

Ah, that may be true, but it doesn't come remotely close to the greatness of the Empire Strikes Back....

Lazlo Woodbine [some call me Laz]

17:04 / 28.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Cavatina:

Unlike the purist in our group, I was happy with the change of having Frodo rescued by Arwen - and also of leaving out Tom Bombadil's rescue of Merry and Pippin from the tree.

Thank mGod they left out Tom Bombadil, possibbly the most pointless crazy character in the whole book and he takes up far to much space.
I enjoyed the way the special effects blended seemlessly into the film, one question though
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
.
.
.
Did the Balrog have wings or was i just seeing things?

[ 28-12-2001: Message edited by: Butter wouldn't melt.... ]

The Knowledge +1

17:17 / 28.12.01

I think the film missed out on the point of Tom Bombadil, and some of the more subtle tricks/intentions in Tolkiens book - Tom Bombadil helps to suggest that each independent point of their journey is fraught with potential good or bad turns, Tom being a good one. For me the film missed out on this - Could have balanced the potential peril better. I was gutted that I didn't feel when watching the film, that the characters arrival in Rivendell and their ascent into the trees of the elves after Moria didn't feel like it did when I read the book - i.e. snatched away from perilous quest to a safe haven. There was not enough menace in the black riders for me, and not enough playing up of the elves timeless and safe havens. I would have made Rivendell twice as long as it was. But there u go.

Did anyone who didn't read the book get scared before they were saved in Rivendell?

09:38 / 29.12.01

Posted by Butter Wouldn't Melt:

quoteid the Balrog have wings or was i just seeing things?

It was hard to tell, wasn't it. The image was so fluid and obviously meant to evoke terror. But there did seem to be the semblance of huge bat-like wings, or of a flowing cape, perhaps.

09:38 / 29.12.01

Damn, damn, damn.

I've just been to see LOTR - or rather, most of it. After two and a half hours it suddenly stopped (just past Gwyneth Paltrow) and the cinema manager came out to say the film was damaged. And we had to go home.

The spooky thing is, it stopped pretty precisely at the point where I have got to in the book. I've been reading it frantically for two days and had just got to the point where I thought, "I wonder what happens now?" when, blam, the film stopped.

So - now I'll have to watch it all over again, just to see the last half hour.

I didn't think this sort of Cinema Paradiso nonsense happened any more - so much for modern cinema technology. The poor manager nearly got lynched.

09:38 / 29.12.01

Oh, and - up to the point where it stopped, I loved it. So I'm prepared to watch it again to see the end, though I don't know that I could face it tomorrow.

uncle retrospective

09:38 / 29.12.01

Well I have to say LOTR was one of the books I have always hated and the fact that my flatmate has some sort of weird fixation over the whole thing I was expecting to hate this film so much.

For quite a while I had a feeling I was going to be right. I, like Lothar am a hobbit hater so the shire stuff just got my teeth grating. I looked amazing but eug.. hobbits.

Then the dark riders. They were so good. Creepy as fuck.

Then dull for a bit/lot longer. The tacked on love intrest was terrible (and slagging off Liv is not something I normally dream of)

Then the Mines. OOOOOOoooohhhh.

And from that point on I was got.

Sean Bean was amazing I was almost in tears for his death scene.
Oh, and christopher Lee. Christ is that man is the best at flat out evil.

I'll have to watch it again I recon.

A good movie. Not a great one.

Page: 1(2)3 4