To top
 

Lord of the Rings III

Movie discussion.
User avatar
bloodjelly
Extreme poster
Posts: 5195
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 1:46 pm

Lord of the Rings III

Postby bloodjelly » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:26 am

The last part of the trilogy definitely stands up in quality to the first two, maybe even surpassing them. I really liked the darkness of this one and the huge battle scenes, but they didn't let the movie turn into a mindless excercise in action, and the characters turned out to be what we were most interested in.

Also, has anyone noticed that people in movie theatres cough more than normal people, especially during the quiet parts?
User avatar
rebus
Postaholic
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:59 pm

Postby rebus » Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:41 am

I was somewhat disappointed by the third film. In fact, great as the films were, I was disappointed generally. Perhaps because I've read the book(s) so many times. I've got a great CD (unabridged), too which is great to listen to when painting or in the car.

Although the scenery, costumes and direction were so good in this film -as well as the other two-, I did think that a lot of the deviation from the book was unnecessary. I can understand having to cut large parts of the text due to sheer length, but to make things up or change the story was, frankly, a bit insulting - not just to our own intelligence but who is Jackson to think he can rewrite Tolkien!?.

Anyway, that said, whinge over, I will concede that I'd rather watch this trilogy than many other of the offerings of recent years.

Btw, can anyone suggest any good films out at the mo, as I've got to pick the next one we go to see. cheers.
Any of my reference photos may be used to create artworks as long as they are acknowledged in the normal way.
User avatar
bloodjelly
Extreme poster
Posts: 5195
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 1:46 pm

Postby bloodjelly » Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:26 am

I haven't read the books so I don't know about the liberties Jackson took, and I liked all three, but I don't think the movies are good enough to warrant a "Best Picture" at the oscars. Maybe, just maybe Jackson should get best director for piecing together such a hugely scaled picture in such a relatively short amount of time. But to me, Lost in Translation touched on a lot more truths than LOTR did in very poignant ways, and I haven't even seen some of the other movies up for best pic.

As for good film suggestions, there's the one I mentioned. Cheaper by the Dozen is kind of "cute" and fun to watch. House of Sand and Fog is supposed to be great; so is The Last Samurai. Along came Polly was not good, neither was The Big Bounce. That's it for me. Has anyone else seen more of the "Best Picture" movies this year?
User avatar
paradox
New poster
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:20 pm

Postby paradox » Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:09 am

I was very happy with
Return of the King
. The entire three part saga was a masterpiece. Taking into account that any book that is made in a movie never stays true to the books plot line, I was impressed that it did keep as close to the series as possible.

One thing they left out that annoyed me, Tom Bombadil.
User avatar
bloodjelly
Extreme poster
Posts: 5195
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 1:46 pm

Postby bloodjelly » Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:55 am

paradox wrote:One thing they left out that annoyed me, Tom Bombadil.

Who's Tom Bombadil? I haven't read the books yet obviously.
Magnolia
Passionate poster
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 9:55 pm

Postby Magnolia » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:47 am

Tom Bombadil was a character that showed up between Frodo's trek to Bree and his er...arrival at Bree. Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin get lost in these woods and suddenly Merry and Pippin get eaten by an angry tree...thing. Sam and Frodo freak out and start running around calling for help. Then Tom Bombadil shows up, singing merrily and somehow sings the hobbits out of the tree. Or he commands the tree to surrender them. I forget which. The hobbits are all very grateful and Tom Bombadil invites them to stay the night. It turns out that Tom is a very old entity that cares for the woods and the ring of power has no effect on him. You also meet his wife, Goldberry who's pretty cool too. Apparently, the character Tom Bombadil is taken from another novel with a character of the same name. Novelist James Fenimore Cooper created the character Tom Bombadil and he (or other versions of him) show up in I think all of Cooper's novels including Last of the Mohicans, the Bombadil counterpart being Hawkeye. (Not "Benjamin Franklin Pierce" Hawkeye, a different one.
Why don't you go play with your CHEMISTRY SET?!
User avatar
bloodjelly
Extreme poster
Posts: 5195
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 1:46 pm

Postby bloodjelly » Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:31 am

Cool - sounds like he would have been an interesting character. But he would have confused slow people like me because I would figure that if he wasn't affected by the ring, he should carry it, and frodo should take a hike back to the shire. But that would be a boring story I guess.
Magnolia
Passionate poster
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 9:55 pm

Postby Magnolia » Fri Jul 02, 2004 4:31 pm

The hobbits had suggested that, or rather that he keep the ring safe in his forest (they hadn't been informed over ther mount doom thing at that point) but they decided that it wasn't really fair and that he could only shake the ringwraiths off for so long before they'd get it anyway.
Why don't you go play with your CHEMISTRY SET?!
User avatar
rebus
Postaholic
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:59 pm

Postby rebus » Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:00 am

Also, Tom would have been careless with it, as he is only partly of this world himself so would probably lose it, only for it to fall into the hands of Sauron anyway.
Any of my reference photos may be used to create artworks as long as they are acknowledged in the normal way.
User avatar
bloodjelly
Extreme poster
Posts: 5195
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 1:46 pm

Postby bloodjelly » Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:56 am

Interesting...he sounds like an almost pointless character, except to show that Frodo is the best candidate for the ring...for sure. Well the movies are pretty long as is; maybe that's why they didn't include him. Thanks for filling me in.

Return to “Movies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron