Reviewed by an Idiot - LOTR
 

From India's leading national newspaper:
----------------------------
But ``The Lord Of The Rings'' was disappointing. One wondered why the comparatively more impressive Harry Potter could manage merely minor nods. For one, Potter is far more endearing to a viewer than The Lord. Potter is so very plausible, based as it is in a perfectly recognisable ambience. Yes, given the subject, The Lord could not have been so: yet, Jackson slips, even falls, in his attempt to convert his tale into a magic of delight and wonder.

What follows is a cinema of utter banality, and a cinema of devilish violence ornamented with torture, mutilation, decapitation and death. This is not to speak of the most hideous looking monsters, which keep appearing every quarter of an hour in a movie that is boringly repetitive and visually nauseating.

what Jackson has brought to the celluloid is unfortunately not terribly exciting. On the contrary, it is positively repulsive, and ``The Lord Of The Rings...'' seems to have been a trifle too careless about striking the right balance between the ugly and the beautiful

Here is a link to the full review:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/f...1501090200.htm

And those darn hobbits smoke too. :)

Maybe if they danced around trees and sang duets it might have been more acceptable for the reviewer :)

It's a negative review, yes. But that doesn't make the reviewer an "idiot."

Well, he considers Harry Potter "plausible" in a "recognizable ambience". I wonder where in the world he found an ambience containing real magic...
And a fantasy like Potter being plausible makes me wonder if the reviewer is nuts..

From what I've seen of "Bollywood" movies, LOTR would be very boring and repetitive to someone accustomed to that kind of entertainment. I'm betting a lot of US dramas don't fare to well over there.

I realize that not everyone can like this movie, but to call it "positively repulsive" is a bit much. The whole Harry Potter/LOTR comparison cracks me up.

The Indian movie industry is very different than the US movie industry. You would do well to understand them before ripping them out of hand. They like different kinds of movies than we do.

Duh! Don't you know anyone who doesn't praise LOTR is an idiot?!

I wasn't a huge fan of FOTR, but referring to Lord of the Rings as "The Lord" is instantly one of the most annoying things I've ever read.

As opposed to the gorgeous looking monsters that look like Ben Afleck?

rotfl

I know that LOTR is not everybody's cup of tea, but I felt that calling it:

"Visually Nauseating"

"Repulsive"

Was kinda going overboard, if not idiotic. LOTR was a visually stunning epic IMHO.

BTW, I am from India.

So what if you're from India? It still doesn't make a difference, because you're still criticizing a review.

Exactly what I was going to say. He's not an idiot, he just likes differant things. I've seen some Bollywood movies, and they are horribly boring, long, random and redundent. But hey thats what they like, LOTR is what they dislike.

Idiot ;)

One more thing to remember is; Tolkien's books aren't very big over there; probably since there is no such thing as an ogre or even the presence of it in any Indian literature. There are other types of 'monsters', but most are not the same as those in Western culture.

Who said so? I have a lot of friends in India who are crazy about Tolkien. I read the books while I was still in India.
I mentioned I am an Indian because someone mentioned that Indians like different types of movies. Not so. We love Hollywood movies.

BTW, Is there a law against criticizing a critic?

You see, Hobgoblin, it is very accepted and "cool" to criticize Hollywood blockbusters that have many fans and call it the "worst movie ever" (i.e. Matrix, LOTR. Fight Club...) despite the fact you must be lying if it was the "Worst" movie you've seen.

But. Criticize a critic of those same movies... god you are in trouble.

PS - he is an idiot. Simply, and for no other reason, than not liking a movie I love. I'm not proud of these feelings, but I won't apologize for them.

How many of these friends actually read the book? Compare that to how many didn't and you'll see what I'm talking about. In a country with as many people as India has, there will be a lot of ppl who have read his books, but a lot more who haven't.

Also, I think you misunderstood me, I was talking about how many people have read the Tolkien books, not how many people like Hollywood movies.

And no, there is no law against criticizing critics... and there is also no law against defending a critics actions.

Was there really anybody out there who called the Matrix the "worst movie ever"... even in India? :lol: You must be joking. If you're trying to prove a point, there are better ways to do it. Criticize that critic all you want; just don't condemn him like you are so ready to do.

that review suck

I wasnt a big fan of the movie, but i don't think it was as bad as the reviewer makes it seem, trying to throw in as many bad adjectives as possible. In fact, i think most of the things that the people who didn't care much for the movie LIKED were the visuals and monsters.

While the reviewer may not, in fact, be an "idiot" - the "review" certainly can lead one to believe that he may be just that.

Of course, "idiot" is a completely subjective opinion - but I do believe it's warranted in this case. Here are some points that I believe back up the opinion:

Comparisons to the "plausibility" of Harry Potter and the lack thereof with FOTR are patently ridiculous. They are both fantasy films far removed from a "plausible" reality. And if he believes one is more "plausible", how about some examples to back up this opinion - he provides none. Criticism should involve analysis - not baseless conjecture.

"Striking the right balance between the ugly and the beautiful" - what is that supposed to mean?? Do films have to be balanced to be effective? I didn't realize there was a filmmaking handbook that outlined cinematic faux pas. And just what is his definition of "beautiful" or "ugly" anyway? How can one quantify or even begin to understand where this opinion is coming from? Examples of what he deems "beautiful" or "ugly" would be more than a little helpful. He provides none (Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett, not-withstanding).

He goes on to state that HP is more "endearing" than LOTR. I thought critics were supposed to use a measure of objectivity when reviewing films? Obviously, there is a point at which reviewers need to express personal opinions, but to make a blanket statement such as "movie A) is endearing; movie B) is repulsive" is not only baseless, it's a waste of time.

Or how about the disingenuous comment about monsters popping up every 15 mins in the film. Ridiculous. -rolleyes- If you're going to be critical of a film, at least focus on the facts.

I'm sorry, but this review smacks of idiocy. Agree or disagree, the guy comes across like a novice who is trying his best to lambaste the film. All the power to him - but he comes across like an idiot to me. ;)

-matt

All of them did, O self appointed guardian of critics! -biggrin- :)

BTW, we weren't condemning the critic. We were just a little bit concerned about his mental health ;)