Warning: potentialy unpopular opinion inside
 

(First - let me get this right out of the way: I've never read the books, and I've only seen the first movie once. Hell - I didn't really even pay attention to the trailers as they came out. I'm about as complete a newbie as you can get)

What did I think? Well, it was much better than the first one. However Battlefield Earth was a better movie than the first one, so anything is a step in the right direction. I think the big problem was - at least with Rings part 1 - was that all my friends pumped the hype machine into high gear overdrive. "It's the best story ever committed to film in the history of the human species. It'll cure cancer, restore your receding hairline, solve global hunger and give you a hand job before the show. Oh, and you'll receive a brick of solid gold upon exiting the theater."

So when Rings episode 1 delivered absolutely no story and all the character development of an average episode of Knight Rider, I was more than a little bummed. In fact I was intending on giving Rings 2 a complete miss - but my company bought tickets for the entire office, and we saw the movie on the clock. Getting paid 75 bucks to see Rings 2 really took out of the movie any sting it may have had.

So - what did I think? It was ok - a rather average movie. It's probably the weakest of the films to have come out this fall - both 007 and Equilibrium trump this movie hands down. Given all that, it's probably worth an early 5 buck showing at least.

The good:
There were some really good action scenes. There were some stupid bits here and there that killed the moment for me, but overall I'd have to say I was muchly impressed.

The effects, for the most part, were really good. Cecil B. DeMille would have been proud of the artificially created cast of thousands. The only issue I had with the effects was the two hobbits clinging to the Tree Dude - the worst blue screen work I've seen in a while. But beyond that, everything looked pretty good.

I really liked the setting, the "look" of the world. The really cool gothic towers and funky armor and whatnot - mad props go to the art director. The vast amounts of technical artistry that went into the movie really is staggering.

Christopher Lee, although sadly underused (more of a cameo than anything) is always a pleasure to watch.

The soundtrack was pretty cool. It had a very Basil Poledouris Conan feel to it.

The bad:
Gol-Gol Binks -
I didn't mind Jar-Jar in episode 1, so I never had "The Rage" back in 1999. However, I now understand what everyone was going through back then. Man oh man, did I have Jar-Jar Rage in spades. Please, for the love of god someone bust a cap in Gollum! The cute little antics and Yoda-ish speech got on my nerves about 45 seconds after he showed up.

Before I proceed, I'll freely admit that the CG work on him looked amazing. Clearly this was the strong point of the character, and he looked really, really good - well, as far as a shriveled and naked 3 foot tall bald freak can look, that is.

And from a story standpoint too - the two would have been MUCH better off if they had whacked the little freak and rolled his body into a ditch by the side of the road. Talk about a liability! It's like carrying around a crate full of unstable dynamite - yeah, it could turn out to be useful or it could blow up and take you out.

The Story -
It was still pretty threadbare. Aside from being a hundred miles closer to the All Powerful Volcano of Death and having routed the bad guys from their stronghold and whupped their army, not a hell of a lot happened.

Also, the movie was WAY too long. Much like the first one, there are way too many shots of Dwarf Guy, Scruffy Looking Human and Blond Elf running through open fields. Or, the whole sub-plot of the Tree Guys, for another example, could have been trimmed way back. I think the problem is that Jackson spent so much time, energy and love on The Money Shots that he couldn't bear to drop them and tighten up the movie.

The Ring: now just a Subplot?
Now wait a second - I thought the whole point of the saga was Frodo dumping off the ring in the All Powerful Volcano of Death. Then why do they only get a small fraction of the screen time, while the bulk of it is made up by Scruffy Looking Human, Dwarf Guy and Blond Elf Guy's story arc.

(While I'm on the subject - the whole bouncing back and forth between the three story arcs was total narrative poison. I thought this style was jarring and ineffectual, totally breaking up the pacing. Jackson should really study Star Wars in this respect, where two or three subplots can run parallel and feel totally natural.)

You can't tell one player from another without a scorecard -
It is really hard to follow all the characters in the movie. Not only do you have to keep everyone from the first film straight, there is a batch of all new characters this go-round. Throw a whole bunch of strange names and seemingly random places and it becomes quite a mess. Many times during the movie I found asking myself "Where did these guys come from? Who's that again? What's this character's relationship to that character?" Eventually I just gave up on the details - this group of characters are Bad Guys, this group of characters are Good Guys and that's all I need to know.

Gandolf back from the dead -
I got no problem with a character coming back from the dead. However for a major plot point involving a significant physical and psychological change to the character, we are offered nearly no explanation at all. Hell - the guy died! We should get a little bit more than "I got better."

(While I'm on the subject - Scruffy Looking Human Guy and his 'death'. What the hell purpose did that little sub plot serve?)

No real climax -
I didn't feel that there was any real pacing to the battle. Lets take a look at, oh - say the trench run in Star Wars, to go with an example everyone knows. It starts out big and wide, focusing on dozens of ships all over the place. Eventually the focus is narrowed down to just two pilots while the intensity is cranked through the roof. Along the way, we've had slow moments, action bits and character moments - there was a definite ebb and flow to the battle.

In Ring 2 however it felt like someone rang a bell, both sides came out swinging, and everyone just pounded on each other until "Oh, hey - guys. We're done!" I felt that there was no rise in intensity at all, and felt so drained at the end by the hour-long fight that I really didn't care.

This and that -
The Blond Elf Guy surfing down the stairs on a shield. Oh give me a break. "For my next trick, I'll ollie off the handrail and grab some wicked air!" Whatever.

The Blond Elf Guy leaping onto the horse. I guess the laws of gravity work differently in middle Earth or something than they do here.

Dwarf Guy = WAY too much comic relief. Dwarf tossing? Cant see over the castle wall? I surprised there weren't any banana peels around for him to take a pratfall on.

Did I mention how much I hated Gollum?

Other ramdom thoughts (questions - not necessarily criticism)
The human castle wasn't very well thought out, defense wise. I can forgive the MacGuffin hole in the wall - I mean for years I've been living with Star Wars where the bad guys build superweapons with exposed shafts so the good guys can shot missiles directly into the reactor core - so I can over look this. The front door, however - "Lets wait until the enemy is breaking down the door before reinforcing it!" - or at the very least they could have blow up their own bridge so the enemy didn't have such an easy time of walking right up to their front gate. How about some catapults or explosives of their own? The king really needs to execute his tactical advisors.

Why did they let the King's Traitorous assistant go? Aside from Its In The Script, I mean - that was a total James Bond master villian moment. "Goodbye, Mr Bond - I will now lower you slowly into a pit of tigers so you can escape cause me trouble later."

Why didn't the two hobbits stay with Gandolf instead of going with Tree Dude? That's another Its In The Script moment, I guess.

Who were those elephant guys? Were they the same guys who captured Frodo and his friend. How did they sneak that huge army past the Big Gate of Doom, anyway?

If Frodo is freaking out because of the ring, why doesn't he let his friend hold it for a while?

What's up with that whole Elves leaving on the boat thing?

What was up with the ork creation process? Are they hatched full grown from that gooey egg thing?

If Sarman is such an all powerful wizard, why didn't he just start casting spells at the attacking Trees Dudes instead of just hanging around and looking out of the window.

Did Sarman also have to die in order to power up to the white robes like Gandolf?

So what's next? The bad guy fortress has been taken out of commission and the bad guy army spanked - all that's left is to round up the little guys with the ring and roll right into the temple of the burning eye, right? I assume we get to see a big ass fight between Saormon (The burning eye guy, not Christopher Lee) and Gandolf and the army of goodness, right?

The real bad guy is Sauron. Saruman's army and castle was a pale and small comparison as you will see in the next movie.

Reading the book would help since many of the things you complain about was written in the books that many consider great novels.

Saruman's power was in the ability to control or convince others to do his bidding. Gandalf had power of fire from what i remember. Gandalf and Saruman are not humans at all although they look like they are. In fact i thought they were closer related to Sauron. Although i would need to reread some things to be sure.

The rest would take a long time so ,,,

too bad you did not like it.

Re: Warning: potentialy unpopular opinion inside
 

Very accurate depicition of how he is in the book. Jackson couldn't have done a better job at truthfully bringing this character to life.

TTT is basically the story of the rise of Men. They face and pass their first huge challenge. A big part of LOTR is the end of magic, elves etc. and the coming dominance of men. As for length, I walked out thinking it was too short, and anxious to see the Extended DVD version next fall, with 30-60 minutes added back in.

Again, TTT focuses alot on the world of men. Keep in mind this isn't really a stand alone film, but rather 1/3 of a film. Just like LOTR is all one book, not 3 seperate ones. The names are basically just section names.

I had no problems what so ever. Maybe reading the book helped, but I haven't heard anyone else complain about this either. I mean it does require more attention than a lot of movies, but that's not a bad thing IMO.

I'd like to have seen more on this as well. But then again you already thought the movie was too long.

Agree, that was pointless, and not present in the book.

I thought Gandalf leading the calvary charge down the hill was a great climax.

Pay more attention. Gollum explained that they were evil men aligned with Sauron. That's how they got through the gate, they were Sauran's army, he's massing his forces.

Most people can't resist the ring at all. That is Frodo's strength, it does get to him, but it would have taken over someone else long ago.

The Time of elves has past. Again, the rise of man. Read the books.

It's a fantasy. They are bred in the mud. Made by technology rather than nature. Nature vs. Technology is a big theme in LOTR.

Greatly outnumbers. Probalby not as powerful anymore as he was no longer Sauruman the White. Gandalf had already bested him in driving him out of King Theoden, when Saruman was clearly stronger in FOTR.
Did Sarman also have to die in order to power up to the white robes like Gandolf?

We'll never see Sauron, as he never takes form. He'll send his armies in an attempt to wipe out the world of men, Sam and Frodo will continue their journey to mount Doom. There's plenty left to happen. Part of the TTT book will still be covered in ROTK as they didn't get to the end of it in this movie.

Thanks for the LOL El-Kabong. I mean it. I understand your points though. I probably would feel the same if I hadn't read the books. (Still have to wok on ROTK) I felt exactly how you did regarding the characters when I was reading FOTR. I couldn't tell who was which save for Frodo, Aragorn and Gandalf.

"Scruffy looking man, blonde elf and dwarf guy" indeed. :rotfl:

Seeing as how Gollum existed about 40-50 years before Yoda, and Lucas has admitted that Lord of the Rings was an influence on him, I think it only fair to call Yoda's speech "Gollum-ish", and not the other way around.

Personally, I don't think they sound much alike at all. So no, I wouldn't call Yoda's speech Gollum-sh. Nor would I call Gollum's speech Yoda-ish. They don't sound alike.

El-Kabong's critique sounds just like if my grandmother watched the movie and was asking questions.

I wasn't a fan of the first movie. At all. I was hoping that this would be better. It wasn't.

I agree with just about everything El-Kabong wrote. I had no trouble keeping the characters separate, but I didn't give a crap about any of them.

The movies aren't making a ton of sense to me in and of themselves. Huge plot points appear (the elves helping, the talking trees, Gandalf pulling a Jesus) with little explanation and so much movement of the story is sheer coincidence. For such an important quest there are too many idiots in this motley band do-gooders.

I flat-out do not believe that the Helm's Deep battle would have actually turned out the way it did or that the orcs would just run away.

I shouldn't need to read the books to have a basic understanding of why characters are doing what they do. That's poor storytelling.

It's interesting to see how this story has been influential and I'm sort of glad that I can understand another piece of our pop culture. These movies have removed any and all desire I had to read the books.

El-Kabong,

Its too bad you didn't like the two films. I'm a huge fan of both the book and the movies. There were many moments in the two movies where I had a lump in my throat and seeing things I only imagined actually put onscreen is an incredible experience for me. The LOTR the book is more complicated, has more characters, more incidents, more subplots, a lot more poems and songs, and there is way more walking and riding than you can imagine.

The movies just isn't to your taste that's all. But I hope you'll see Return of the King and save your final judgment until then. So far you've only seen 2/3 of a single long film.

That was the best review ever! :lol:

Even though I agreed with none of it, it's pure comedy. You need a website!

hehehe

i believe there was an old garfield poster once that simply stated "people who can read should"

that said, it makes me want to vomit when i hear someone rip on something that they have no real understanding of, and no real desire to try and understand it. even a casual fan who has read and appreciated the literature that is "the lord of the rings" can tell you that so far these movies have captured the essence of what makes the story great. go ahead, read em, hell, read anything if you are capable. you just might learn something.

:lol:

The world isn't going end if some people don't like "the literature that is 'the lord of the rings.'" This discussion was started by a person who saw the movies and made an attempt to enjoy them, but didn't. Simple as that. I shouldn't have to read books to understand a movie. That is the definition of a lousy adaptation IMO.

Essentially calling people illiterate because they don't like some fantasy story shows a lot of class.

And as someone who had no prior knowledge of Lord of The Rings as books, the 2 movies so far as by far some of the best films i have ever enjoyed.

Yes, they do require you actually pay a bit of attention rather than fiddling with your cell phone every 20 minutes (saw that constantly by 2 guys in the rows immediately in front of me) and or running to bathroom breaks and snack bar junkets and what not.

If you give in to the films and lose yourself in the story and adventure of it all rather than dwelling on how it's too wordy or how it's too long and what not, then you'll have a great time. Sometimes asking for these things of ANY film is too much to ask from some people.

This thread is like an unintentional forumcrap. :rolleyes:

;)



:lol:

Then I'm going to guess that I'd hate Gollum in the books too.

I have no problem paying attention at movies, nor do I have a problem with long flicks either. However, you cant tell me that 20-30 characters, a whole ton of backstory, places fired out at a shotgun pace (and sometimes never mentioned again) and a whole bunch of non-standard names (like Bob, Joe, Smith and so on) isnt information overload.

If you can keep track, that's great for you - but for me its a daunting process.

Yeah - but there was no buildup to that charge. There was just no pacing to the battle at all. It just happened out of the blue. The battle was all FightFightFightFight *BAM* Heroic Rescue.

The problem here is - I have zero desire to read the books. I tried reading the first one a year or so ago, just to see what the hype was all about. I found it to be very dry and tedious - too much poetry and flowery language and not enough plot. I got about 100, perhaps 150 pages into it without anything really happening before throwing in the towel.

Sorry that my opinion makes you want to hurl. Here - let me get you a barf bag, because I believe that a movie should stand on its own without the viewer having to do homework. That was one of the huge problems I had with Blair Witch - all the back story was on the web page, and not in the movie where it belonged.

Same thing here - when I pony up my 7 bucks for a film, I expect to get everything I need included in one package.

Sigh - and so it begins again: book snobbery. I'm an unworthy and inferior creature because I didn’t instantly fall to my knees and worship the almighty greatness that is The Books. Guess what: tough noogies. I tried - I didn’t like them. I'm *NOT* going to read the books, so drop that line of attack please.

Thank you for your mandatory compliance.

Yep. As someone who's read from the Hobbit to TTT,--and hated Gollum and didn't get what the big deal was with him--I can pretty much guarantee you that.


That's a constant thing that I've noticed in these books even from the Hobbit. And it is "somewhat" annoying.


I felt exactly the same when I was reading the book. FOTR was pretty much Frodo and Co. go from point A to point B. Frodo and Co. sing some songs. Frodo and Co. go from point B to point C. Frodo and Co. hang out with the elves. Frodo and Co go from point C to point D....you get the idea. But I went ahead and finished it anyway. :)

It's extremely sad that some of you overlook the fact that the movie is FANTASY. It's supposed to twist your imaginations in every possible way and please you through fiction. But some of you have a firm hold on reality and refuse to let go.... who cares if Gandalf came back from the dead, if the trees talk, etc. These are all common themes in MYTHS. Slap yourself in the face and grab yourself an imagination.

I've never read the books, but I was familiar with the medieval fantasy settings, and when I saw LotR and TTT I was amazed. I understood everything clearly and it was even more clear the second time around. There's nothing hard to understand about LotR unless you've got intelligence problems. Everything flows well (though FotR flows a bit better than TTT) and the characters are deep and fun to watch. If you're confused at all the new characters, tell me any trilogy you watched for the first time didn't do so as well. Tell me you knew all the names of the admirals and generals in the Executor the first time you watched The Empire Strikes Back. Did you know who Boba Fett was...? No, you knew his name in the 3rd movie, where it all came together. So before saying the movie doesn't make sense, wait until the movie is actually FINISHED. It is a 9 hour long movie after all.

:yack:

Preface: I love the movies, read the books sooooo long ago I remember nothing.

That said, ANYONE saying you must read a book to enjoy or appriciate a movie is an idiot. A movie should stand on its own with out support from its book. And yes, you do sound like geek boy snobs when you say it.

Now, I don't think you need to have read the books to enjoy the movie. I read them 18 years ago and my gf has never read them and LOTR:FOTR is our #1 favorite movie. I think to completely enjoy it you have to have a healthy love of fantasy, but thats it.

I will never slam anyone for what they love, my top ten is a mutating eclectic mish mash, but I will for what they hate. ANYONE who honestly says that Battlefield Earth was a better movie than FOTR is just trying to elicit a response. I have read many posts by El-Kabong and I know you are smarter than that. I can't jump on you for not liking what i like but I have to take exception to that.

I believe that there certainly was. When Theoden, Aragorn, and the few remaining troops decide to ride out for the final time against the overwhelmingly large orc army. When thier situation seemed like a lost cause, Gandlaf appears to save the day.....

Just to hit one point: Lord of the Rings isn't only about what happens to the ring. It's about the what happened to a big hunk of Middle Earth during the War of the Ring, using the members of the Fellowship of the Ring as the storytelling device.

To give an analogy, it's like a big sprawling epic about World War II. Important and interesting stuff happened all over the globe during World War II. While the use of the atomic bomb ended the war, it's not like World War II was *only* about the invention and use of the bomb.

Of course, you may not like big sprawling epics, which is perfectly OK. Though I'm not sure why you paid to see TTT after your reported reaction to FOTR. I suspect it was just so you could write this review. ;)

I've been reading audience reactions to TTT here and at the Aint-it-Cool-News site and severaltimes already I've come across the same comments, that the audience would laugh every time Gollum was onscreen! Thankfully this didn't happen AT ALL with the audience i sat with but reading other peoples experiences i was wondering just what the hell was supposedly so funny about Gollum?

Your comments pretty much hit the nail on the head as to what i concluded. People just refuse to give in to the fantasy and instead focus on the fact that he's CGI. perhaps losing themselves to the moment and the character is a bit too much for them so they try to dismiss him by focusing on everything else but the performance. Or maybe they just assume thst since he's CGI like jar Jar, then he's supposed to make them laugh like Jar jar.

:lol: So, because I didn't enjoy the movie I don't have an imagination? :lol:

I go see Harry Potter movies and am easily drawn into the world, not with Lord of the Rings. FOTR and TTT don't hold consistent to their internal logic and the underlying story uses such lazy dramatic devices which take me out of the movie.

When major plot points of a story just appear with no explanation other than "it's a fantasy book," that's lazy writing. Hell, why doesn't Frodo just teleport to Mordor then?

This story strikes me as a drawn out version of:

Step 1: Steal underwear
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit

I didn't pay money to use my imagination to fill in the gaps and inconsistencies.

And I don't pay money to be spoonfed a story and not required to use any thought or imagination.

There are no gaps or inconsistencies. A few things could be explained in more detail for those that never read the books, but there is nothing missing so significant to be called a gap or inconsistency.