*wisper's hideously unfair, terribly biased, friend-losing L.O.T.mutha fukken R. review:* I tried to warn him. "you don't know what you're getting into" i told him. "You've never read the Hobbit," i said, "it's like suicide! i liken reading it to gutting myself!" "I wanna see a real fantasy movie for once!" he said. "The commercials didn't look bad!" "You don't know pain" i said. "Have you ever seen those books? they're the size of the fucking phone book together. No human can read them and come out the same! No sane person would try!" see, the Royal Tenenbaums were not playing in this theater, and we had time to kill. 3 hours, in fact. And killed they were. Don't get me wrong, it was well made and really beautifull. It was the most well made piece of crap i've seen since Planet of the Apes. Or Titanic. God it was long. Looooooooooooooooong. And boring. So...so boring. I'm sure the books were better. They have to be. Did the book have character development? 'cause this didn't. Okay, Gandalf had character. Frodo had... the ring. Then there were 7 or 8 other guys who may or may not have names, i don't know. I don't care. Main characters died, and i didn't care. Speaking of character, it's sad when the most interesting person in the movie is an inanimate object. And i think the director knew this, because there's a close-up of that fucker every 5 minutes. Oh, there it is again! plain gold ring, wow, i had almost forgotten. Let's just say that if there was a drinking game in which you had to drink everytime someone pulls out the ring (ooooo..shiney!), and every time they show some goddamn huge goblin army, you'd be dead in the first hour. Maybe even before the title comes up. To mix nerd metaphores, they come upon huge-ass goblin armies like Star Trek TNG came across temporal anomalies. Goblins, Gorgs, Grogs, whatever. But it's all okay to a point. The introduction of people is fun, and everything's interesting until the actual 'quest' part starts. Then it's a lot of walking. For 2 hours. And there's this really lame wizard fight. It's laughable. I was giggling. "can we ditch this, please?" he said, approaching hour 2 "no way. You asked for this, you're watching this full." tell me why they can make a CGI mountain crumble in super-realism, but when an elf witch goes insane they resort to Bride of Frankenstein effects? Why can't i believe Hugo Weaving as anyone other than Agent Smith from the Matrix? Welcome to Rivendel, Mr.Anderson. Right now the Internet Movie Database is listing this movie as the #1 of all time, and i'll tell you why. The fans go the first weekend. But once normal, non-virgins get sucked into the hype, this thing will drop, and fast. What the hell is wrong with the fans. Sure, i'm Anne Rice's bitch and i admit it, and i'll be in line for the opening of the Vampire Lestat (which looks pretty bad, too) but i'm not going to say that some movie made from a book i'm obsessed with is THE greatest film of ALL time. This was not, and don't believe anyone who tells you so. Not the best of all time, not the best of the decade, not the best of the year. Not even close. And is sure as fuck is NOT better than the Godfather, the Shawshank Redemption, and Citizen Kane. It's just one more "Why make a good movie when we can use computers in place of filmaking!" movie. nerds nerds nerds

midol kick in yet?

lol well, in all fairness, i didn't want to see it to begin with.

Dude, you need to bring it down a level. I've never read the books. and I liked it. Sure, it had small flaws. I thought it was worth $7. If you didn't, cry. in the time it took you to flame the movie on this post, you could have made the 7 bucks you wasted back. You said you had time to waste, you wasted it. Is life not worth living anymore?

go tell it on the mountain, keymah! yeah, dude. bring it down a level. or 5. is it your sole purpose in life to make peter jackson cry? 'cause he's cryin like a baby right now. all because of you. wisper -- the trip-bummer, the bubble-burster, the party-wrecker, the wet-blanket. who needs sauron or an army of orcs when wisper, with a few irreverent remarks, can completely ruin a motherfucking quest for the triumph of light over darkness. i hope you're happy.

Few movies are worth seven dollars. Lord of the Rings, sadly, is not among them. I'm glad I went to a matinee. I wasn't very happy about what they did with it, and I *have?* read the books.

I personally thought it was amazing, and wrote an extensive review over at animadversion.com, if anyone cares to scope it out.

well, i figure that since i paid as much to see it on the big screen as it would cost to rent it later, i didn't loose any money. And i got some laughs, so what the heck. p.s. peter jackson is a hack who got lucky. He directed 'the Frighteners' and 'Meet the Feebles' dag nabbit.

i appreciate the bad review. this movie is so damn hyped up right now that it's almost guaranteed to be a letdown.

I beg to differ, although many of your points are valid, especially the character development ones. The only characters that had any in-movie development were Aragorn, Boromir, Frodo, Pippin and Merry. There needed to be way more development of Legolas and Gimli, and they missed the great chance for that in Lothlorien. I also agree taht teh whole wicked elf thing with Galadriel was ridiculous, but still Cate Blanchett did a great job. However, the great things included: Moria. That seriously kicked ass (especially the Balrog). Hobbiton. It seemed so familiar. The Uruk-Hai (it actually cleared up for me what the hell the difference was between them and orcs, something I could never quite figure out). The casting as a whole was pretty flawless. The acting WAS good, taking in consideration that the actors based everything on the books. The soundtrack (I don't buy soundtracks very much, but I'm getting this one). The Nazgul were dead on. Peter Jackson can't be a hack,because the movie was good. IF he were a hack, it would have looked more like Bakshi's animated half-assed version form the 70s. I'm going to go see it again today with my family.

yes, the soundtrack was quite buy-able. But this is exactly the thing i'm talking about. What do i care if the Nazgul was dead on? How would i or any other casual viewer know that? We can't appreciate casting choices. This movie has to stand on it's own without the book, and i don't think it does. You can overlook the lack of development in certain places because you already know all the characters, and you can fill things in. To me it just comes off as the filmakers being too lazy to make me care about 9 people. And if acting is a sign of quality direction, then hack he is. Super-serious pseudo Shakspearian accents abound. I've never seen so many people act so constipated at once. Except Stryder a.k.a Drunk Loner Stereotype Man. And i'm going overboard now. But seriously, this movie was made for one very very specific group of people.

What Wisper said. And please do not forget about all the staring into each others eyes during every single line of dialogue. I think they want to marry each other.

The accents were supposed to be as Tolkien intended. Go to the movie website and read up on how much went into the movie, and then still call him a hack. Read the books, heathens! If you didn't like it, it's your own fault. I liked it, it was good. (damnit, Spider, where are you when I need your brain?) I will concede that Jackson did a lot of the fill in the blanks stuff, like the Elvish cloaks in Lorien, they were wearing them but if you hadn't read the books you wouldn't know anything about them. I wonder how much got left on the cutting room floor to make it fit three hours. Still, they got more right than wrong in my book, and I'm willing to let stuff slide for how well they captured it visually.

by that definition, Kevin Costner is a film genius

Here I am, Sem. I saw the film yesterday. Wisper, you went into that movie expecting not to like it, so you set yourself up. My condolences. I thought it was very good. I thought it remained A Genre Movie, so if you don't like fantasy you won't like this, but it was still very good. I will be seeing it again. Bad things: 1. It seemed hurried to me, like you could clearly see that they were cramming stuff in there. I'm hoping that the Two Towers will be more measured and will have more time for character/history development. 2. I thought there were a lot of things that could have used, like, one line of exposition to explain stuff to non-readers. The Horn of Gondor, for example, isn't introduced until Boromir blows it when he's in danger. Those who have read the book think, "oh NO!" and everyone else thinks, "what? so?" Good things: 1. The settings were great! The Shire was just beautiful - you can understand why the hobbits are so bent on protecting this place. Barad-dur was so much bigger and more frightening than I had imagined. (What can't I wait for in The Return of the King? Three words - Black. Gate. Opens.) 2. I loved Boromir and Sam. They were my favorite characters in the books, and I thought they were dead-on in the movie. Boromir especially - it would have been easy to fall into the trap of making him seem sinister from the start, but Sean Bean nailed the good-hearted ambition that makes him such a tragic character. I loved how kind he was to the hobbits [like after Moria] and his breakdown when he tries to steal the ring. (Sean Bean, how I love thee! I recently watched "The Essex Boys" -- have any of you seen this? After that, I thought I wouldn't be able to see him as Boromir, so well did he inhabit Jason Locke, but I'm so glad I was wrong.) 5. I loved how they didn't water down the love between the friends. They showed Aragorn kissing Boromir's forehead without flinching, and they were good about Sam's devotion to Frodo. That's an element of the book that I found so touching (like the part I posted in my own LOTR thread), and I really hope they don't screw it up in the next two films, when Sam takes Frodo's hands a lot. 6. More will be revealed in the next two films. I've heard that the scenes with Galadriel and the other members of the Fellowship will be shown in flashback in the next films. I hope this is true - they'd better not cut out Gimli's awe of Galadriel....one of my favorite lines in the book is Gimli's "Let me fetch my axe" when Eomer claims to have seen a woman more beautiful than she. 7. When the drums started pounding in the mines of Moria, I was *afraid*. That was scary! The troll was so cool - I liked how quickly they made it move (cf. Harry Potter). The Balrog was awesome. I couldn't tell if it had wings or not, though.... 8. Gollum was just like I had imagined! I can't wait for more of him in the next movie. (HOWEVER, they made it sound like he was always a creature...the only sign of his previous Hobbit status was the human-like hand grasping the ring from its underwater resting place. Come on! A line or two about how the ring twisted Smeagol into his current form would have done the job!) 9. The effects making the hobbits look smaller than everyone else were terrific. I was very impressed with the early shot of Frodo jumping into Gandalf's arms. 10. The Nazgul were *really* cool. (HOWEVER, someone should have said something after the Ford to explain how they weren't killed...they just lost their forms.) I really liked how they were pretty smart bad guys - they didn't linger over what they thought were the sleeping hobbits...they just stabbed. "Now that I have you, Mr. Bond, let me explain how I'm going to kill you"-type stalling always makes my stomach clench. Now we have to wait another year!

Argh! I messed up my numbering...#5-10 should be #3-8.

it did have wings, go see it again and you can see that they are like bat wings but with smoke in place of the membranes. I liked all the little things, like the maps and Legolas walking on top of teh snow when everyone else was trudging through it. Lorien they got almost totally wrong though - where were the golden Mallorns? They better do flashbacks.

okay, ya got me, what's the deal with the The Horn of Gondor....

I expected to like it. What about me?

well, some people just don't like some movies.

You are defective, Snowman. Drink some beer and correct your head. The Horn of Gondor is, simply, this big ol' heirloom that Boromir wears around his neck and really only comes into play at the end of Fellow Ship and I think either near the end of Two Towers or the beginning of Return of the King. Did anyone notice that the opening wide shot of Rivendell is the same as Tolkien's painting of it in the Hobbit? Details.

This is better than Ebert & Roper!!!!! It has been a million years since I read the books, but now I am really looking forward to seeing it. My husband will thank you all :) As far as "The Vampire Lestat". I couldn't make it thru the book, so here is hoping the movie is better because the book bored me off of my ass and I went back to my old Christopher Stasheff collection.

http://www.queenofthedamned.com ouch and yay, ouch and yay. eri, i think you have to be a special kind of bored to get through the books. Which i always was.

wisper made a good point there--if I hadn't read the books, I would have missed a lot of things. I realize that they can't put *everything* into the movie, or it would be hellishly long, but...I have the feeling it wouldn't stand on its own. I wish they hadn't made galadriel seem all evil. That wasn't nice of them to do. She was only supposed to be scary part of the time...and I would have liked it if they'd taken the character development opportunities in lothlorien. Oh well. They did do an excellent job with Boromir. Of course, all my criticism doesn't mean I won't go see the next two.

I haven't seen it yet. But, from what I've heard, maybe they should have made six films instead of three. For once i'd like to see a film that included everything that was in a book. It would be wonderful to sit watching a film anticipating how the film would handle a favorite scene from a book and not find out it was left out.

I thought it was great. I especially loved the scenery; it made me feel attatched to land the same way the characters are. I had read the Hobbit and the beginning of the Fellowship when I saw it, but now I want to finish the books. I need to find out what happens, and I dont think I have the patience to wait for the next movie.

just don't read the ending before you get to it. that was my mistake, and once made, a mistake like that lasts a lifetime.

Seen it twice, now---thought it was fucking great.Yeah, they left some nuts-and-bolts stuff out, but think how easily that thing coasted up to 3 hours....and how easily it COULD have coasted up to five! My brother and brother in law had both read the book-----their asses were totally kicked by it and they had to see it again. They were all about it. My Mom and my sister had NEVER read the books and ALSO loved it! Moria---thumbs up all the way. Jackson, a hack?????? Didn't he do "Dead Alive"? I loved that movie!!!!!!!!!!!

And I won't rank it alongside "The Godfather", "Citizen Kane", "Taxi Driver", etc....any more than I'd put "Star Wars" in the same league. It's NOT THAT KIND OF A MOVIE. It's NOT MEANT to be that kind of a movie. The cave troll scared the piss out of me.

You, too? I jumped out of my seat the first time. The Nazgul were great, especially when Frodo looked at them with the ring on. Jackson got that dead on.

i think they blew it by removing tolkien's sense of mystery. the freakin hobbits don't know shit for a long time, and you're kept in the dark with them. in the movie, everything is explained as it appears on screen. and they left out the barrow-wights. tsk. and the cgi was way below my expectations. other than that, it was nice. harry potter was better.

the best bet is to ignore the hype, or at least let it deflate. VIDEO ALL THE WAY!!!!

No, pat, you have to see this on big screen. The huge sceneries are really what made it for me, and you cant get the same effect on video. You can ignore the hype, but you should see it before its out of theatres.

See it in surround sound as well. It's freaky when you hear people talking all around you in the Bree scene.

I liked the Frighteners. I really liked Lord of the Rings, and if Jackson's choice was to pander to the Tolkien reading dork-constituency or make a great movie which lost much of the Tolkienness, he erred on the side of dork re-re-re rental. Good for him. My only complaint: how many fucking shots did I really need of Elijah Wood's (admittedly beautiful) vulnerable blue eyes? Eh?

Were those really his? I'm under the sneaking suspicion that they weren't.

no, i have his here. in this box.

AWESOME MOVIE!!! only ONE inexcusable flaw i see: WHERE IS TOM BOMBADIL!? I LOVED THAT OVERGROWN LEPROCHAUN!

Way the hell up there, Sem wrote, "Did anyone notice that the opening wide shot of Rivendell is the same as Tolkien's painting of it in the Hobbit? Details." Well, dude, according to the DVD special features, that's because the same guy that painted the picture worked on the movie. John Howe and Alan Lee have both illustrated LOTR, and both were set and concept designers on the movie.

No, it's not. I was talking about the ORIGINAL painting that Tolkien did. Maybe Howe or Lee based their painting on that one. You can find that original Tolkien painting in the book on his art, which i can't remember the name of but is available at Borders. and I wasn't looking for details, I said that meaning "hey, he got all these little details in that realy show his dedication to the story"

Oh, okay. I'll look for the book. I knew what you meant by "Details."

GEEKS!

We appreciate quality. SFW?

I found this trailer for The Hobbit. It will be released 12/9/06. This is my ftp server, the user name is: user. No password. Don't bother trying the other folders.. :P

one more thing. It is 20 megs, but worth it

Down with trailers! . When I see a movie for the first time, I really prefer to see it for the first time. . They make it so hard.

Amen Brother TBone.

I would not ahve known that Jackson was doing the Hobbit without it

And I wouldn't have known without you.

I finally read this thread from the begining. Peter Jackson is a MUCH better director then Lucas. the LOTR trilogy is much closer to what I expected of the Star Wars prequels. Lucas has a lot to learn from Jackson.

further, LOTR is EXACTLY the reason for digital sound theaters, with stadium seating. I hate the thought of paying 7-8.5 for a ticket, but these movies makes it more bearable. More money for the ticket, then more movie. More effort. More thought.

spunky, the LOTR "Hobbit" trailer is a fake. It's a good fake, but a fake. All of the dragon scenes and scenes where villagers are puting out fires and such were taken from the 1981 movie Dragonslayer.

i was gonna say. they don't do movie trailers 3 years in advance.

check it

dammit. He did an excellent job, and it as the end credits that made me think it was authentic. However, the very last frame does have a "created by" tag on it. And they have done trailers three years in advance, well, teasers anyway.

and you know how to burst a bubble, dammit. Now I am crushed.