[MickeS]

I saw LOTR earlier tonight, and I don't really understand what everyone (forum members and critics) see in it that I don't.

I haven't read the books, so I can't judge if it was a faithful adaption or not.

However, I didn't fell like there was any real excitement or sense of adventure. It's an extremely simple story, told linear without any complications: they go out on a long trek, run into obstacles, fight, and... well, then the movie is just over. Yeah, I know there are 2 more movies to come, but couldn't they have come up with a better ending?

Worst of all was that everything felt very compressed/compromised: the background story is dealt with quickly (with sometimes horrendous FX), then the main characters are introduced.

After that, they leave, without much explanation why since the story is so simple I guess they didn't need much).
ALong the way they run into characters that pop up only to disappear as quickly as they appeared; Arwen, her father, Cate Blanchett's character. What did they contribute with to the overall story? They come in, do their bit and disappear without ever being seen again. Then there's some more walking and some more obstacles. Uhu.

Actually, there was one bit in the movie that was REALLY good and very exciting: the 20 minutes or so when they entered the enormous cave, fought the orcs and the monster, and then escaped across the falling stone bridge.
Extremelt well made and staged. Very touching moment when Gandalf died.

The movie was saved by the brilliant acting, the steady directing and the gorgeous cinematography. The script on the other hand was really dull. Seems to me like they could easily have cut out an hour or so, but the Tolkien fans would probably have flogged Jackson if he had done that.

Maybe one must have read the books in order to appreciate the movie, I was in any case not overly impressed. **1/2 out of **** from me.

/Mike

[Patrick Sun]

The pacing of the film caused me to become listless.

I had fun watching the hobbits' heights change from scene to scene, and it got distracting up to a point.

The line that got the biggest laugh was Gimli's line: "There will be no tossing of dwarves!"

When the credits rolled, there was a collective "Oh man, you gotta be kidding me." Perhaps too much foreplay, not enough pay-off at the end.

I think they could have ended the film a scene or two earlier, like when Frodo gets into the boat and starts paddling out, and pull back and show the expanse he'll need to cross to get to Moria. Snip out the part where Sam shows up and almost drowns himself, and save it for the opening of the 2nd installment.

Sadly, I came out of the theater without that "buzz" I get when I see a GREAT film IMHO. But, come next December, I'll be there for the 2nd act, but I can't see myself watching this film over again, but if it was edited down to around 135 minutes, I might watch it again.

[Craig S]

Quote:

One fanboy thing that bugged me, wasn't Gollum a normal fellow before he got hold of the ring? The story told of him being a mountain creature before he found the ring

Ryan, you're right, Gollum (Smeagol) was "normal" - as Phil pointed out, he was related to the Hobbits. I remember the prologue as being vague on that point, although we did see the ring retrieved from the river by normal looking hands.

Anyone else think Bilbo's brief facial transformation is a preview of what Gollum will look like when we finally see his entire face in TTT?

[Ryan Peter]

Mike, you realize this is the first in a trilogy right? There's going to be two more movies that finish the story.

[Charlie_M]

MickeS: Could you give an example of the "horrendous" effects you saw? I'm just curious because I don't think I've ever seen a movie whose special effects approach the quality of those I witnessed on this film.

[Ryan Peter]

Kinda off topic: Did the trailer for the new Night movie play before LOTR in everyone's theater? Damn that looks pretty good.

[MickeS]

Charlie, the whole first battle just seemed very CG. Nothing I can pinpoint, just the movements of the troops and other details.
Same with the scenes of the fellowship running from the orcs in the big hall/cave, they just didn't move right at all.

Ryan, yes I know there are two more movies. I still think they could have given this movie a real ending of some kind. It just sort of fizzled and then it was over.

Ryan, which Night movie? "Signs"? They didn't show any trailer for that where I saw it. The trailers they showed were
"The Scorpion King" (looks not so good)
"The Time Machine" (looks like the trailer is making it out to be something it's not)
"Rollerball" (looks awful)
"Austin Powers 3" (ugh)
"Blade 2" (looks cool)

/Mike

[Ryan Peter]

This is from James in the review thread (don't want my reply to be deleted)

Quote:

If the next 2 movies are also 3 hours long, that means either there is a lot more to the story than I have figured out (a good thing) or it really slows down (maybe not a good thing). 364 (or so) days to find out...

James, by no means does it slow down. The story is just getting warmed up! Think about the fact that the parties have split at the end of FOTR, and each party has their own storyline which goes down a different path. I won't say anything more.

[Ryan Peter]

Mike, any other ending would have betrayed the book terribly. PJ knew this. This was a cliffhanger. The real story ends wonderfully. I recommend you read the books.

[Charlie_M]

MickeS: Fair enough. I was personally floored by the intro effects, but to each his/her own! I'll watch for bad FX during those scenes next trip to the theater.