Why so much excitement over LOTR? (1 Viewer)

[MichaelPe]

However, it is not the best film of all time as has been rated in the IMDB.

I'm amazed at how many other films of this year are in that list: Memento (#10), Amélie (#16), Shrek (#76), Moulin Rouge (#92), Monsters Inc (#102), The Others (#138), Snatch (#161), The Royal Tenenbaums (#178), Mulholland Dr. (#186), Amores Perros (#197), Ghost World (#208), A Beautiful Mind (#239), The Man Who Wasn't There (#244).

Don't get me wrong. They're all great films, but somehow, I feel that such recent films cannot be considered among the best of "all time" until some time has elapsed after the initial hype. Initially, all of the die-hard fans go see these films, and naturally, they rate them very highly. Looking at LotR, 68.4% of users gave the film a score of 10/10. I'm sorry, but I don't think any film released in the last few years deserves that score.

Maybe I have different standards, but to me, a 10/10 should be given to a perfect film (if there is such a thing) - e.g. Citizen Kane, The Godfather, and Schindler's List all deserve it.

 

[Eric M Jones]

Is it the best movie ever? No. Is it a 9.5/10 movie? Absolutely. I think it's a shining example of what Hollywood is capable of. Translating a beloved literary work into a faithful movie at the hands of a believer in the material. None of this feels false, or updated to be hip for the younger crowd. There's no inappropriate comic relief. The action is exciting, the effects are impressive. The dialogue is fitting and appropriately epic. The casting is right to a T. And finally, the movie is damn fun. I was so caught up in it that I found myself jumping and stressing over their survival in the key battles. In short, I think this is a rare movie, and one that I can't easily find the equal to - In scope, intent, substance, or enjoyability.

Alex nailed it on the head here! This is exactly how many people feel about this film as do I...

Although I'd argue about it being a Hollywood film. It's really a New Zealand film bank rolled by a Hollywood studio. I for one am glad this didn't end up under a more "Hollywood" director or creative team.

-EJ

 

[Jim_C]

I've come to this conclusion, perhaps you've heard it before...

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of critics and the general public think that FOTR is an excellent film. If you didn't like the film then great, no one's saying you had to. Some movies just don't work for some people. However, it doesn't mean that you're necessarily accurate with your opinion. Sometimes the majority is, in fact, correct.

And for the record, I don't think that it's the best ever. Top 20? Maybe. Time will tell.

This post is directed at no one in particular. I'm just venting.

 

[MikeF]

Maybe I have different standards, but to me, a 10/10 should be given to a perfect film (if there is such a thing) - e.g. Citizen Kane, The Godfather, and Schindler's List all deserve it.

I concur entirely. Just in general, people seem WAY too eager these days to bestow a "perfect" rating on any better-than-Charlie's-Angels film that comes their way.

The three films you named are just about the only three films that come to mind as being "perfect".

 

[Carlo_M]

I understand that this film is but one part of a trilogy. Shouldn't, however, each film be able to stand on its own, to the extent that one has chosen, for whatever reason, to make it into three films?

Once again: The Lord of The Rings is ONE BOOK.
It was split up into 3 parts by Allen & Unwin, the original publishers, who refused to incur the costs of producing and selling a 1300+ page book. They thought that the sales would not justify the expenditures - if you know anything about the publishing industry you know that larger books have to be bound better (thus increasing costs) or else they'll simply fall apart after a reading or two.
So the answer to this question is: NO, each film should not be able to stand on its own. LoTR is ONE STORY, that just takes a long time to tell. Think of it as a year of your life, told from January - April, May - August, September - December. Do all of the loose ends in your life tidy up at the end of April/August/December?

 

[Don Black]

Yes.

 

[Max Leung]

MickeS, I recall people taking you to task for getting the most basic details of the movie wrong. Maybe you should've said "This movie bored me to tears, I fell asleep in some spots, and I can't remember what happened. It sucked."
Just ribbing ya.
Let's rename this thread the "Official HTF Fellowship of the Ring backlash thread."
Now, it is quite amazing that the Rotten Tomatoes rating is so incredibly high. I don't recall very many movies achieving this score. I really hope they get all the older films rated. I'd like to see how The Godfather rates on the tomato-meter. And, maybe, just maybe, we can have an objective means of determining the best movies of all time ...

 

[Kenneth]

I would agree that LotR's is not the greatest film of all time. Although, like "Gone with the Wind" before it, I think it qualifies as one of the most ambitious and successful literary adaptations of all time.

As to the large number of extremely positive reviews I think it is due to several factors:

1. LotR's is one of the better literary adaptations to the big screen. I think people are considering the scope of the task when they review it. Especially since LotR's success may open the door for other literary series ("Narnia", "OZ", etc.).

2. Psychology of the myth - Joseph Campbell suggested that we long for our lost mythology in our highly technical society. He suggested that "Star Wars" was basically the classic myth story, hence its success (even though it had many weaknesses in plot and a fairly simple story). I think LotR's is benefitting from this effect also.

3. WoW factor - PJ picked up an awfully heavy gauntlet when he tackled this project and seems to have done a very good job. He adapted one of the most beloved literary classics with a reasonable amount of cinefication. He brought special effects to the screen that open new vistas to the fantasy/sci fi genre.

4. The New Line Factor - many of the mainstream reviews may be partially driven by New Line's betting the farm on this picture. Some of the industry experts indicated that lack of success here would probably merge New Line directly into Warner Bros.

5. The 9-11 factor: The LotR was built on the epic battle of good over evil (where good wins). This theme might resonate with current audiences given our current environment. In particular, the quote from the book (carried over to the movie) seemed particular powerful where Gandalf discusses "there are many who live that deserve death, and many that die that deserve life. Can you give it to them" and then goes on with the LotR's equivalent of "Get busy living, or get busy dying" when he talks about "as do all who live in such troubled times" having to choose how to live.

That's how I interpret the highly positive response to LotR's.

Kenneth

 

[MickeS]

MickeS, I recall people taking you to task for getting the most basic details of the movie wrong. Maybe you should've said "This movie bored me to tears, I fell asleep in some spots, and I can't remember what happened. It sucked."

You're half right; while I didn't fall asleep, the movie bored me enough that every once in a while I'd stop paying attention... I'd like to think I didn't get things wrong, I just interpreted them differently.
/Mike

 

[Artur Meinild]

Because it is the foundation of all modern fantasy finally available on film! All fans of fantasy wanted this one bad, and it does not disappoint! That's why!

 

[MikeF]

It was split up into 3 parts by Allen & Unwin, the original publishers, who refused to incur the costs of producing and selling a 1300+ page book. They thought that the sales would not justify the expenditures - if you know anything about the publishing industry you know that larger books have to be bound better (thus increasing costs) or else they'll simply fall apart after a reading or two.

You mistake me for someone who cares. I paid $13.50 to see the movie and expected it to end, rather than just to stop. As someone who didn't read the book but paid the same damn ticket price as everyone else I don't really care how faithful it was to the publisher's structure: I just went to watch a movie, one I assumed could stand on its own.

Weak.

 

[RogerB]

MikeF - you managed to see this movie with no prior knowledge that it was based on a trilogy of books and had been produced for the screen as such?
Lift rock, move out from under it.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The version I saw had an ending - several characters have died, others have disappeared, others continue on. I think Lord of the Rings is a far better "self-contained" film than The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi or The Phantom Menace; if you hadn't seen Star Wars (what is now called Episode 4) first, you'd have no clue as to what's going on.

 

[Kenneth]

You mistake me for someone who cares. I paid $13.50 to see the movie and expected it to end, rather than just to stop. As someone who didn't read the book but paid the same damn ticket price as everyone else I don't really care how faithful it was to the publisher's structure: I just went to watch a movie, one I assumed could stand on its own.

Weak.

I also don't understand your definition of end. There were several key events completed and more pending, but no worse than The Empire Strikes Back. You are saying you want a 1300 page novel condensed into 3 hours or that you would prefer a 9 hour movie instead? Also, I would suggest that the movie does stand on its own. There is no rule in cinema that you have to tie up all the loose ends, especially if you are making a trilogy. Besides, if you don't like the ending to FotR, wait until TTT (the next installment). There is not much they can do to clean up that cliffhanger.

Kenneth

 

[Paul_D]

I thought it was an entertaining, very well made film. BUt certainly not THE best movie of all time - or even of the year IMO. I'd give it a solid 6.5/10.

 

[Jim_C]

>>You mistake me for someone who cares. I paid $13.50 to see the movie and expected it to end, rather than just to stop. As someone who didn't read the book but paid the same damn ticket price as everyone else I don't really care how faithful it was to the publisher's structure: I just went to watch a movie, one I assumed could stand on its own.

Weak.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Me, I think the movie did end in the sense that this was titled 'The Fellowship of the Ring'. At the end of the movie, the Fellowship was divided. Frodo and Sam take off on their own while the remainder head off to help their captured comrades. Everything from here on out (based on my limited knowledge of the rest of the story) has the Fellowship divided to several tasks. So I think it did end, and ended well.

On not knowing that this was part of a larger story, didn't the fact that it was titled "The Lord of the Rings : The Fellowship of the Ring" seem to indicate that this was but one part of something more? I only ask because I heard one other person who was somewhat surprised that this movie wasn't the whole story all in one.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

If I could throw in my 2 nickels:
It's just an awesome film. And I mean "awesome" in its traditional definition. Not just "Ohhhh, awwwwesommme!"
As a huge fan of "quest" movies, I was simply blown away by the sheer spectacle of this movie. It's brilliantly acted, deftly directed, cleverly written, and it's a visual feast. (Heck, it's a visual Thanksgiving!)
If the movie didn't strike you as all that special, that's certainly legitimate. Some people also think Star Wars is an overrated movie.
By the way, where on EARTH is it that charges $13.50 for a movie ticket????

 

[MickeS]

The movie does stand on it's own. It's been explained to you numerous times, you just don't seem to want to hear it.

Another Mike here.
Where has it been "explained" that the movie stands on its own? Almost every criticism about the end is met with "well, the books were written that way" and "that's because there are two other movies". Almost every other negative observation is met with "read the books".
/Mike

 

[Jim_C]

>>Where has it been "explained" that the movie stands on its own? Almost every criticism about the end is met with "well, the books were written that way" and "that's because there are two other movies". Almost every other negative observation is met with "read the books".