Middle Earth Movie Reviews, Part One!
The countdown is underway- a mere six days until The Return Of The King starts playing and rightfully secures its place as one of the Best Movies Ever. Well, okay, I can't guarantee that for certain, but it's got killing and evil and giant spiders and Agent Smith and some guy named Viggo; how bad could it be? That's right. You know you're all going to go watch it. Don't even try to argue with me.
That being said, let's recap what went before, just in case some of you haven't A) read the books and B) seen the movies a gajillion times already. The first two movies have been re-released in their extended versions for theaters, partly to help recap, partly to show new material on the big screen, and probably mostly to rack in some extra cash, just in case they hadn't already made everything back 99 times over.
The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring
Epic swords-and-sorcery style fantasy movies have always been relatively difficult to portray on the big screen. One need look no further than the abysmal Dungeons And Dragons movie to realize how bad things can go, even with fancy special effects and Jeremy Irons (what the fuck happened to him in that movie, even I cannot say). The handful of better fantasy films are either animated (probably one of the best ways to portray this genre) or require some impressive attention to detail, like Willow or Excalibur. What one does not often realize is that most modern-day fantasy is a direct derivative of the formula laid down in the Lord of the Rings trilogy written ages ago (yes, ages ago, so all the dorks who complained about The Two Towers being inappropriate because of 9/11 can go fuck themselves).
So, you ask, why not make a movie based on that older fantasy archetype? Well, allowing for a few animated movies, the challenges in portraying this series adequately have always been more than cinematic technology could handle. Until now.
The plot: Ring bad. Hobbits good. Ringwraiths and goblins and orcs, oh my!
The pros: The extended version, in case you haven't seen it already, really does add to the overall experience. I don't see why many of those scenes were cut out... besides the desire to sell special edition DVDs, I guess. And the desire not to have a 3:25 hr long movie in theaters. But besides that. If you haven't seen the extended version, I highly recommend doing so before Return of the King. So much was cut in the Lothlorien scenes that should have been in the standard version, especially the gift-giving. Overall, the movie is well-put together, with beautiful scenery and near-seamless special effects (except for the Cave Troll sequence), and of course impressive battle scenes. Gotta love battle scenes. Again, the extended version adds to both major battles- in the Mines of Moria and at the end of the movie.
The cons: I suppose I'm biased, but there's not much to not like about this movie. Some segments of dialogue are stilted and poorly rendered- the need to keep a lot of Tolkien's original dialogue from the books was not always an ideal choice. Gimli is used more for comic relief (although not as badly as he was in The Two Towers); fortunately, the extended version shows more of him in the battles. The movie is long- at three and a half hours, I know people who would probably have taken ten pee-breaks in that time. Also, Liv Tyler is lame. But that's just my personal opinion. She should have been replaced by some Lo Pan.
The verdict: An excellent rendering of one of the all-time great fantasy epics. A good start to the series. I personally like this movie better than The Two Towers, but many people disagree with me on this matter. Screw them. ;)
Disclaimer: I'm still bummed that I got shut out of the Trilogy Tuesday marathon.
Quote of the Day: It's so hard to take Hugo Weaving in a context other than Agent Smith now. You all know it. You want him to sit there in Rivendell and say "Mister... Baggins. It seems you are living a... double life. As Frodo Baggins of the Shire, you tend your garden, serve drinks at the pub, and on sundays you help your Uncle Bilbo take out the garbage. In your other life you are the... Ringbearer, and are pursued by every evil creature known to Middle Earth. Now... one of these lives has a future, Mister Baggins, and one of them does not."
That being said, let's recap what went before, just in case some of you haven't A) read the books and B) seen the movies a gajillion times already. The first two movies have been re-released in their extended versions for theaters, partly to help recap, partly to show new material on the big screen, and probably mostly to rack in some extra cash, just in case they hadn't already made everything back 99 times over.
The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring
Epic swords-and-sorcery style fantasy movies have always been relatively difficult to portray on the big screen. One need look no further than the abysmal Dungeons And Dragons movie to realize how bad things can go, even with fancy special effects and Jeremy Irons (what the fuck happened to him in that movie, even I cannot say). The handful of better fantasy films are either animated (probably one of the best ways to portray this genre) or require some impressive attention to detail, like Willow or Excalibur. What one does not often realize is that most modern-day fantasy is a direct derivative of the formula laid down in the Lord of the Rings trilogy written ages ago (yes, ages ago, so all the dorks who complained about The Two Towers being inappropriate because of 9/11 can go fuck themselves).
So, you ask, why not make a movie based on that older fantasy archetype? Well, allowing for a few animated movies, the challenges in portraying this series adequately have always been more than cinematic technology could handle. Until now.
The plot: Ring bad. Hobbits good. Ringwraiths and goblins and orcs, oh my!
The pros: The extended version, in case you haven't seen it already, really does add to the overall experience. I don't see why many of those scenes were cut out... besides the desire to sell special edition DVDs, I guess. And the desire not to have a 3:25 hr long movie in theaters. But besides that. If you haven't seen the extended version, I highly recommend doing so before Return of the King. So much was cut in the Lothlorien scenes that should have been in the standard version, especially the gift-giving. Overall, the movie is well-put together, with beautiful scenery and near-seamless special effects (except for the Cave Troll sequence), and of course impressive battle scenes. Gotta love battle scenes. Again, the extended version adds to both major battles- in the Mines of Moria and at the end of the movie.
The cons: I suppose I'm biased, but there's not much to not like about this movie. Some segments of dialogue are stilted and poorly rendered- the need to keep a lot of Tolkien's original dialogue from the books was not always an ideal choice. Gimli is used more for comic relief (although not as badly as he was in The Two Towers); fortunately, the extended version shows more of him in the battles. The movie is long- at three and a half hours, I know people who would probably have taken ten pee-breaks in that time. Also, Liv Tyler is lame. But that's just my personal opinion. She should have been replaced by some Lo Pan.
The verdict: An excellent rendering of one of the all-time great fantasy epics. A good start to the series. I personally like this movie better than The Two Towers, but many people disagree with me on this matter. Screw them. ;)
Disclaimer: I'm still bummed that I got shut out of the Trilogy Tuesday marathon.
Quote of the Day: It's so hard to take Hugo Weaving in a context other than Agent Smith now. You all know it. You want him to sit there in Rivendell and say "Mister... Baggins. It seems you are living a... double life. As Frodo Baggins of the Shire, you tend your garden, serve drinks at the pub, and on sundays you help your Uncle Bilbo take out the garbage. In your other life you are the... Ringbearer, and are pursued by every evil creature known to Middle Earth. Now... one of these lives has a future, Mister Baggins, and one of them does not."