|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Just wanted to say... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
I'm glad you liked it. It's rare that someone enjoys reading such a long review. I usually don't!
-Andy
|
Jun 27 '05
10:23 am PDT
|
|
Just wanted to say... (Reply to this comment)
by chelledun
this is awesome, although I know you wrote it a long time ago. I'm reading the books now, after seeing the movies and its fun to read reviews that compare the two. This is just so thorough and insightful, its rare that I enjoy reading such a long review and wish there were more of it!
Michelle
|
May 30 '05
6:42 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Bravo! (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Thanks!
Yes, the extended edition helped Faramir's character a lot. And provided much needed set-up for his and Denethor's relationship. Without which it comes off as a bit melodramatic in RotK.
Hopefully the EE of RotK will similarly flesh out some shallow moments. Of course, the real question is why not put out the EE as the theatrical version in the first place? With the money you're making it's not like you can't dictate how long you want the film to be. I guess the temptation to sell the DVD twice is too great.
-Andy
|
Jan 12 '04
9:02 am PST
|
|
Bravo! (Reply to this comment)
by bilbopooh
I realize I'm reading this a year late, but I had to go back and find it after your wonderful "Return of the King" review - the best of the bunch, in my opinion, and there are many wonderful reviews of that film. I very much agree with your take on the film, particularly Faramir's character. That was my biggest disappointment with "Towers," and I was so glad to see him come off more sympathetically in the extended edition, preparing me for the Faramir I wanted to see in "Return." Another outstanding review.
Erin
|
Jan 11 '04
11:13 pm PST
|
|
Re: Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
The spoiler temptation is tough, that's for sure. I try to take it in small doses, that way I can pretend I'm not addicted.
I haven't really thought about who'd be better as Arwen. I agree it's nice the ladies aren't barbie dolls. But Otto is perfect for Eowyn because she looks like she could be a Saxon. Blanchett definitely has the otherworldy beauty you mention and is perfect as Galadriel. Tyler is, well, they made her look a little too soft, not elegant enough. But that's just my preconception. I do like that she's not blonde. But at this point I'd say I'm satisfied with Tyler, but nowhere near as impressed with that casting as I am with the other women.
As for the sex, it's certainly not 'over the top' by normal standards. But still, Tolkien's elves never seemed to be the gauze-wearing type to me. Rather than the additional emphasis Jackson's placed on the Arwen romance, I'd like to see the emphasis Tolkien gave the Eowyn unrequited romance. Though he did portray both in TTT, Jackson flipped those priorities in favor or Arwen. Maybe that says something about me, that I enjoy seeing unrequited love more.
Thanks for the comment,
Andy
|
Dec 11 '03
7:54 am PST
|
|
Wow... (Reply to this comment)
by arianej
Fantastic review, and I really enjoyed reading all your thoughts on the movies as a whole. Curious... Who do you think would make a better Arwen?
The choice of Liv Tyler didn't bother me. I thought she had a nice sort of otherworldly beauty that worked in the context, since it wasn't too conventional. Ditto for Miranda Otto. They're gorgeous women who don't look like Barbie dolls, and I'm all for that! As for her being over-sexualized, I'll have to pay closer attention. There are some rather sensuous scenes, but I didn't notice anything too over the top. Then again, I don't swing that way, could be I wasn't paying enough attention. ;D
I'm looking forward to Return of the King as well, and have already ready some spoilers about what will or will not be in the film. I know I probably shouldn't have, but couldn't resist.
arianej
|
Dec 10 '03
11:25 am PST
|
|
Re: This altar boy agrees! (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Thanks! Your first official duty as altar boy will be to take around the collection plate.
Really, I don't pretend to any more authority on Tolkien than your average geek. Which is to say I think I know everything and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
|
Jun 16 '03
9:20 am PDT
|
|
This altar boy agrees! (Reply to this comment)
by treeseed
"If you’d let me I’d push it on you like religion."
Excellent review of an excellent movie. I enjoyed it very much. You are the High Priest of Tolkien.
|
Jun 13 '03
6:01 am PDT
|
|
Re: Your number of words doesn't matter--you stick to your topic throughout (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Glad you enjoyed the review. But I'm just not sure we see eye-to-eye on the off-topic issue. If it's well-done, I enjoy it when a reviewer includes contextual information regarding how the product fits in with their life or how it impacted them, or what thoughts it brought them to. Even if those thoughts are only related by the slimmest of strings. In fact, this is one of the things that I enjoy most about well-written reviews. Though, when done poorly, it can be really bad.
I do it myself as often as not. To each his own. Watch out for that first step into Helm's Deep. It's a doozie.
|
Feb 17 '03
1:12 pm PST
|
|
Re: now that's good squishy (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
I aim to please!
And I'm glad if I was able to put enough distance between myself and the film. That can be hard to do for a fan!
|
Jan 09 '03
1:31 pm PST
|
|
now that's good squishy (Reply to this comment)
by Macotar
Very nice review. Well written with enough thought and distance that is gives me pause to evaluate my own impressions of the movie. Obviously written by a follower of Tolkien
|
Jan 09 '03
12:50 pm PST
|
|
Re: Well Done! (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Glad you enjoyed it!
|
Jan 08 '03
8:37 am PST
|
|
Re: !!! (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Yes I'd love to see Beowulf well-done (I guess I shouldn't count out the Christopher Lambert movie, not having seen it, but c'mon--it's a Lambert movie). But I have to say (and do so in my Medieval Epics review) that after recently reading the Nibelungenlied, Beowulf is no longer my favorite epic. The Nibelungenlied. Now that'd make a great flick.
As for Tyler, she actually has less time here that in Fellowship. And again, she's properly iconic (though unfortunately sexualized). Overall, through the first two movies, I don't mind Jackson's handling of the character. I just don't particularly like Tyler.
I must agree with your logical definition of racism. But to adhere so strictly to such a denotation would require the disassociation of a lot of baggage--something our current society is unable to do. So perhaps in my review what I'm addressing is not racism in the strictest sense. In fact, I probably am closer to arguing that Tolkien was just as racist in that sense as has been any other person ever to walk the planet. Instead I'm arguing against the attribution to Tolkien of the negative connotations of racism with which modern culture is so preoccupied (often justly so).
Thanks for your words!
|
Jan 08 '03
8:36 am PST
|
|
Well Done! (Reply to this comment)
by bob_tomato
a thorough presentation, and excellent delivery of detailed material...bravo!
|
Jan 07 '03
6:49 pm PST
|
|
!!! (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
Dear panguitch: I appreciate a scholar, especially on a writer whose popular reputation has always mystified me. I think millions of people should read Beowulf, and tens of millions see an epic movie based on it. Now, to me, that would be the real thing.
However, I was interested in your comments on Liv Tyler and racism. Miss Tyler had little to do in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, but she was properly iconic. You fill me with fear as I steel myself for Part II.
Your remark about racism in Tolkien is perhaps too defensive. By my definition of racism, which I believe is the only logical one, we are all more or less racists. And certainly, Northern Europeans, with all their references to the purity of whiteness and the darkness of evil, are racists, by definition. But so are the other peoples. It is a matter of the chicken and the egg, I suppose.
I doubt I shall find a more helpful review than this one (although I'll try, before I post my own review).
Regards.
[Macresarf1]
|
Jan 07 '03
5:32 pm PST
|
|
Re: Jealousy... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
If crap, then very helpful crap!
Thanks for the . . . compliment. :)
|
Jan 03 '03
2:19 pm PST
|
|
Jealousy... (Reply to this comment)
by BaronSamedi3
YOU SUCK! You and your ultra, ultra in depth analysis of The Two Towers, Tolkien and Lord of the Rings in general, making my Two Towers review look like a piece of crap!!!
That was a compliment, by the way.
Peace
Nicholas
|
Jan 03 '03
1:14 pm PST
|
|
Re: Excellent! (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Glad you enjoyed the review!
And if attention to detail is something you appreciate, then you're the type that would enjoy reading Tolkien. Good luck!
|
Jan 02 '03
8:06 am PST
|
|
Excellent! (Reply to this comment)
by CPUENGR
When I was young, my father tried to get me to read Tolkien; I could not yet form an interest. As I got older, I became interested in such lore, but never found the time to read these great books. I absolutely loved Fellowship and cannot wait for a chance to see Towers. After reading your incredible review, I feel compelled to read the books, as watching the movies is most definitely not enough.
Your attention to detail is fantastic. I enjoyed reading and learning from your review...I have no choice but to trust you now.
Josh
|
Dec 31 '02
2:32 pm PST
|
|
Re: Trilogies seem to . . . (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
With the exception of the first Star Wars trilogy I think you may be right. But that's probably due in part to the fact that the beginning, with all its exposition, and the finale, with its climax, get to do all the posing. Meanwhile, the middle has to do all the work. Getting done what was introduced in the beginning, and aranging things for the end. It's a thankless job I guess. But more evidence that some trilogies are really just one film in three sections.
|
Dec 30 '02
2:50 pm PST
|
|
Trilogies seem to . . . (Reply to this comment)
by gungian
. . . start off strong and finish in like manner.
All too often, the middle lags.
Nice posting.
Write On!
|
Dec 30 '02
11:39 am PST
|
|
Re: Honestly.. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Thanks muchly for your words!
Actually, I've been reading a lot of the other TTT reviews today and realizing just how many things I forgot to mention. Every day I think of something more. I'd like to say that's an indication of how great a film this is, but I think it's more likely an indicator of what kind of a geek I am!
|
Dec 30 '02
10:32 am PST
|
|
Honestly.. (Reply to this comment)
by Cartman_2k
I don't give out Most Helpful very often (I think I've done it 4 times since it was enabled), but this review truly deserved it. You are so thorough and you cover every possible area.
Keep up the excellent work!!!!!!!!!!
~Kent
|
Dec 30 '02
9:41 am PST
|
|
Re: * (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Glad you enjoyed the review. And I probably overindulged myself going on about Maiar and all that. It’s not even discussed in LotR but in some of Tolkien’s other work. Still, I think it’s useful (or at least interesting) to know Saruman and Gandalf’s origins, and that Sauron himself isn’t just some unchanging god or devil, but an individual who fell away from the good to pursue his own interests.
In some ways I think it would be nice to be able to watch the movies and enjoy them without worrying about the details of the adaptation from the book. And I do think that it’s very easy for Tolkienites to overlook the strengths of the film and just obsess about the discrepancies with the book. But I’ve found the movies to be done so well that I’ve been able to both enjoy them muchly AND obsess about the details, thus my normal side gets entertained and my Tolkiengeek side gets its fix.
As for Saruman, I would argue that he is indeed evil as portrayed in the movie. He’s breeding orcs for heaven’s sake, trying to improve on them. And the creation of orcs by perverting elves was always held forth as exemplary of Melkor’s evilness. Sure, he was acting under Sauron’s influence. One thing that hasn’t yet been emphasized in the movies is that using a palantir—the crystal ball thing Saruman has—exposes a person’s mind to anyone else who may have a palantir, and Sauron has one. So Saruman started out as a good guy, the leader of the five Istari including Gandalf. Even the great elves of Middle-earth, Galadriel and Elrond &co, accepted him as the nominal leader of the ‘wise’. But he began to be a little self-centered. While Gandalf worked to help the simple people of Middle-earth, and Radagast labored with plants and animals, and the other two Istari went to unknown lands south and east, Saruman holed himself up in Isengard, taking to ancient Gondorian fortress of Orthanc as his own. There he delved too deep in his research and began using the palantir. He also began to act like a lord, telling local people what to do. Eventually he started to covet the lands of Rohan.
Through the palantir Sauron undoubtedly started encouraging Saruman down the path of evil. Eventually Saruman was fully converted. He tried to convince Gandalf, as portrayed in the movie (though it’s not portrayed in the books, merely related after the fact). But his vision was one where he and Sauron would rule almost as equals. At the beginning perhaps he thought he would overcome Sauron and rule for good. Such is the way the ring usually tempts good people. And I do believe the ring’s power had a hand in Saruman’s fall, or at least the lust for it.
Anyway, Saruman proved to be much like Sauron. Sauron too started out good, just as his predecessor Melkor had. Sauron’s weakness was too great an inclination for strict organization. He wanted law and order and predictability according to his plans and without variation. He wanted to control everything, and he probably believed his control would be benevolent and for the good of all. But as his control met resistance he became more and more bitter, more malicious. And now he’s so focused on gaining control he’s pretty much lost sight of why he wants it, and certainly has no qualms about how he gets it.
So through the palantir Sauron did influence Saruman. But I have trouble believing someone as powerful as Saruman could be easily controlled if he wasn’t going along with things at least partly of his own choice. In any case, he definitely becomes evil, just as Sauron first became evil when he decided to follow Melkor instead of the Valar. I don’t think Jackson really changed much here, he just wasn’t able to include so much nuanced info. Although Tolkien’s often criticized for having a simplistic worldview, I think this situation is one example of just how credible his notions of good and evil are.
As for Gondor’s political structure, it’s complex. But the basic rundown is that there was once a great and noble race of men called Numenoreans. They’re the ones that fought with the elves against Sauron in the Last Alliance as seen in the prologue to Fellowship. Their lands were divided into a northern and southern kingdom, the southern being Gondor. But the line of kings in Gondor failed. There was no heir. So the stewards took over, to reign until such time as an heir became manifest. Denethor is the current Steward of Gondor, Boromir and Faramir his sons. They’re in line to be the next Steward, though of course, if a king shows up they won’t be ruling Gondor anymore. They understandably have mixed feelings about this, as does all of Gondor, which has been ruled by the Stewards for centuries.
Aragorn is the direct heir to the northern kingdom. But the northern kingdom is no more, having been slowly destroyed by the Witch King (head of the Nazgul who founded a kingdom of his own in the north) through the centuries. Places like Bree (the human town the hobbits went to after fleeing the Shire) are the remnants of the northern kingdom. As you can see, Aragorn isn’t recognized by anyone but the elves in Rivendale. But because he’s the heir to the north, he’s also the only heir to the south since the north and south were originally founded by brothers. Since there’s no kingdom to rule in the north, he might as well go rule in Gondor. He just needs to do it at just the right time so that the Gondorian’s qualms about accepting him will be assuaged. Coming to the rescue when Sauron attacks them might just be a good time!
Rohan fits into this tangentially. The horsemen rode out of the northeast long ago and helped Gondor in some war or other. In thanks Gondor granted them the lands they now hold, and they’ve been allies ever since, though lately they haven’t been much help to each other.
In any case, this has been a long answer to some short questions. Tolkien’s creation is certainly complex in a way that lends it believability, and being familiar with it only opens up more meaning to the events depicted in the movies. But I do feel one of the movies’ greatest strength has been that they succeed in capturing the larger-than-life feel of the story—the feeling that it’s not just a tale but a complete world.
|
Dec 30 '02
8:14 am PST
|
|
* (Reply to this comment)
by jackai
Panguitch
I really loved this review, and I especially appreciated your background on Tolkien's books, explaining the origins of Saurumon, Sauron, Gandalf and the Balrog.
Since I never read Tolkien's lore, I can't point out the discrepancies, or turn a truly critical eye on the film such as you. So I'm in a position to be fascinated by this world without noting its flaws. I'm glad that you enjoyed it nonetheless because I find it to be a fascinating film, and can't wait for the third installment.
One question: Someone explained to me that in the book, Saurumon really didn't turn evil as much as he was being manipulated by Sauron, or under a spell of sorts by him. Is this true? If so, why would Jackson change such a crucial plot detail?
Also, where does Aragorn fit in with the kingdom of Gondor if Boromir and Faramir are its heirs?? I never understood that.
Jack
|
Dec 27 '02
8:37 pm PST
|
|
Re: damn you're thorough (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Well, I guess I have to say that most of my nitpicking isn't necessarily fault-finding. Just pointing out discrepancies between the movie and book which I might not have pursued were it my project, but which I don't necessarily think weaken the film. Aragorn's river scene, for instance, doesn't weaken the film, but isn't from the books.
I hope that overall it's clear just how impressed I am with the direction, photography, acting, and even the degree to which they did hold to the original. It's on that basis that I give it five stars. In my obsessiveness I just can't help pointing out the discrepencies.
As for the 'most' thing, of course I haven't been doing any scientific surveys, it's just my general feeling from talking to people, and reading and writting about Fellowship.
|
Dec 27 '02
3:30 pm PST
|
|
damn you're thorough (Reply to this comment)
by xgollum
I have to say, you pretty much said it all. I had many of the same complaints as you did, but I don't think I would have had hardly any of them if I didn't know the books so well. I think most of the tinkering they did was to balance the trilogy and give ROTK more ground to cover, which I can understand. With the complaints you had though, is five stars really justified? You seemed to have some issues with the film on it's own. I, certainly, think I would rate it much higher than I do personally if I didn't know anything about it going in.
I did have one question, when you say 'most' and so on when talking about what people thot of the special effects transformations (gandalf, galadriel, bilbo) whom are you referring to? Did you take a poll of friends and family, or is this from reading other reviews of the first film or what? Not doubting, just seeking some clarification.
|
Dec 27 '02
3:13 pm PST
|
|
Re: Great review... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Thanks.
Yeah, even named my cat Stimpy. I'm trying to expose my son to Ren & Stimpy, but seeing Ren's teeth fall out has him freaked. I guess he's just not old enough yet. In the meantime, I can continue crafting my plan to instill a Tolkien fanatacism in him and his sister as soon as they can read.
|
Dec 26 '02
1:51 pm PST
|
|
Great review... (Reply to this comment)
by tlbwriter
So many excellent points. And you like Tolkien *and* Ren & Stimpy... damn... if I wasn't already married... ;->
|
Dec 26 '02
1:10 pm PST
|
|
Re: Wow.... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Thanks!
But I hope it's clear I don't mean to say it's difinitive of all reviews, but just of all my thoughts (so far!).
Of course, yours isn't exactly shabby itself, and I must say your own reviews in connection with Fellowship are some of the first I read here at epinions and did much by way of showing me the sites potential for letting me gush about things I love!
And I should also apologize for complaining about Arwen. No offense taken I hope!
|
Dec 23 '02
12:15 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.