|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Just Incredible (Reply to this comment)
by Bruguru,  in Movies
I plan to see this over the weekend. I was thinking of writing a review, but after reading yours, there's no point! This is the definitive review.
Cheers!
John
|
Dec 19 '03
4:58 am PST
|
|
ill-trained, underequipped liberal hordes (Reply to this comment)
by voxpoptart
and the numberless orc corpses they leave behind may give rise to criticisms that killing is trivialized, it is more appropriate to consider the orcs as representative of an idea than as individuals... The point is they’re not human people... the ‘good guys’ are not fighting ‘bad guys’ so much as they are fighting badness itself.
Eh. As one of the objectors, i can respect your defense but not buy it. The orcs literally aren't human, but that's _because_ Tolkien/Jackson invented them to dehumanize them. Does the Bush Administration nitpick because Iraqis, technically, are humans like us? Naah, it just celebrates being big enough to win and to kill fast: just like any other war leaders.
In the Two Towers, though - i haven't seen the new one, though i will - that wasn't my real problem with the combat scenes. What i objected to was making Sauron's forces so stupid! It's just pathetic movie-making to march a mass of invaders up to the gate and then have them stand around, patiently, shields on the ground, until the defenders have time to get their arrows and start firing massive rounds. It's a dumb visual, no matter how well-shot, to have three or four Good Guys walking across a bridge, sweeping half-a-dozen Bad Guys into the water with every wave of an arm.
The simple, gaping plot flaw in the Lord of the Rings is that a huge, well-trained, technologically-advanced army is forced to lose pitted battles to the underequipped, poorly trained, and outnumbered. There's no clever excuses given in the book, and in the films, we're supposed to watch the deception take place before our very eyes. And hey, i'm willing: i've never seen a film series so gorgeous to watch. But i prefer good-vs-evil plots in which there's some reason to believe good has a chance.
Terrific review, of course: i wouldn't bother arguing with a merely-okay one.
cheers,
- Brian
|
Dec 19 '03
6:09 am PST
|
|
............. (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Very good review, the one thing I would argue about is the importance of the Hobbits return to the Shire in the book. I thought in many ways it was the entire point of the whole thing that the Hobbits are now capable of a more serious idea of facing life now.
To Brian.
I think you're going to need a bit more of an objection. Panguitch's point is that Tolkien invented them in order not to be human, and your argument against that is that Tolkien invented them in order not to be human?
Why do you object to Sauron's forces being so stupid, and why is it pathetic moviemaking? Sauron's forces are stupid in the book, extremely so at times, and it doesn't seem pathetic novel writing. Why is it pathetic moviemaking to march a mass of invaders up to the gate, and then just wait until some get shot? That's pathetic military action, not pathetic moviemaking. In this movie a big mass of the good guys ride straight into the horde and let themselves get shot, which is even more stupid, and they're the good guys. Is that pathetic moviemaking as well?
This one here -
****The simple, gaping plot flaw in the Lord of the Rings is that a huge, well-trained, technologically-advanced army is forced to lose pitted battles to the underequipped, poorly trained, and outnumbered.****
you'll have to explain. Who is the huge, well-trained, technologically-advanced army, and who is the underequipped, poorly trained, and outnumbered?
I pick outnumbered to focus on, because it's the only one I'm generally sure of. The good guys are outnumbered, but they aren't underequipped or poorly trained. On the other side, the orcs only have a huge army, not a well-trained one or a technologically-advanced one.
|
Dec 19 '03
8:24 am PST
|
|
Re: Just Incredible (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Eh, all I had to do was read a lot of the other reviews after writing this. Then I had plenty more to say. But rather than belabor the point here I just left comments there.
Thanks,
Andy
|
Dec 19 '03
10:22 am PST
|
|
Re: ............. (Reply to this comment)
by voxpoptart
Heya, Marc! My comment says specifically that i've only seen the first two movies so far, and that any flaws that bugged me are only in those (that i know of). Other than that, your questions are intelligent and fair:
Sauron's forces are stupid in the book, extremely so at times, and it doesn't seem pathetic novel writing.
*shrug* To me, it does. I freely admit it's a personal preference. In real life, stupidity is plenty common; on the other hand, in real life, the good guys are at least as stupid as the bad guys, and in movies i get tired of stupidity being largely stamped Property Of Evil.
The artistic point of setting up Good and Evil and having Good win, to my mind, is to inspire. I don't find stupidity inspirational.
That's pathetic military action, not pathetic moviemaking.
Right, just like the orcs are not merely inhuman, but (conveniently) inhuman and evil. The point is that Tolkien can invent anything he wants: it's a fantasy novel, the spectrum is unlimited. And what does he invent? Cruel, bloody-minded bumblers from a wartime propaganda campaign. It's his right to do it. It's my right to find it lame. It's also my right to enjoy how beautifully Peter Jackson films it, and I do. But as stories go, I miss Heavenly Creatures.
cheers,
- Brian
|
Dec 19 '03
10:29 am PST
|
|
Re: ill-trained, underequipped liberal hordes (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Actually, there are a couple humanizing (near-humanizing) moments for certain orcs in Tolkien. Where we see that they do have their own sense of honor, etc. Just one of many things Jackson didn't have time for.
But that's a drop in the bucket.
I wouldn't say they were invented to be dehumanized. Rather that they were invented to represent dehumanization. Why are the orc armies so poorly run? Because the big wig baddies have just as much disdain for them as anyone. Although Jackson showed Saruman as practically infatuated with his Uruk-hai, the reality is that he and Sauron both think of them as cannon-fodder. It wouldn't occur to them to use them for anything other than to crush opponents by weight of numbers. This says more about them (the leaders) than about the poor little orcsies that get abused in such ways. Again, Morgoth (to whom Sauron was a mere lieutenant in the olden days) hated elves so much he took some and tortured them into orcs (much like Smeagol is tortured into Gollum by the ring). But that doesn't end Morgoth and Sauron and Saruman's hatred for them. They not only warp them to their own purposes, but them treat them as less than disposable. (BTW, trolls being perverted versions of ents, much the same holds.)
As for the superior army losing to the weaker without clever excuse--reason is given, the cleverness is for you to judge. Despite Eomer's charge, Helm's Deep may still have been lost once the orcs (and Jackson doesn't show, but Saruman also employed human allies in Helm's Deep) regrouped. What truly destroyed Saruman's army was the forest that the ents sent to Helm's Deep. (This is only shown in the extended edition of TTT.)
And in Gondor, it would be a mistake to say the good guys were underequipped or poorly trained. In fact, they were far superior to Sauron's troops in all but number. In Tolkien, at least. But in Jackson Gondor seems little more than one city, not a mighty nation at all. In Tolkien, Sauron's armies are defeated at Pelannor Fields because of the strength of Minas Tirith's defenses (multiple levels, each with their own walls and gates) and because of the strength of its defenders. And because Aragorn sails up the river with reinforcements from the south (not ghosts).
By comparison, Jackson's version does indeed seem too much deus ex machina. Always Jackson paints the odds as more extreme than Tolkien. Yet Tolkien's is even more emotional and jubilant when triumph comes. In Jackson someone like Boromir seems a fool for thinking Gondor could ever stand a chance, ring or no. In Tolkien, it's plain that if the good guys could just manage to unite wholly they'd stand a chance. That's one of his themes--in the last war the alliance of elves and men was able to defeat Sauron outright. But this time there really are no elves left and men are unwilling to help each other. Jackson muddles that quite thoroughly.
Now quit baiting me you naughty orc-hugger.
-Andy
|
Dec 19 '03
10:47 am PST
|
|
Re: ............. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
You mean the fact that Sam now has the confidence to approach Rosie isn't enough for you!
Seriously, I do think the scouring of the shire is important. For Merry and Pippin especially. But if one major thing had to be cut from RotK, that's probably where I'd have done it.
Looking forward to your own review.
-Andy
|
Dec 19 '03
10:53 am PST
|
|
Review of the year for the movie of the year. (Reply to this comment)
by catu11us
I was contemplating writing a review of this film after I see it next month. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe if I have something to say that's not said here. This is one clear and thoughtful effort.
I should note one minor bit: Smeagol (they insist in the film on mispronouncing it Smee'-gul -- it's Smee'-uh-goll). He wasn't actually a Hobbit, but one of an ancestral or related people, a fisher people, comfortable with water, building their holes in river banks. The Hobbits are a pastoral people, building their holes into hills.
I, too, am extremely disappointed that the Scouring of the Shire was omitted (although then the film would be at or over 4 hours, a bit much for the butt even in comfy theater seats). The Bombadil episode being omitted didn't bother me because it more intrusive than furthering the action -- I'd love to see it but totally understand its omission).
Your description of the action suggests that Jackson didn't engage in adding the sort of silly and intrusive episodes, not in Tolkien, that he shoved into "The Two Towers".
As to some of the comments ... what's this about evil not being stupid? In one respect, it's the ultimate stupidity. But before we go off claiming that Tolkien and Jackson erred in showing us how really dumb Saruman and Sauron could be, let's all recall a certain Teutonic Sauron, Adolf Hitler, who did more than anyone to hand the Allies their victory in World War II. Sauron and his minions were just another bunch of loony Nazis (despite Tolkien's claim that WW II had nothing to do with his magnum opus). In WW I the Kaiser and his minions did similarly bone-headed stuff, including fatal modifications to the Schliemann plan and smuggling Lenin back into Russia. While I am by no means defending a certain ill-advised military action, it's turning out more and more that one of Saddam Hussein's chief personality traits is that he ain't too bright. Shall I go on? Timur the Lame, who undermined his own dyansty? Caligula the Monumentally Stupid? Nero the Really Unwise? Bonaparte, Part II? Ivan IV, who murdered his heir and the last hope of the Rurikids? The bad guys go through life with a gun pointed squarely at their feet. And two things Tolkien was NOT would be unobservant and stupid.
Thus endeth the sermon. Andy, your review shows that you understand Tolkien and his great work. You have given words to my general feeling that so much of this 3-part giant of a film is so right that we can forgive the stuff that isn't. Thanks a bunch.
|
Dec 19 '03
11:06 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: ill-trained, underequipped liberal hordes (Reply to this comment)
by voxpoptart
Thanks for your reply: i _will_ quit baiting you. What i'm gathering from your response is that the Tolkien books (which i haven't read in a long long time) propose a fundamentally fairer fight, in which Helm's Deep realistically could have been kept. Jackson, not Tolkien, is to blame for the scenes that offend me: thanks for the clarity. Given that the books have been legends for much longer, it's genuinely nice to know.
You also suggest that Tolkien creates a less unsympathetic orc race - a nasty and brutish and short bunch, to be sure, but at least one kicked around and mistreated equally. It's not their fault that they're killers: they're oppressed by their upbringing, and they weren't socialized to resist their worst impulses. Or something like that. Who's hugging orcs here?
We should make it a bumper sticker: HAVE YOU HUGGED YOUR ORC TODAY? Show Orlando Bloom embracing an orc, which in turn is chewing on his arm. It would sell: Orlando Bloom's a hottie, i hear tell.
kill a moron for Sauron,
- Brian
|
Dec 19 '03
11:12 am PST
|
|
Re: Review of the year for the movie of the year. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Don't encourage me too much!
And I'd never say this movie doesn't deserve a n-millionth review. Write away!
You're right on Smeagol. Tolkien wasn't clear whether hobbits had evolved quite yet, but it seems their ancestors were migrating west, and before reaching the shire were living in the northern vale of the Anduin, where Smeagol was born (interestingly, the region also gave birth to the Rohirrim's ancestors who later moved south). But I thought making the distinction was too much even for a 4,000 word review.
It depends on what silly and intrusive episodes you have in mind. I find Legolas skating on an oliphaunt's trunk just as silly as his shield-surfing, but I'm willing to wink at it. Technically, depicting the Path of the Dead is an intrusion, but not in spirit. Without saying too much, there are things here for a purist to gripe about. Not as much as in Towers, but enough for two geeks to spend a few hours haggling over.
As for the Kaiser &co sending Lenin back to Russia, sure that was a bad move for the long-term, but tactically smart of them as it eventually took Russia out of that particular war. Otherwise, your points about evil being ultimately stupid (even if sometimes cunning or clever) is well taken. The simple fact that a person chooses evil is an indication of flawed judgement. And Tolkien may well have been intending to make that statement.
Thanks for your kindness. Though I'd hesitate to say I understand Tolkien in an ultimate sense. That'd feel presumptuous--bordering on blasphemy ;)
-Andy
|
Dec 19 '03
11:24 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: ill-trained, underequipped liberal hordes (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Well, they were only moments that Tolkien gives the orcs. And even those not as humanizing as the moments he gives the human allies of Sauron. So don't let me go too far in the other direction.
The orcs aren't like felons that can blame it on their childhood so much as they're like dogs that were beaten by bad masters to the point of insanity and now will kill anything they get their jaws on. In theory we can understand why they are the way they are, but in practicality that doesn't change the fact that they just need to be put down.
So I wouldn't say Tolkien's orcs are sympathetic (though there's context for understanding). For the most part they are simply not characters (most of them). The characters are Sauron and Saruman &co. The orcs (most of them) are props. All stories have such peripheral people. And it's not uncommon for them to represent something. Here orcs represent a base kind of villainy. And since there are no real-life counterparts to orcs nobody should be offended. Now, if Tolkien had treated Sauron's human allies from the south this way, things might be different.
Bloom in a bridal veil, cuddling in the arms of a big Uruk. Nice.
-Andy
|
Dec 19 '03
11:36 am PST
|
|
Many good reviews-- (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
---of this movie, and I grope for words to describe why I am especially impressed by this one. Maybe it's the most "literate"-----?
I have both the second and third installments yet to watch. Have a strong feeling I must read the Tolkien version FIRST!
Regards,
Gavia
|
Dec 19 '03
6:42 pm PST
|
|
I agree... (Reply to this comment)
by ChromeKiller
Great review. Great movie. The ending dragged on a bit too long (even past a lot of "perfect" sequences for just that moment), but overall I'd have to commend Peter Jackson for his work as a director. I've never even been aware of The Lord of the Rings book series until the first movie was released. Once I went to see Fellowship in theaters, I was utterly amazed by its epic story telling of a group out to destroy a ring. And I wanted more. The third movie chapter concludes their quest rightly, and in many ways memorably as well I think.
|
Dec 20 '03
1:24 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Review of the year for the movie of the year. (Reply to this comment)
by catu11us
I'm really puzzled about your comment regarding the film "showing the Paths of the Dead". So did Tolkien (and in "Return of the King" just as in the films), and I can't imagine that the film would do any more than some minor elaboration on the episode.
As for intrusive episodes: as I said, I gather from your review they're minimal in "Return". (Want a good laugh? I've often said that media reviewers haven't got a clue when it comes to fantasy. The reviewer in the San Diego Union is of the opinion that Shelob is Jackson's idea! He has a lot of other stuff of equal brilliance to say. What a dork.) Things are much worse in "Two Towers" ... the retreat from Meduseld generally and Aragorn's near-death experience specifically plus the disastrous non-Tolkien stuff in Osgiliath. The worst part of the whole Faramir sequence is that he is changed from a true leader of men to a near-bumbling daddy's frustrated boy.
I think I'll wait for the extended review before doing a review. The extended version of "Two Towars" showed us some significant prior omissions.
|
Dec 20 '03
6:11 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: ............. (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Well, no, that isn't enough for me.
I agree that things had to be cut, but for me, the return was a very significant statement, and look, it's like a ten hour movie, we couldn't cut something else somewhere to have twenty minutes or so for that?
;)
|
Dec 20 '03
11:24 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: ............. (Reply to this comment)
by catu11us
I'd much prefer to have the Scoring of the Shire in the film ... but we all probably have to admit that 20 minutes wouldn't do it. 40, maybe. That may be too long an addition, even for fannish butts. I haven't seen the film yet, so I don't know if we have that much flab that could be pared.
If we knew someone who had Jackson's ear, maybe he could be convinced to go back and shoot the Bombadil episode, the Scouring of the Shire, and other less extensive missing material, and re-release the whole thing as a mini-series of, say, 10 2-hour episodes (like "Taken"). That would give us almost 15 hours taking account of commercials) of hobbits and orcs.
|
Dec 21 '03
1:27 pm PST
|
|
Re: Many good reviews-- (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Thanks.
I'd definitely recommend reading Tolkien first. When you read a book you're free to visualize it however you want. But when you've already seen a movie of it, it's hard to visualize it any other way.
-Andy
|
Jan 05 '04
9:28 am PST
|
|
Re: I agree... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
About the first movie some people commented that it had an unsatisfying ending. Or that it had no ending at all.
If the first and second movies didn't have true endings, then maybe the third is just making up for it by having enough endings for all three?
Thanks for commenting,
-Andy
|
Jan 05 '04
9:38 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Review of the year for the movie of the year. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
"minor elaboration" is perhaps the best way to put it. I have in mind just that the attention Jackson gives the paths relative to the rest of the story is greater than it is for Tolkien--who seems to rush over the paths (and cleverly obscures Aragorn's progress after that until his arrival at Pelannor).
I can see why someone unfamiliar with Tolkien but familiar with Jackson might guess that Shelob is Jackson's idea. But the foolishness of not checking such a thing before putting it out is worth a pink slip.
As you might guess, the changes to Faramir also have repercussions here. And I might say that his character is the most disappointing part of the movies for me. Eowyn may have deserved better too.
-Andy
|
Jan 05 '04
10:03 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: ............. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Well, hey, I wouldn't have complained if there had been more. (And neither would Christopher Lee have.)
|
Jan 05 '04
10:07 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: ............. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
I think I'm to the point where I'm more or less satisfied with the movies. While I wouldn't complain if certain things were fixed or added, I'm not too bent out of shape about it.
It's about as much as I want in a LotR movie. When I want the real deal, I know where to get it.
|
Jan 05 '04
10:10 am PST
|
|
gave a MH on a review of this... (Reply to this comment)
by jankp
by signetclassic today. You're at opposite ends of the spectrum, hehe.
Jan
|
Jan 06 '04
6:07 pm PST
|
|
Re: gave a MH on a review of this... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Just read signet's review. It's pretty good. Understandable how a person can come to those conclusions.
There's actually several well-articulated negative reviews here. Darkofnight's was especially stinging.
-Andy
|
Jan 07 '04
9:06 am PST
|
|
Superb review (Reply to this comment)
by bilbopooh
Yours is the review I wish I had written. Brilliant job. Everything I left out of mine, you touched on in yours, and it was beautifully written as well. I agree that Pippin's song is the musical highlight of the film, though the music in the final scenes is incredibly powerful. The film editing of that sequence is astonishing, the moment itself so unexpected; Pippin's song caught me completely off guard and left me with open-mouthed and desperate for the soundtrack. The acting in the film is astonishing; I wish everyone could get an Oscar. And lifelong Tolkien fan that I am, the script-writers do indeed blur the lines between Tolkien's text and their additions. Many of the film's greatest scenes are not in the book, at least not in that particular form, and yet they feel right. Anyway, outstanding review.
Erin
|
Jan 07 '04
9:19 am PST
|
|
! (Reply to this comment)
by grez
Well, I'll let the others debate the enhancements and exclusions in the movie. I'd just like to comment on your review itself, which is spectacular. Really, I mean it: well written and thoughtful, and a good use of the English language. If only all reviewers put this much effort into finishing/revising their write-ups properly...
Nice job.
Mike
|
Jan 07 '04
9:23 am PST
|
|
Re: Superb review (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Thanks muchly.
I agree the writers did admirably well. There are, of course, things I'd have done differently. You can't just not have closure with Saruman. And Eowyn and Faramir especially were shortchanged. But no one's giving me however hundred million dollars to make movies.
-Andy
|
Jan 07 '04
10:13 am PST
|
|
Re: ! (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
Thanks for the compliments. Though I think my longer reviews (like this one) are typically less well-written than my mid-length reviews. I end up caring more about being all-inclusive than about my audience.
Though I guess there's an audience here for long Tolkien reviews.
-Andy
|
Jan 07 '04
10:15 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Superb review (Reply to this comment)
by bilbopooh
I think Saruman's absence would have bothered me more had I not learned of it in advance. At first, I was rather shocked, but I guess I got used to the idea, particularly since I knew there would be closure on the extended DVD. Since Jackson is leaving out the scouring of the Shire altogether, I'm very interested to see what he decided to do with him in the end. I think the end of his and Wormtongue's story is so sad in the book, with so many rejected opportunities for redemption.
Erin
|
Jan 07 '04
10:44 am PST
|
|
Great job.. (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
An excellent and comprehensive review. Regarding what you said at the start - I had a friend who went to see this, and said they loved it. I asked if he'd seen the first two. He replied, "No, haven't read the books either. It was a good film though." Strange, isn't it? :)
One thing that did bother me was the treatment of Denethor. I thought John Noble was great but the character was never an out-and-out villain as he is in the film. Jackson should have kept the whole looking in the palantir thing to explain his madness. And I really looked forward to the mouth of Sauron bit. Other than that, it's a triumph.
Steve
|
Jan 22 '04
12:56 am PST
|
|
Re: Great job.. (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch
I'm hoping the Mouth of Sauron will be in the extended DVD. I know the part was at least cast.
And hopefully Denethor's palantir will also be in it, but I'm doubting it. Which, as you say, is a shame. Noble isn't given enough time to convincingly portray the madness, and so he comes off too unsympathetically.
Thanks,
-Andy
|
Jan 22 '04
11:15 am PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.