Jump to content

Home

Worst. Review. Ever. (Of LotR No Less!)

Boba Rhett

By Boba Rhett
in Off-Topic Discussion

Recommended Posts

Boba Rhett Newbie

Boba Rhett

Posted
Posted

First off I'd like to say that this is not a joke review. This guy is serious. It's for FotR. NOT TTT.

 

Prepare to whence at the ignorance and feel the burning rage rise within you. :)

 

_________________________________________________

 

By: Ben Kenigsberg (write that name down so you'll know who to direct the cursing at)

 

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring -- the first part in Heavenly Creatures-director Peter Jackson’s much-hyped adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy, which I’ve never read -- is pretty good. But the execution isn’t quite as smooth as it should be, given the resources at Jackson’s disposal.

 

For every great thing in The Fellowship of the Ring, there’s something lousy. In the special effects realm, for instance, the orcs, goblin-like creatures in the Nosferatu vein, look terrific. Yet all the long-distance special effects shots, like the ones that make up the visually incoherent opening montage, are clearly generated by computers. One shouldn’t be able to tell how the special effects were created.

 

The first fight scene, in which Christopher Lee and Ian McKellen toss spear-like objects at each other, is edited so poorly that we never get a clear shot of a spear flying from point A to point B. But the last battle is spectacular. Plenty of the action occurs in unbroken shots.

 

The movie takes a full half hour to handle about five minutes worth of exposition. The last half-hour doesn’t make a lot of sense to a non-fan. Perhaps my questions will be answered in part two; I can’t figure out, for instance, what Cate Blanchett is doing in the movie. It feels somewhat improper to review a film that is part of a trilogy without seeing the other parts. Jackson shot all three movies at once but is now editing them one at a time. (Part two is scheduled to come out next December, and part three will come out the December after that.)

 

But I’m pretty sure something’s missing. I don’t want to spoil anything, but I’m not understanding a certain character’s motivation for his actions at the end.

 

The mood alternates, semi-successfully, between Wizard of Oz and Indiana Jones. The Munchkinland-like sets early in the movie give way to more striking scenery, including a forest in which crystal appears to be growing from the trees.

 

The best part is the sound. Never has sword hitting rock sounded so vivid. Then again, when the filmmakers use echo effects for wraiths’ speech, the resulting incomprehensible voices sound like those of the demons in The Evil Dead.

 

Elijah Wood looks melancholy but sounds chipper as Frodo, a boy charged with destroying a ring that, if it falls into the wrong hands, has the power to … cause a lot of damage. McKellen lowers himself to play Gandalf, Frodo’s wizard-teacher. Ian Holm (!) is more cartoonish than he ever should be as Bilbo, Frodo’s uncle.

 

The plot, if I’m getting all of it, is just a standard-issue good-versus-evil deal made complicated by the presence of a lot of under-developed characters. But perhaps -- and, again, I haven’t read Tolkien -- the complexity of the book isn’t coming through.

 

So, good and bad. And at 178 minutes, the movie gives you plenty of time to shift in your seat.

 

_________________________________________________

 

 

 

This man needs to be fired, placed in a large sack, drug out into the street and be pelted with various pieces of cow dung until he weeps for forgiveness. :) Who's with me? I mean... seriously. What an arse.

 

And in case you don't believe me, Link

 

Yet another reason to hate Long Island. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...