Boba Rhett Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 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. Oh look! I found a picture of the reviewer! Joking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperglide Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Its a rather mild critique if you ask me i've seen worse. And I absoulutely loved that movie, however he did bring up a lot of legit points. He's a critic. All critics should be shot. But why diss this guy? If you don't like it don't read it. It's as simple as that, no one's forcing you to read a actual un-biased review of a movie you are obviously a fanboy of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 hey what can i say, he's a critic. ok here i found the real pic of the reviewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 Why dis this guy? Because some of his complaints were so mind blowingly stupid. And just because I wanted to. That's why. No one is forcing you to read this post. If you don't like that I singled out this guy, don't read my thread. Simple as that. And don't go throwing out the word fanboy, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Since Rhett asked so nicely... Originally posted by Hyperglide Its a rather mild critique if you ask me i've seen worse. And I absoulutely loved that movie, however he did bring up a lot of legit points. He's a critic. All critics should be shot. But why diss this guy? If you don't like it don't read it. It's as simple as that, no one's forcing you to read a actual un-biased review of a movie you are obviously a fanboy of. U nog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperglide Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by Boba Rhett Why dis this guy? Because some of his complaints were so mind blowingly stupid. And just because I wanted to. That's why. No one is forcing you to read this post. If you don't like that I singled out this guy, don't read my thread. Simple as that. And don't go throwing out the word fanboy, please. Uh Oh I think I pissed the fanboy off!! You probably have posters of Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood on your walls and ceiling huh? What does being forced to read this thread have to do with anything?? I wasn't dissing, your post. But just because I happened to not agree with the outright flaming of some critic/person we don't even know (for doing his job, so some people liked the movies other don't big whoop), you have to try to sound special, by repeating something I said? What complaint did he say was stupid? Just curious, to know, so I can follow up. If you want to b!tch don't bring it here, or else we'd have a 1000 post thread, about everyone b!tching about every critic, ever born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Alright, *points to custom title* It's useless to start a flame war, Rhett is just a tad high on sugar right now... He'll be a bit wiser tomorrow, I can promise you And beside you didn't need to resort to name-calling. You don't have to call him a fanboy to get your point across. Move along people, there's nothing to see here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediNyt Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Ive seen much worse reviews. There was an AOTC review that said Corruscant didnt prepare us for September 11th...WTF?!! -s/<itzo- can I borrow your pic please? Critics are dumbasses. Roeper of Sisko and Roeper gave Lotr thumbs down cause he thought it was too long. You know we would make great critics. I cant believe that these :nut:s get to be critics. How do they do it? They suck. Why not get people with taste namely us to get paid to rate movies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 I consider "fanboy" an insulting term. Which many others do as well. Just like every other insulting name, it's not allowed here. So please do not use it. I'm not denying that I love LotR far beyond what's reasonable but calling me names is not a good thing to do. It serves no purpose in getting a point across. It's ment as a derogatory term to anger a person. no one's forcing you to read a actual un-biased review of a movie that's why I said, "No one is forcing you to read this post". As for stupid things he said, For every great thing in The Fellowship of the Ring, there’s something lousy. How can he possibly justify that statement? There's bad stuff in LotR, yeah, but he states that there's just as much bad stuff as there is good. 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. He thought that they were throwing things at each other... and that it was so badly edited because he couldn't see the things being thrown... You're right. I would bitch about every critic ever known but this one was the lucky guy that came into my sights tonight. That's all. I don't want to fight about it. I know it's stupid I singled out one guy but I don't want to be called names just because I posted something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X R Kun Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 hahahaha he actually whinks they are throwing spears at each other:laughing: And he doesnt even get the part where Boromir is trying to get the ring frm Frodo. WHat scares me is that people would actualy be reading his bullsh..er...review. They would think the movie sucked and not go watch it. I dont think he clearly understands what the whole story is about. Must be something he smoked.... As for the name calling issues. I myslef am a fan of Tolkien's work and calling Rhett a fanboy is insulting to us all. Its not just about the movie, its about Tolkien and the wonderful world he created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperglide Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 I didn't realize you guys got so offended by the term "Fanboy." Sorry I said it, must be bad if people are to paranoid on the internet, are getting offended by "Fanboy." Not directed to you, I mean in general. Agreed some of his points are rediculous. But don't bash his whole article. I personally choose critics who have very similar tastes to things I like in movie's. I read their articles. Some people will like what this guy has to say, because they to have agreed with his reviews, on previous occaisions. He might also have to come up with catchy "slogans," to get noticed (hence the dumbass saying "For every great thing in The Fellowship of the Ring, there’s something lousy."). Thats what critic's do. The "spear like thing", is completely right, which he refers to in his article. He's obviously not a professional because, the article is flawed in some area's and it's poorly written. Don't know where you found this review, but I don't agree with it (I loved LoTR like everyone else). Still bashing the guy for doing a review, that some people will enjoy, doesn't give you the right, to suggest everyone outright discredit the guy. If you don't like the review tell us about it and show a link. So then we might then choose to look at it and, come up with our own idea's. Please don't decide for us that's all I'm asking. Sorry again for the "fanboy," thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taos Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Thanks Rhett. Just another reason why I choose not to listen to the critics at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 I went through this with The Phantom Menace. I was the only one that loved it where I worked and I got flamed up one side and down the other. My reaction was to wear star wars fan merchandise each and everyday. After a while when the movie came out on vhs, people started to like it. Sometimes a theater experience is not for everyone, but a vhs/dvd experience can help a movie because that way nothing is missed. I have also noticed that some poeple's opinions of a film can be reduced because of a bad theatrical experience and others are upset when they have to sit for extended periods of time. I too was a bit miffed at the sudden ending because I didnt realize it was going to be continued. I do have to say that I am hooked, and already plan to see all the others now that I am completely tangled up in the story. This review doesnt seem very profesional, but then again there is no such thing as a professional "movie critic", if you don't act, direct, or produce a film what gives you the right to criticize? Usually critics are the people that couldn't make it in any other aspact of the field. Musicians who didnt make it in the music business usually become teachers of music or music critics. I suppose the same can be said of movie critics, however this here review is utter tripe on the scale of the movie itself. It sounds as though it was written by a 12 year old for a junior high school newspaper. LOTR is not my favorite film of all time, but it is an epic achievement considering the subject material that involves elves and wizards. I think they did a good job with this movie and I really can't think of anything I would change. I have not read the book either, but if it were from a more narrative point of view it may clear up some things in the movie. When I read TPM I loved the book and there were things in the book that never made it to the movie that were fantastic. But then again I knew things about Annakin already that were not demonstrated in the movie. Like Annakin's dissability to control his emmotions, and his vivid graphic dreams that depict him commanding armies of vass magnitude. Had I read the Tolkien books I may have appreciated LOTR more, but the movie did spark my intereset to go back and read the book, so what does it matter? It rocks! Hyperglide, let's not make this an argument. There are better ways to get your point across without slapping labels on people. Even if Rhett was not a LOTR fan the review is still crap because it was poorly written and had very vague examples with no imagination. This guy probably had a hot date after the movie and decided it sucked about 15 minutes into the movie when he didn't see any T&A shots, or "bullet time" effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by JediNyt -s/<itzo- can I borrow your pic please? technically its not my pic so if you want to use it go right ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Ferretus Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 He's a dirty critic, no more Go LOTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehomicidalegg Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 the fault with this review is that the critic makes a judgement without absorbing as much information as he can. Therefor his argument in certain aspects is ill-concieved and the supporting evidence based on poor conceptions. To people who know Tolkiens, this review would seem stupid to the extremes, but he does deserve his opinion as an individual (not the brightest one though:D ) who have no experience with the Tolkien Epics. However, as a film critic, there are responsibilities that this... reviewer-like thing do not fulfill. Therefor, he deserve to be hung, drawn, shot in the testicles, and quartred with a blunt cleaver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodrodius Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Oddly enough it seems like this guy never read the book, and to me it seems like people who are so fanatically in love with this movie usually haven't either. It's the people that love Tolkien's novels, (like myself) that normally do the bitching about the movies. At first I was pretty dissapointed, and I still am at some parts. Like the making of Merry and Pippin into some kind of "comedy relief", where in fact they were very serious characters in the book. And improv silliness like Aragorn throwing the flaming torch into the face of the ringwraith, or lines like, "this quest, mission, errr thing." and, "So where are we going?" show that while the director was at times attemping to be accurate, his foremost goal was to make the movie a blockbuster hit, appealing to the masses of people who could give a crap about the book. Parts were good, but compared to the novel, it has a very less than epic feel, since the book was so soaked in the lore of a world that Tolkien had taken his entire life to create. It was a visual masterpiece, but large parts of the intellectual appeal was missing in the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Woodrodius: I have tried three (3) times to read LOTR. All failed. It is so nervewrenching bad in the beginning that I'm afraid I'll never get to reading it - I always lose interest after the first 150 pages where he's still rambling about his beloved hobbits. Believe me, I read The Hobbit at the age of 10 and loved it to bits. Then proceeded with LOTR, but alas, the author is horrible at catching people's interest. And his poetry is abject rubbish. This is where the movie showed me it can be done - with a good director, the average, intellectually challenged person can finally be introduced to Tolkien's world. And they thankfully edited out the hideous songs. I saw the movie in it's own right. I didn't think Pippin and Merry were reduced to any comic relief, because I haven't experienced their glorious, epic lines in the book. You'll always be unhappy with a story when it's told on another medium than what you first experienced it in. I know, that when I am to read the book for 4th time again, I'll think the director of the movie made a much better job at capturing the audience. Something Tolkien, sorry to say, stinks at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 Just hang in there a little longer next time, Cjais. I think you where only a little ways away from them FINALLY getting out of the shire. It picks up a lot a few hundred pages in. I don't think the begining is bad, it's just so very detailed that it wears you down. I have to disagree with your statement about most of the people who read the books not liking the movie, Woodrodius. Books and movies are apples and oranges. They can't be the same and they shouldn't either. Take Tom. If he was in the movie, I and many other would have been saying, "Why the hell am I watching this prancing dandy?" He would have thrown off all the pacing. And Arwen, I don't mind her addition to the movie. I feel that it needed a romance in there besides Sam's infatuation with whats'-her-face at the hobbit bar, Gimli's drooling over Galadriel and Eowyn pining for Aragorn. Things often can't be done in movies the way they are in books. We would have had one sloppy mess of a movie if Peter would have tried to make it just like the book. "The movie was good, but the book was better", should almost never be uttered in my opinion. I mean, you might as well say, "That banana was good, but I like keychains better." It just doesn't make a lot of sense. They're each from seperate realms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by Boba Rhett Just hang in there a little longer next time, Cjais. I think you where only a little ways away from them FINALLY getting out of the shire. It picks up a lot a few hundred pages in. I don't think the begining is bad, it's just so very detailed that it wears you down. You said it. I know LOTR is a masterpiece and I am going to read it, whether I like the beginning or not Detailed indeed. EDIT: Forgot to say I think the critic has no idea what he's talking about. Spears me arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 Heh. Now here's a review I like. LoL. I could have done without the guys little politcal slam inserted into it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_wolf Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by Boba Rhett 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. WHAT AN A-HOLE! 1) Those special effects brought the sheer scale of the conflict to life - and that is quite a feat given it being 3 whole races against 2 whole others! They were ace - and what ever 'Its that CGI feeling' you get is forgiveable - that was done w/ love! 2) This thing about spears - what is this A-HOLE on about - there WERE no spears - they are bleeding mage - they use psychic bolts! My GOD - has anyone binary mail bomb spammed him yet - please do... PLEASE!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 Originally posted by Boba Rhett Heh. Now here's a review I like. LoL. I could have done without the guys little politcal slam inserted into it though. I haven't even bought my tickets yet!! :eek: Damn you Rhett!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted December 13, 2002 Author Share Posted December 13, 2002 I can't even buy tickets yet. My theatre doesn't even say WHEN they go on sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X R Kun Posted December 13, 2002 Share Posted December 13, 2002 In Singapore, when FOTR came out, i bought the ticket a few hours before the show and theyre good seats too! So i dont have to worry about tickets gettin sold out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.