Dude, is this your opinion?

Subject:

Comments:
: Or are you just ripping it off from someone else? Additionally, this is NOT the place to promote your Web site. : : : : : Every once in a great while, a special movie comes along. One so : : exciting and magical that is takes you to another world. In fact, when you : : leave the theater you have entered another world... one that has evolved to : : include this revolution in storytelling. Lord of the Rings is NOT one of : : these movies. Lord of the Rings plays like a bad Star Wars rip off played : : by the WB crowd. Call it Dawson Creek meets Willow. : : >The story surrounds an evil ring (oh my!) with the power of : : >destroying the world as we know it. The world, in this case,is : : >Middle Earth... a magical paradise filled with monsters, elves and : : >small hairy foot munchins called hobbits. Oh yeah, humans live among : : >these creatures as well and threaten to destroy the world (of : : >course) with their selfish and evil ways. : : >Directed by Peter Jackson, a small time indie director who started : : >his career making splatter horror films (e.g. Dead Alive), one would : : >expect uncompromising B-movie fun. The kind of hack and slash : : >adventure that made Conan the Barbarian a good bloody time! Instead : : >we get hack Spielberg filled with a swelling classic score, computer : : >generated beasties and high-octane action scenes as loud as anything : : >you heard in Jurassic Park. A film like this should flop. How many : : >times do we have to see the same incarnation of Star Wars before we : : >simply get sick of the thing?! But it has succeeded, unfortunately, : : >IN SPITE of this fact. In an era where selling out is now the norm, : : >Peter Jackson's choice in making a cliche $180 Hollywood fantasy : : >film is his way of getting on his knees and begging the audience for : : >love. He doesn't want to make the next Star Wars, exactly. He wants : : >to become the next George Lucas! That is, an overgrown nerd who is : : >the sole owner of gold mine he unearthed before anyone else could : : >get their grubby paws on it! It is annoying to hear people call this : : >movie the Star Wars of Fantasy (did people forget that Star Wars IS : : >fantasy). Surely what they mean is 'medieval' fantasy, say, like : : >Dungeon and Dragons? But, I have to ask, who cares? Isn't the point : : >of fantasy to take us to a place WE HAVE NEVER BEEN before. Elves : : >and orges and the like are so familiar that there is nothing : : >FANTASTIC about them. That what made Shrek so hilarious. It was : : >poking fun at it's own familiarity and the audience's as well. : : >Surely an argument can be made that there is nothing wrong with : : >making a fun, good old-fashioned b-movie. Say, an action fantasy : : >film in the spirit of Sinbad the Pirate or other serial films. But : : >is Lord of the Rings, with it's running time of 3hrs, good old : : >fashioned fun?!?! It takes two hours to get to the real heart of the : : >movie, the sword and sorcery fight scenes. But by then you may not : : >care. I didn't. Rock climbing a 14er might be fun but it's not : : >something you go do to kill a couple hours after a long day of work! : : >It would be one thing if the movie held up it's end of the bargain : : >and proved at least as entertaining as a Star Wars rehash. But here : : >is the film's biggest disapppointment! Consider the dialogue which : : >really isn't really dialogue at all. The lines are, more or less, : : >'disclaimers' telling us something about Middle Earth. It's almost : : >as if Peter Jackson is trying so hard to be true to the book that : : >he's cramming any reference of Middle Earth that he can! This turns : : >Lord of the Rings into a sorta Discover channel special on the : : >magical world of JR Tolkein. : : >Elijah Wood, playing Frodo Baggins (the Luke Skywalker of the : : >group), is entrusted with the evil ring and sent out to destroy it : : >in Mt.Doom (how original). Though his performance is palpable, : : >eventually he becomes your typical tortured-with-selfdoubt everyman : : >that Jimmy Steward made famous fifty years ago. Will Frodo surcumb : : >to evil? Will he turn to the dark side... er, fall victim to the : : >ring's evil? What do you think. : : >Samwise, Frodo's friend, played by Sean Astin, is entertaining at : : >times. He seems to be the only one that didn't forget that he is : : >playing an other worldly being. He plays his hobbit as a loyal : : >golden retriever who could easily surcumb to his own appetites at : : >any time, including his undying loyalty to stay by his friend's side : : >even if it will hurt them both in the end. But we see so little of : : >him that he plays like one of Peter Jackson's crammed lines of : : >dialogue: he's only in here as a reference to the book. Oh yeah, : : >there is a swashbucking stud-of-a-human swordsman named Strider. : : >He's the umpteenth reincarnation of Han Solo but like a million : : >hacks after him he comes off like a live action video game : : >character. His idea of acting tough is to display a smirk, followed : : >by a stoic face, back to a smirk again. People obviously forget that : : >what made Han Solo so entertaining (and consequently, tough!) was : : >that he outsmarted you just when you thought you second guessed him. : : >The more dangerous things got, the cooler he did. Harrison Ford's : : >dead pan performance is what gave his character gravity. Playing an : : >action hero like a robot is not dead pan. : : >Everyone has praised Ian McKellan for his turn as Obi-Wan, er, the : : >Wizard Gandolf. But if you can get passed the ridicilous FAKE makeup : : >and stupid costume (he looks like ZZ top dressed for a Star Trek : : >convention) you'll find he's simply going through the motions that : : >Alec Guiness did in Star Wars more than 20 years ago. At least he : : >seems to be the only one having fun (which is ironic considering his : : >character disappears early on in the movie only to reappear near the : : >end to be killed off). : : >I could go on and on but what's the point. Am I supposed to like : : >Lord of the Rings because of the classic book it is based upon? : : >Well, I propose something utterly blasphemous...that maybe the book : : >isn't that good to begin with. Surely JR Tolkien deserves : : >recognition for helping to reintroduce fantasy and mythology back : : >into the modern era. But his characters and stories are so dated, : : >I'm afraid, that they hardly justify a big Hollywood movie of the : : >same name. Whoever said a book must become a movie to succeed : : >anyways? Sometimes there is value in simply being a book. Obviously : : >the guys who made the Harry Potter Movie forgot that that's what : : >made Harry Potter such a craze to begin with. It made reading 'hip' : : >again. Clearly, Lord of the Rings inspired artists like George Lucas : : >and Steven Spielberg who did for movies what Tolkein did for books. : : >In my mind, job well done. So why not stop while you're ahead? : : >Anyhow, IN SPITE of what I say most of you will leave the theater : : >swearing upwards and downwards that it's the best movie you ever : : >saw. But before you do consider the embarrassing howler at it's : : >center:if the forces of evil threatening Middle Earth are so : : >dangerous and powerful then why are they trapped in something as : : >wimpy (and as obvious) as a single gold ring? Oh, I forgot...because : : >JRR Tolkein said so. Lord of the Rings represents the latest dumbing : : >down of fantasy films. : : > : : >GRADE: C : : > : : For more great reviews contact Louis Cseke csekelm@hotmail.c

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: