Posted by Piscez at res109b-158.rh.rit.edu on January 20, 2002 at 01:30:43:
In Reply to: Lord of Rings OVERRATED posted by L-train on January 20, 2002 at 01:23:10:
:
: 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