Lord Of The Rings

[BlueChair]

I saw the first one in the cinema not too long after it opened.
I really enjoyed it.

I saw the second one in the cinema OPENING NIGHT at midnight.
I really enjoyed it. More so than the first.

I saw the third one in the cinema not too long after it opened.
I really enjoyed it. More so than the first two.

Have I seen them again since? No. Do I have any interest in owning them on DVD? No. Do I have any interest in even watching them again? Not really. Maybe some day in the future.

I liked Lord Of The Rings a lot. But I don't think they're among the best films ever made.

There, I said it!

[noiseradio]

I saw the first one in the theater and loved it. Then I saw it again in the theater. Loved it. Got it on DVD and loved it. Then I got the extended version and watched it. Loved it. Watched it again a few months later. Loved it. Watched a lot of the special features. Loved them. Watched it again right before Return of the King. Loved it.

I saw Two Towers in the theater when it came out. Loved it. Even more than the first one. Waited until the extended version came out and watched it right before going to see Return of the king. LOOOVED it. Watched the special features on how they made Gollum work. Loved it and Andy Serkis is a genius.

Saw Return of the king in the theater a few days after it came out. Have been desperately trying to get back to see it again and can't wait to get the extended version the day it comes out so I can sit down and watch all three in a row, several times. Because I loved these movies so much, but especially ROTK. It's nearly flawless, other than what got cut out, which will be restored in the extended version. And I think all three films will be studied for decades to come as a great achievement in the history of cinema.

[BlueChair]

Nice!

Point, counterpoint!

[HungupStrungup]

But where's the McGuffin?

[bobster]

While I'm as excited about the cinematic LOTR as anyone (well, not quite as much as Noise, maybe, but I'm close) and it's hands down my favorite movie this year and very possibly this decade (century?), Blue makes sort of an interesting point.

Only time will tell whether ANYTHING is truly a classic. Blue may look back at the extended versions in ten years and realize they were even greater than he realized and possibly one were one of the best movies ever made -- or he may turn them off after fifteen minutes and wonder why he liked them in the first place.

In my time, I've seen movies that were widely panned on their initial release become actual classics ("Blade Runner" comes to mind) and movies that were massively successful and even almost universally lauded become all but forgotten or mere curiousities, or even minor jokes("Gandhi" comes to mind).

And, besides, I try never to emphasize that I think such and such a movie is a classic. It puts too much pressure on them to have some kind of insane religious experience when, after all, it's really just a movie.

This is why I didn't really get the greatness of either "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca" on first viewing. Now these are movies I can watch almost any time and become instantly entralled by, but it took time for me to relax enough to figure out how great they really were.

I wish someone has said to me -- "you know, you may not like them. They're only movies."

[noiseradio]

That is a good point, both Blue and Bobster. And I may well look back in decades to come at the LOTR films the way I do now on Star Wars and Retuern of the Jedi (though I still adore Empire Strikes Back). They seemed peerless at the time (and in many ways were), but there are huge problems with them, especially ROTJ.

Gandhi is a really interesting film to use as an example. I want to ask what you think of it Bobster. Do you think it's a great film or a joke? I ask because some colleagues of mine who also teach the History of FIlm elective at my high school and I were debating the merits of films that have won the Best Picture Oscar, and Gandhi's merits were hotly contested. I'll withhold my comment ntil I hear yours and/or someone else's.

[laughingcrow]

The term classic is pretty subjective anyway...e.g. a lot of people like 'It's a wonderful life' but I don't.

I really like the LOTR trilogy (and extended versions on DVD), partly because I'm into scifi/fantasy genre, partly because I found the films quite compelling (how many 3hr+ films are consistently enjoyable throughout?).

They probably will be considered classics by popular culture in terms of effects and the sheer scale of the project, much in the same way that Zulu, Star Wars and Ben Hur are.

[bobster]

To address Noise's question --- at least in terms of cinema and what the people who's job it is to hold these sorts of opinions (movie critics for important publications, academic types, film geeks like me, etc.), "Gandhi" is not a well regarded film, at least outside of Ben Kingsley's performance. Richard Attenborough is DEFINITELY not a very well regarded director.

I actually liked it when I first saw it, but I was a younger stupider person then and -- based on other movies I've seen since directed by Attenborough, particularly the nauseating "Chaplin" and the probably unfair-to-mention "A Chorus Line" (admittedly almost unfilmable as anything but the theatrical piece it originally was, but he tried to turn it into a regular movie and boy did he fail!) -- I'm willing to bet that I wouldn't care for it now, though it might still grab me, mainly just because of the subject matter and the good acting. ("Chaplin" actually had an even better lead performance by Robert Downey which is probably his best work -- sad that the rest of the movie was such self-important goo.)

The short version of the critical opinion for Attenborough in general, and "Gandhi" in particular is "warmed over David Lean" or even "warmed over Merchant-Ivory" (which many consider warmed-over Lean)

That being said, for the purposes of "making history come alive" for students, it might make sense to show the film in a history class, and definitely for a more highbrow college-like class looking at how history is portrayed on film. But for a basics class on the history of film which shows only important films, "Gandhi" won some Oscars, but it's influence and "importance" (whatever that means) is pretty much nil. Lots of Oscar winners are all but forgotten now. (I'm willing to bet that not one of you --not even me -- has seen all of "The Greatest Show on Earth")

Biopics are actually an interesting subgenre, though. And it would be interesting to show a few and go into how they differed from anything resembling reality. There are tons of really fun Hollywood biographies that completely ignore reality. A couple of favorites: "The Jolson Story" which, as I understand it, basically remade "The Jazz Singer" because the actual Al Jolson was a complete bastard with absolutely nothing likable about him. There was the old biopic (unseen by me) which had Cary Grant as a straight, unskinny Cole Porter.

A really interesting one was "They Died with their Boots On" -- a movie directed by studio hack and director of occasional "accidental" classics Michael Curtiz. This was a biopic about George Armstrong Custer which depicts as a great, fun-loving guy and a friend (!!!) to Native Americans (at least those from central casting).

And, just a few years ago, we had "Dragon", enjoyably depicting the life of Bruce Lee as an actual chop-socky epic.

[bobster]

They probably will be considered classics by popular culture in terms of effects and the sheer scale of the project, much in the same way that Zulu, Star Wars and Ben Hur are.

Senior Crow --

"Zulu" is widely considered a classic in the UK? Not surprising, but it's practically a cult film over here. (I finally saw a beat-up print at the American Cinematheque. Very impressive movie.)

Ever seen the, I think 1939, version of the oft-filmed "Four Feathers." (There were some American version, but I'm talking about a British film, directed I think by Zoltan Korda). Someone from England told me that it airs every Christmas or something.

Though it's probalby the most blatantly jingoistic film I've ever seen -- particularly striking in terms of contemporary politics (it takes place mostly in what we now call Afghanistan, I think), it was an absolutely wonderful, amazing movie. Completely blew me. (I'm editing my original comments here. I meant to say "completely blew me away", but seeing as I liked it so much, I'm wondering if the orginal version wasn't in some way more accurate.)

As to "classics" which I don't much personally care for, I'll lead that off with "Gone with the Wind" (though I'll admit it's sort of entertaining in small chunks) and anything directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Actually, though I love William Wyler, didn't much care for "Ben Hur" either.

"Star Wars" is great fun, and in terms of film history incredibly important, but not a great film in any normal sense of the word. "The Empire Strikes Back" starts the beginning of a possible evolution toward greatness but to say that it didn't quite pan out is obviously a major understatement.

LOTR may not be all that "important" in sense that it may not inspire much imitation, but in terms of mature filmmaking, I don't think there's really much argument that there's with the Star Wars movies. I really think that Peter Jackson has the potential to emerge over time as a top-tier all-purpose director in the same general category as a John Ford, John Huston or Akira Kurasawa.

[laughingcrow]

Zulu ranks alongside The Great Escape, The Italian Job and Goldfinger, as one of those films that strikes a real chord with the Brits, and is always repeated at Christmas...whether it's a 'classic' because it's repeated so much, or it's repeated so much that it's held in awe, I don't know.

I'm afraid I've never seen 'Four feathers'.

[noiseradio]

Bobster,

I agree with everything you said in every post after my last one (except for your comments on the film that blew you away, which I have not seen).

In re: Gandhi, I bought a copy for class when I was teaching World Geography, and I showed clips. Even the clips went on and on into the night.

[Tim(e)]

I cannot see how the Lord of the Rings trilogy can be considered anything but a future "classic".

These films have not only taken the melding of CGI and live action to new heights (forget that abberation Jar Jar Binks, Gollum/Smeagol rules!!), but they have the added benefit of being based on one of the most read and most loved pieces of literature in the history of the third rock from the sun. Sure that may have created controversy in itself (verging on blasphemy for some), but for the most part, the comparisons between JRR's written works and PJ's celluloid depiction have been more than favourable.

One of the great things about the trilogy that a lot of people seem to overlook is that they have turned a whole new generation on to the books... and that cannot be a bad thing.

Now if PJ could just bring on "The Hobbit" and follow that with a return to his earlier format (a la Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles etc) and give us Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings"

[bobster]

I'm sure after the Hobbit even PJ is going to want to move on to something else. Still, it would be a first, as far as I know, for the same person to direct the spoof as directed the original.

I've never read "Bored" (my Tolkien crazed pal though has a tradition where, after his bi-yearly or so reading of LOTR, he reads "Bored" as a sort of literary pallet cleanser)...

But, much as I loved the movie, I couldn't help thinking it was rife with spoofing possibilities. Aragorn's victory song changed could start out as it was in the film and then turn into a Sinatra-esque pop tune or perhaps really Michael Bolton type pop. (The hair really isn't that different.)

I also couldn't help thinking about the future of Aragorn and Arwen's marriage. I can't help but think that every time they had a squabble, it'd be....

"I gave up immortality for you and you can't go to the store for a lousy gallon of milk and some lembas bread?"

I also think that it's pretty clear that Gollum is a walking warning about the dangers of sticking too closely to the Atkins Diet....

[BlueChair]

Ahem.

Overrated.

[crash8_durham]

I am so sick of hearing about these movies. They may be good but after 3 years enough is enough. I know these are great filmmakers and big casts and there is a ton of work involved but Tolken wrote this stuff so many years ago. Lots of movies come from books etc but these folks are receiving an awful lot of credit for making movies out of someone elses stuff.

[so lacklustre]

Ahem.

Overrated.

I agree, the Oscars are very overratted .

[crash8_durham]

Its funny that the entertainment industry is the only one to give "themselves" awards

[cbartal]

I've never read any Tolkien (sp?), let alone any other fantasy books. I can't manage to keep my real life heroes and villains straight, let alone those from "middle earth".

Hence, no interest in the movie. Accordingly, the acronynm CGI gives me the willies just thinking of it.

But I'm willing to give these films a try if someone could convince me.

Is there true cinematic merit to these films? I ask honestly.

There are people who rant and rave about Dr. Who and promote his legacy. Is this the same gig.

I'm not trying to start an argument, cause I've absolutely no knowledge on the subject. I only know that the Beatles once considered doing a film of the books with themselves cast as some of the main characters. While I appreciate the fact that these genius's loved them, I tend to blame some of their exuberance on, er, well, hallucinogens.

Somebody please set me straight.

[Tim(e)]

In my opinion they are definitely worth a look - regardless of how you might feel about fantasy.

Cinematically speaking they are absolutely stunning visually, have well developed characters courtesy of fine scripting and acting, superbly photographed and edited, and with a very well written screenplay based of the (reputed) greatest fictional piece of the last century... all done on a scale the likes of which has not been seen before.

Of course they could not be an exact representation of the books, otherwise they would have had to run for several hours longer than they already do, but in the scheme of things, that is a very minor quibble.

And yes, there is the odd naff CGI effect (few and far between, thankfully), but the CGI is for the most part close to faultless and most definitely necessary - otherwise this could never have been translated to the screen.

They are an absolute visual and aural feast!

[cbartal]

Thanks Time.

I will, then, give them a try when the trilogy DVD comes out.

Should I read the books first, or go in cold?

[Tim(e)]

Thanks Time.

I will, then, give them a try when the trilogy DVD comes out.

Should I read the books first, or go in cold?

If you intend to read the books at some stage anyway, then I would definitely recommend reading them first.

The reason I make that recommendation is not for the background that the books might give you (in fact, some ommissions in the films may frustrate you), but rather because (for me at least) the beauty of reading books like Lord of the Rings, is that they give your imagination a real workout... and that is something you won't have the pleasure of experiencing if have seen the films first, as Peter Jackson will have provided your brain with a whole library of his images to work with.

Also, if you are going to watch them on DVD, then wait until around August (that is the rumoured date at least) when the Extended Edition DVD set of the Return of the King is available... and then sit down and watch all three extended editions.

The extended editions provide a total of 2 to 3 hours of additional footage over the three films, that were taken out of the cinematic releases so that they might appeal to the lowest common denominator (and people still complained they were too long!!). These additional materials have been re-incorporated to help flesh out a lot of the characters and provide more plot development.

Also, these DVDs are absolutely loaded with extra material in the form of documentaries and commentaries etc etc... everything you might want to help you appreciate the technical and human aspects of the development of the films.

[Misha]

Cbart,,,

I'm not a fan of fantasy...at all. With the minor exception of Harry Potter. I haven't read the books, either. I really liked the movies....I say give them a shot!!!

[bobster]

Even though I love genres, I believe people make too much of them.

When people say they don't like fantasy, westerns, science-fiction, musicals, etc. I think what they're really saying is that they've never seen/read one they like. Often, this is because, they've never seen/read one that is any good.

For example, the younger version of myself and countless others missed the boat on movie westerns because we of the many boring TV westerns like "Bonanza". When I went to film school and saw "Stagecoach" for the first time, I realized what I a gigantic boob I'd been for avoiding them.

IMO, Whenever anyone says, "I never see_____" based simply on a broad genre, I think they're sort of arbitrarily limiting themselves, usually based on a misunderstanding of the genres possibilities.

Anyhow, Duke Ellington said it best in discussing music: "There is only two kinds of music: good and bad." And, I believe the same applies to film. And Peter Jackson's LOTR is VERY good filmmaking. And, yes, the extended versions are not just for big time fans, they are simply better films, particularly (so far) the extended version of "Fellowship" is tons better, funnier, and more moving than the shorter version.

As someone who is just starting to reread the books, you probably do want to read them first for Tim(e) excellent reasons. However, even if you don't particularly dig them, or give up on them, I'd STILL check out the films. So far, it seems to me that in many respects Jackson actually improved on Tolkien. (This, of course, brands me as an eternal heretic in the eyes of some of my geek friends.)