We finally saw it! Last night we were in the theatre from 6:00 to 9:15, and loved almost every minute of it (the lame trailer for the next Star Wars movie was the only downer).
I have no time for people who wrist off about how a movie isn't like a book. No shit, Sherlocks, movies aren't like books. Especially books like LOTR. I remember trying to read it when I was 12. I got through the first book and couldn't face the rest. Yawnalicious.
The movie, though ... wow, it's a fun ride. I'm probably the last person in the Western world to see the movie, so I'm preaching to the choir here, but bear with me. We spent about half the 3 hours going "wow!" at the locations and effects, and the other half going "AAAAARGH!" because it was scary and action-packed.
The locations are awesome. Maybe in our Feb-Mar trip to New Zealand we'll make a pilgrimage to some of the locations where they filmed. The kayaking on the river looked particularly dreamy. Of course, they somehow managed to find the 3 days a year when it doesn't rain, and I doubt we'll have that luck!
Next to see: Harry Potter.
--Nat
I can't stand theaters packed to the gills, I usually wait for movies to hit DVD before I see them. Cuts down on the rage.
Despite that, I did see Harry. It was, umm, beautifully filmed, cast and acted, and left me feeling flat. It's proof that the movie can't be like the book.
The best part of the movie is that I have visuals to go with my reading of the fifth book when it comes out this spring. Alan Rickman IS Snape.
Re:Not exactly the LAST person.
pudge on 2002-01-03T20:44:22
I've not yet seen it. I am rereading the book first. I agree with Nat, I found the books a bore as a kid. I love them now, though. Of course, now, I am back to working on MacPerl, so I'll probably never finish the book now, despite getting halfway through in a few days over the holiday. At the rate I am going now, maybe I will see it on DVD too.:-)
[ Although I'll probably wait for all the movies to finish before buying the DVDs, and get them in a set. ]
As to not films not being like the books, yes, of course they are different. The discussion I was having with darobin was different from that though; it was about trying to be faithful to the book, not to the letter, but to the spirit and to the intent. Jackson has the right idea, from all I can tell: the priority is to make a good movie. The second priority is to be faithful to the original work. I have no problem with that at all; though I may disagree with his choices, I will still likely enjoy it thoroughly. So... bite me. :p
Speaking of which... I have only heard one person not like the movie: Roper from Ebert & Ropert. He complained about too many characters, how it was silly to be on a quest[*] for a ring, etc. I could only shake my head.
*I typed "qwest" before fixing it. Damn corporate misspellings.Re:Not exactly the LAST person.
ziggy on 2002-01-03T20:53:10
I'd recommend seeing it now. LOTR is a spectacularly beautiful movie. The use of CGI is judicious and well done, imperceptable for a significant portion of the movie.I saw LOTR opening week, and the theater was jammed, but when we saw Harry Potter after it had been out about two weeks, the theater was about half empty. Next weekend should be a good time to see it; DVDs and home theater systems won't do either of these movies any justice.
Re:Not exactly the LAST person.
pudge on 2002-01-03T21:05:20
That depends on the theater... and the home system ...
Re:LOTR
gnat on 2002-01-03T21:46:01
Depending on what kind of person you are, you might like to read the continuity goofs first. I could only remember a few of them, and we're definitely going to go back and look at the movie again because I have to see the car in the background of one of the scenes.Don't visit the movie mistakes site I URLed if you'd rather just sit back and enjoy the movie. But if you like easter eggs and don't mind occasionally going "oh cool, they were right, you can see his fake foot!" instead of whatever the director wanted you to feel at that moment, it can be fun.
Enjoy!
--Nat
