| NAVIGATION |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Quote of the day:
"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson |
 |
|
 |
Review: Lord of The Rings
By Farina on December 20, 2001 1:11 AM
The long anticipation, the nail biting, hair twirling, lip biting wait for Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings first installment The Fellowship of the Ring finally arrives--revealing big crowds at the movie theater on its premiere. The young, the middle age and the old gathered to view J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved novel come to life on the silver screen. However, the inevitable question voiced by anxious moviegoer is, "will the movie live up to the long pending hype?"
The lowdown for those who are not yet acquainted with the plot of Tolkien's Lord of The Ring's series, The Fellowship of the Ring, vividly accounts the adventures of the well known relative of hobbit Bilbo Baggins, Frodo Baggins, beginning with the introduction of the dangerous yet magnetic aura of the ring the evil Sauron has created to wield the power of the world. The seemingly defeated Sauron disappears from legend--until the ring calls for its maker, its master. The impending emergence of the evil lord Sauron serves as the catalyst for the destruction of the ring. The catch? The ring can only be destroyed in the flames where it was forged--Mount Doom. Obstacles must be faced to conquer evil-to destroy the ring once and for all. The task befalls on Frodo and his friends to return the ring into the fiery flames of Mount Doom to save the existence he and the rest of the world hold dear.
The verdict, you ask impatiently? The Fellowship of the Ring exceeded the hype and even my own severe expectations. Not a short movie, mind you, bordering close to three hours, it is however one of the best. No wait a minute, it almost slipped my mind that this year, the ever increasing genre of simple-minded action flicks were painstakingly dominant (not to name any names)--I would have to come to the easy decision that The Fellowship of the Ring is the best film of the year. The magnificent vision Tolkien had dreamed in his novels comes to life-goblins, elves, dwarves, demons and monsters. Of course with the help of the special effects department, as well as the excellent choice of casting and outstanding performances by Ian Mckellan, Viggo Mortensen and Elijah Wood, what once only existed within Tolkien's realm of imagination is now alive.
Conclusion: A must see! It's the best money can buy for movies these days. A spectacular display of what happens when imagination comes to life. 10/10.
|
Reader Discussions:
|
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 20, 2001 6:50 AM
I'm glad to hear that the movie is a success and not an overhyped bomb.(Can you say Pearl Harbor?)
But I am still saddened that many young people will now not take the time to read the book and use there own imaginations to bring this world alive. It's all been done for them.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 20, 2001 9:37 AM
Just a thought...I never read Lord of the Rings in School and hd heard alot about the series fro friends. When the first teaser came out I immeadiatly went out and bought the books and read all three! I went and saw the movie on Wednesday and right after I got home I began reading Fellowship again. The movie has so much passion and energy that I think sales of the book will skyrocket and children will read it for themselves! Those are my thoughts, not yours!
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 20, 2001 10:00 AM
Don't beleive everything you read. It is a good movie, worth seeing. Thats all. This is the non-scientific consensus from a group of 15. Movie of the Year.... er no....When I see the complete saga...maybe then but we'll see.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 20, 2001 12:35 PM
Hello Hello my American freinds, just thought I'd drop you all a line from across the Atlantic. Saw LOTR last night and it was bloody Orrible, it was. Stick with the book, this awful splurg of CGI was fake, reeked of rush, and could never be thought of in the same sense as classic trilogys like Raiders, or Star Wars. Sorry, but it blew.
Union Jackie
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 20, 2001 1:23 PM
You're Patrick Ewing, aren't you?
|
 |
|
You best be careful
|
reply
|
|
Posted by sKillBot (travis@pulley.org) on December 20, 2001 9:01 PM
lest the great ewing comment smackdown be revived from on high.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 20, 2001 11:23 PM
Just a thought here, but I am pretty sure that over there in England, they still spell horrible with an h and not an o. Or is it that you are just stupid?
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 23, 2001 12:56 AM
Classic trilogys?
The lord of the rings is a true trilogy, (books).
The others you mentioned were movie/series, that the producers/creators tried to make more money on thier popularity.
If any of the films had bombed there would'nt have been any more.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 29, 2002 2:14 PM
I thought the movie was great. It wa one of the best and most captivating movie i have ever seen. If you think this movie sucks i wanna know what movies you think are good! LORD OF THE RINGS ROCKS!!!
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 10, 2002 9:53 AM
hey, i'm a from Texas, and I saw this movie in Michigan. It was a pretty good movie ay? I ain't never bin to a movie like that before. I can't wait 'til the nextems comes out!!!
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 20, 2003 3:28 PM
your an ass, but your entitled to your opinion ( i say that with pain)
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 14, 2002 9:19 PM
prick
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 10, 2002 9:55 AM
I'd think i'd have to say, that we texans are not pricks, if that what you were goin for!!
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 18, 2002 3:30 PM
well i know more because i have Lord of The Rings on dvd
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 8, 2002 3:19 PM
How can u have it on DVD if it isn't even out of theatres yet, unless you have the version made a few years ago.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 18, 2002 3:31 PM
"http://"!)well i know more because i have Lord of The Rings on dvd
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 21, 2001 5:33 AM
I disagree with you. But I am a closet Lord of the Rings fan. I have heard of Lord of the Rings since I was a kid. But I have never read the books and do not know the full story. I have seen the movie and think it was an amazing and fantastic
movie. But I was lost in some places in the movie. The movie implies that you have read the book. I am planning on reading the book to better understand the movie.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 21, 2001 6:21 AM
They will read it. they'll want to know what happens :)
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 24, 2001 11:57 AM
It is rumored that one day Peter Jackson was in his corn field when a voice whispered to him "If you film it, they will read the book." No lie.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 20, 2002 1:19 PM
I loved the film! It's the best film of the century! I'm fascinated with the J. R. R. Tolkien's world and the wiew of the director is wonderfull!
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by peppermint23 (yes) on January 1, 2002 7:02 AM
i totally agree. although it was pretty close to what i imagined it to be when reading
|
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by Plageous (sportgirl15@hotmail.com) on December 22, 2001 1:30 PM
I agree with what your saying with them bringing this book creation to life, but giving it a 10/10 is a little overboard, it was not that goos. I went to see this movie this morning at Imax and I wasn't overly thrilled with some of the parts in the movie. Though some parts were as you said nail-biting. I disliked the way this movie ended with Frodo and Sam on top of a mountain, it made no sense to me at all. I have not read the books, but caught on fairly quickly because of the narrative explanation and the beginning of the movie. Though I do look forward to seeing the following movies I personally would rate this movie a 7/10. The actors were amazing in their roles and the scenery was excellent I did not like how it jumped from things to things and the ending I was the most unpleased with, either than that it was a good movie and I encourage other who have read the books to see it.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 25, 2001 7:58 PM
The trilogy was intended to be a continuing story one leading diretly into the next the break in the story line was only due to the size of it... the overall story is fantastic, I finished the fellowship book and immediately picked up the next one... it makes sense that some people are disappointed at the end of book one... I'd be too if I had to wait a year to see what happens next... as for the "rush" that was implied by one commentor... I don't think it took away from the story to push so quickly from event to event... I was sorely disappointed not to see Tom Bombadil in the movie but the story didn't suffer... Just my opinion..
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 22, 2002 12:13 PM
In fact it wasn't written as a trilogy. Really just one book, although the approved set I have is 6 books plus a 7th which is appendices -- and the film ends halfway through the 3rd books 1st chapter!
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 22, 2002 12:14 PM
In fact it wasn't written as a trilogy. Really just one book, although the approved set I have is 6 books plus a 7th which is appendices -- and the film ends halfway through the 3rd books 1st chapter!
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 24, 2002 2:08 AM
what the hell is the point of having such a good film with sucha crap ending. i mean sure the book had it but u think they could have done at least a bit better on screen.i just hope when all 3 are put together it resembles something that eqauls a good ending.cant comlplain about the rest of it though.thought it was ace,americans we do spell it horribe and not orribe so stop taking the piss and speark yer own lanuage ye sad ppl
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 10, 2002 10:01 AM
apperently you aren't american either you spell it like this.....HORRIBLE....not orribe or horribe...HORRIBLE get it stright and if your gonna dis someone you better make sure of what your dissing is RIGHT!!!!!
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 2, 2002 2:46 PM
For anyone who has read the books, they would know that the first book ended with Frodo and Sam walking off. The fight in the end of the movie with the orcs and the death of Boromir did not occur until the second book. Good decision on Peter Jackson's part to put that in the first one. Otherwise all your Brittish lamers would be complaining even more. Pull your head out and read the books.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by Loath (sam@aigraphics.com) on December 25, 2001 6:46 AM
For those of you unfamiliar with movie news or the books, there are two sequels coming out. This is not the end, and they made damn sure that just about everyone knew it. I guess they missed a couple.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 26, 2001 9:50 AM
If you like movies with no ending, then you'll like this movie. I sat through it, loved everything about, but no wait, son of a bitch, now I have to wait till next year to see the conclusion. What a f*ckin' dissappointment. Loved the movie, just wish they would of had an ending. sh*t make it a 4 or 5 hour movie, just finish the damn thing, don't leave us hanging for a f*cking year.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 27, 2001 3:12 PM
Two more to go, sort of like with Skullfires Mom. She prefers 3 cacks to only one cack in her mouth.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 27, 2001 5:30 PM
Wait a minute I didn't write that!
My mother is happily married and to the best of knowledge has only been with my father. Perhaps before she married she sluted around, but how is anyone to know that!!!
I have experimented with both boys and girls, and like the feel of both of them. I'm sure you all know what I am saying! Remember in XMen when Iceman makes the ice flower...I would have liked the flower...very much, you know?
Skullfire
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 28, 2001 1:21 AM
Saw the movie yesterday. Never read the book but understood the story beforehand. It was entertaining and in some parts exciting and scary. However, I dont think it exceeded the hype as most people said it did. I thought it was on par with the hype, but thats my opinion. Staunch Tolkien fans would disagree but I guess I feel this way becasue all the movies that come out now are so beautifully done and loaded with special effects that I would expect to see something really different for it to be overhyped. Other than that it was a good movie, Ive gone to the cinema and seen worse, much worse. So Im really not that disappointed nor am I over-excited. I can wait a year to see the sequel.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by Skullfire (skullfire@clarinmail.com) on December 31, 2001 11:49 AM
Skullfire is a X-Man of the future.
And the imperson@tor is a jerk of always.
|
 |
|
RE: Review: Lord of The Rings
|
reply
|
|
Posted by peppermint23 (yes) on January 1, 2002 6:55 AM
the ending was just like the book said the orcs attacked they all got split up frodo and sam left they were right on teh doorstep on mordor when the did this then at the end they were on the mountain just going into mordor it was convenient way to end the first film without to huge a cliffhanger.
|
|
LOTR IS NOT A TRILOGY!
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 30, 2001 9:57 AM
You people have constantly referred to LOTR as a trilogy, when in fact it is not. Read the bloody note on the text. It is in fact a single novel consisting of 6 books plus appendices. Sometimes published in 3 volumes.
|
 |
|
RE: LOTR IS NOT A TRILOGY!
|
reply
|
|
Posted by peppermint23 (yes) on January 1, 2002 7:00 AM
of course it is not a trilogy but most triloly's like starwars are one story in three parts. one film would be inconvenient so three were done and there was even talk before hand of only doing 2 but the record company pushed for three a trilogy. the reason there published in three novels is because there are three separate parts
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 9, 2002 5:31 AM
f*ck ALL OF YOU f*ckING GAY ASS-f*ckERS!!! DIE GO TO HELL! EAT sh*t IN HELL ALL YOU MOTHERf*ckING PIGS!!! LIFE SUCKS AND I'M GOING TO KILL MYSELF AND I HOPE YOU ALL DIE TOO!!! THE WTC FALLING DOWN WAS THE BEST THING EVER!!!
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 7, 2003 11:01 AM
Carsful with swear words man.
|
|
|
Posted by Mr KnowItAll (No Email) on January 26, 2002 10:30 PM
According to any true Tolkien fan like myself this new movie sucks. Except for the general story line (and I mean really general) they have totally written there own script. I personally feel that this movie is a huge insult to J.R.R. Tolkien.
For all you mindless drones who are seemingly unable to read and want a much better account of the events of the books, watch the 1978 and 1980 cartoons, Lord of the Rings and Return of the King.
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 1, 2002 8:03 PM
where can i get the 1980 cartoon?? - i've seen the 1978 one but i didn't think they finished it - maybe australia didn't get it cause we're too busy riding kangaroos..
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 26, 2002 11:59 PM
I just got out from this disgust, 15 minutes ago, and all I want is to share my feelings and sour taste, this waste of time and money left to me. My final classification is �The scariest horror movie ever seen�, where �The Exorcist I, II, and III� all pale like a musical. I am wondering why in US naked breasts, showed only after midnight of course, are faded to mosaic on TV, but extreme hideous violence not. This is even advertised as being a �kids movie� in the ad.
Excerpts from the �master-piece�: (1) A guy with three arrows in his chest, bouncing, still fighting for 10 minutes to be watched like in football from all the possible corners. (2) A slow motion immediately after the previous scene, where another guy drowns into the deeps of the sea (close ups, all the stuff not to forget for a week or two), (3) a satanic figure being born from a muddy-bloody-gummy material (I am 2 years older now�) (4,5,6�) lots of cadavers, fire, screams, one scene tougher than the other. I will say it once and louder: This movie is completely sick!
No need to say that the World is filled with violence enough not to create a horrible unthinkable one (more). I am not a religious person but I got out from the cinema thinking to the accuracy the director and special effects �experts� tried to create the Satan. I must agree on this: They Did It! The creators should seek immediate psychiatric attention. Otherwise, it enjoys very poor computer animation, rendered so bad, that makes your brain hurt while eyes are trying to follow some green landscapes in an unnatural, faded move (I can still feel it).
When the unexpected final scene announced �The End� I heard exhales and laughs (I join the last category). I would have paid $100 to know what the others really think about it (4 stars all around I guess�). Anyway the theatres should be equipped from now on, with seats having sick bags attached (several).
At the exit two guys were wishing everybody a wonderful night� They looked unreal to me. But wait a second� I here some voices, swords clashing, and a crazy laugh� they are coming!
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 28, 2002 3:27 AM
From your review I have to conclude that you are a very misguided individual. If you think all of this about 'The lord of the rings' then God only knows what your opinion of pretty much every other similarly themed movie is. I can't believe you were so offended about the scene near the end when the guy was under water, he didn't even drown you fool! I agree that the film isn't really a kids movie but every single trailer that I have seen for it states that it is not sutible of children under 8. I suggest you check out a movie review site called 'Childcare action project' as I think you'll agree whole-heartedly with their reviews.
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 1, 2002 8:07 PM
you are a wanker
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 5, 2002 5:34 AM
Maybe you should just be put back in your cage and not allowed to watch anymore movies.
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 8, 2002 4:12 AM
1st of all man... i think ur funny 2nd i've seen the movie and from where i come from we are able to wacth it even before its premier in wherever it premiered.. so i think cinemas with sick bags are definitely :)unnecessary..
m'sia boleh
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 29, 2002 7:38 PM
I happened upon a few clips of the Academy Awards and noticed Ian McKellen cuddling with a boy; at first I thought this was just an affectionate son until I read his profile on imdb.com citing that he is "gay and proud." This is totally pathetic--a gay wizard? Gandolf the gay? This is definitely not the type of person that Elijah Wood needs to be pal'ing around with, since he's obviously having a sexual crisis of his own--as indicated in a very reliable magazine--The Enquirer--that he was caught haning out in "boys town" San Fran with a few questionables and hoping around the local love-boat-bar-scene. This movie (LOTR) has been ruined for me, and you won't catch me spending $5.75 to see the next two in the theater. The gays can go have their fun, but not on my dime.
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 29, 2002 7:48 PM
Totally! Man, he's like so gay. I didn't know it at first but I sorta figured it out when he was eye-balling Frodo the dodo in the movie itself. I imagine they had a few private rehearsing lessons but I'd rather not think about that. Pathetic is right. I can't believe they would hire such a little weasle. He's obviously trying to exploit himself to make the people at gay bars more willing.. it's not like everyone wants to score with a 60-year-old. He's had many-o-years to gather his very own collection of venereal diseases (and I stress the plural on diseases). YUCK!
|
 |
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 29, 2002 9:37 PM
I would wager that 50% of the Hollywood population is gay or has been gay at one time. This goes along with my scientific deduction that Hollywood--and their liberalpsychosis pea-brains--are retards and perverts. I say boycott Hollywood! Don't spend another cent on buying their products or watching their shows--starve them out of fame and fortune: turn them out to the careers they're really qualified for.. such as shields of war.
|
 |
|
RE: ... Gay Disease
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 29, 2002 9:37 PM
When I read "Charisma" and "Poop", I laughed.
The people we have in hollywood are good bible-reading, church going, tithing Christians.
Why would they put two characters, that are obviously role models for children all over the world, in the hands of a couple of queers?
No, it cannot be. But then, I cross-referenced the post to Star, Enquirer, and even replayed clips of the Academy Awards.
SHOCKED!
Now when I think about it, I cry.
Gandalf... Frodo... who else? Has the Gay Disease truly penetrated our entertainment industry?
What happened to the old days of I love Lucy and Get Smart?
Who do I blame?
Bill Clinton.
Why?
Oh ho ho...
Read This Book:
"Clinton, the first Gay President" Authors: Leonnard D. Wickslan, Psychologist for the NY Times, who was a personal advisor to Bill Clinton.
Hollywood was our last bastion of Morality. No more...
|
 |
|
RE: ... Gay Disease
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 30, 2002 11:10 AM
I agree with you. Hollywood is code name for "homosexual." I would have to say that more than just 50% are gay however. I would wager that it is more like 99% (excluding some older/classic actors that haven't been perverted by modern society).
I too wonder how this can be: why are there so many homosexuals in Hollywood and why are they all very mysteriously liberal? You'd have to be some kind of a moron not to get the very obvious connection.
Yes, Bill Clinton is gay and Hillary Clinton is really a man, it's been known for some time now. Why do you think there was such stink about Monica and the rest, they were all decoys.
|
|
The elf is also gay
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 5, 2003 12:50 PM
Gosh, I mean is he looks like a girl you know. Besides is he wering a dress and tights in the movie?? At first I thought he was a girl!!
|
 |
|
RE: The elf is also gay
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 5, 2003 1:00 PM
I can't aggree with you more! No wounder he has no girlfriends. Wait... Maby he is a girl...
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 5, 2003 1:09 PM
Not only is this elf gay, but he is so weak! My cat is stronger then him or her, Whatever! Also, doesn't he look like the boso off of Zelda, the vidio game? No offence to thoughs who don't realize this, but eighter the elf is Peter Pan, or belongs with the missfit elfs. Back to stupidity, he is really dumb! And Legalas has a swearword in it!
|
Discuss this story
|
|
 |
 | Win a copy of Striptease!
|
|