OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Handhelds Security The Courts Slashdot.org Technology
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 hof

Sections
apache
Mar 4
(1 recent)

apple
Mar 6
(5 recent)

askslashdot
Mar 6
(9 recent)

books
Mar 5
(2 recent)

bsd
Mar 4
(2 recent)

developers
Mar 6
(6 recent)

features
Mar 3

interviews
Jan 16

radio
Jun 29

science
Mar 5
(7 recent)

yro
Mar 5
(7 recent)

Review:Fellowship of the Ring
MoviesPosted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday December 19, @03:39PM
from the if-you-only-see-one-movie-this-christmas dept.
One of the best perks about my job is the excuse to skip out and catch the first showing of Lord of the Rings at the local theater. I did just that, and if you hit the magic link below you can read my comments on the film. I'm going to keep it short, and spoiler free. In a word? Wow.

Everyone has expectations about this movie. I imagine most of you have read the books. You all have ideas about what a Balrog looks like. What Gandalf is like. And yes, hell, even what the ring should look like. And you simply can't expect a movie to meet everyones ideas... but this thing came just as close as I could have hoped.

In short, there aren't many great movies that come out any more... but this is one of them. Everyone seems nearly perfectly cast. The special effects are nothing short of brilliant. The sets from the Shire on out look so wonderful and believable that you just wanna move in... until the Ring Wraiths show up and make everything all miserable.

Elijah Woods pulls off Frodo quite well. Yeah maybe he fell down one to many times, but the angst is believable. And Gandalf? His desire for the ring is intense and his actions are truly heroic.

I can't imagine a film adaptation of perhaps the best book ever written being done better. The first 45 minutes are a bit slow going, but once the Fellowship starts coming together I just didn't want to blink.

I could find things to nitpick about: some scenes the audio mix wasn't quite right, but that could partially have been the mediocre sound system in the theater: dialog was a bit muffled under the music. Some of the effects were noticably CG, but those were rare. Quite frankly nobody has done CG monsters as convincingly in a film to date. There was a handful of shots that looked faked, and all the rest seemed as perfect as could be.

God damn. The hype is warranted. The wait was worth it. But 12 months for the next one? At least I have my copy of FFX to keep me occupied during maybe 40 hours of the next 8,760 or so I have to wait. But who's counting?

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
  • More on Movies
  • Also by CmdrTaco
  • Features

    Some of Slashdot's more recent features include:

    Review: Fellowship of the Ring
    Satellite Radio: Tune In or Turn Off?
    EverQuest: Shadows of Luclin
    The Age of Paine Revisited
    Felten vs. RIAA Hearing
    Sell Out: Blocking an Open Net
    Constructing a Truly Quiet Gaming PC
    The Hypermedia Hazard
    Net: Now Our Most Serious News Medium?
    Morals and Layoffs
    Civil Liberties and the New Reality

    Update: 2001-12-29 by michael:

    Past Features

    Joss Whedon Is Creating a Sci-Fi Drama For Fox | One Ring Rules the MIT Dome  >
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Review:Fellowship of the Ring | Login/Create an Account | Top | 871 comments | Search Discussion
    Threshold:
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    (1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    Spoiler-free? (Score:4, Insightful)
    by Wakko Warner (a-spammer-stole-t ... lashdot@bitey.net) on Wednesday December 19, @03:40PM (#2728194)
    (User #324 Info | http://vault.bitey.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 26, @12:39PM)
    It's based on a 50-plus-year-old book. Whoever hasn't heard of the plot by now probably has been living under a rock. Why bother keeping it spoiler-free?

    - A.P.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by Neon Spiral Injector (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:42PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Spoiler-free? (Score:5, Insightful)
      by cisco_rob on Wednesday December 19, @03:43PM (#2728208)
      (User #443705 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
      Because hopefully this will be a mythos that a 10-13 yr old audience can enjoy, because as a culture we have very few. Those kids might not have heard of the books, but might see the movies, and might read this site...

      maybe a long shot...
      [ Parent ]
      Re:Spoiler-free? (Score:5, Insightful)
      by cliffy2000 on Wednesday December 19, @03:43PM (#2728212)
      (User #185461 Info)
      Well, this is a mainstream adaptation of the series... and not everyone has read Tolkien.
      To have spoilers wouldn't be right. Don't assume that since you know the plot that everyone does.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by pi radians (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:44PM
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by Bandman (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:44PM
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by Peter Dyck (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:45PM
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by er0ck (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by Wolfstar (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @03:47PM
      • Re:Spoiler-free? by Foochar (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:52PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Spoiler-free? (Score:5, Interesting)
        by glenmark on Wednesday December 19, @04:06PM (#2728428)
        (User #446320 Info | http://techwind.com)

        For another, it was announced well in advance, and shown in the previews, that the basic plot has been altered. There was NO love interest mentioned in Fellowship, yet it's in the movie according to the previews I've seen.

        Admittedly, Arwen's role is greatly expanded in the film (seemingly subsuming the role of Glorfindle at the ford near Rivendell, at least from what I can tell from the previews), but I wouldn't say that the romance between her and Aragorn isn't mentioned in the book. It is, however, only glancingly hinted at. Of course, the story of their romance is expanded upon in one of the appendices. Aragorn's love for Arwen is also the source of his discomfort upon meeting the lovely Eowyn in The Two Towers. Without coming right out and saying so at that point, Tolkien makes it clear that Aragorn feels somewhat guilty about finding Eowyn attractive when his heart already belongs to Arwen.

        It's all in the books, but if you blink, you'll miss it. Subtle nuances that one misses reading the book for the first time as a nine-year-old, then catch years later upon subsequent re-readings as an adult...

        As for omissions, that is entirely understandable. I can't imagine American audiences sitting through a five hour version just to see scenes such as those involving Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights (hmmm, wonder if those parts were actually filmed? DVD anyone?), which, while adding to the overall mythic feel of the story, don't really advance the plot or contribute to character development.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Spoiler-free? by shadowdream (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @11:52PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by cybrpnk (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:49PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Spoiler-free? (Score:5, Informative)
      by Brazzo (brazNO@SPAMmac.com) on Wednesday December 19, @03:52PM (#2728323)
      (User #22202 Info)
      Why? Simple: Peter Jackson changed the story, ever so slightly.

      Granted, it's not huge. There are just minor changes. If you're indifferent about the Trilogy, or even if you're just a casual fan, they won't matter that much. Heck, the changes make for a more marketable, more Americanized Tolkien.

      But, if you're like me, and you're a Tolkien nut, they're big enough to cause you to pause during the movie. They're big enough to make you walk away and think, "Hmm. Not bad, but..."

      It was a good movie. It wasn't, as a friend called it, "The Best Movie, Ever." It definitely wasn't as good as, say, the BBC Radio production. Aside from reading the books themselves, that's still the best adaptation I've seen.

      Still. No spoilers in the review, because there are some people, like me, who've been avoiding all the crap about the movies - I didn't want this to be another Star Wars: Episode I, where I knew almost every line of dialog before I walked into the theater...

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by Breace (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:56PM
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by geekster (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @08:42PM
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by Grab (Score:2) Thursday December 20, @05:12AM
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by Prior Restraint (Score:2) Thursday December 20, @02:01PM
    • Re:Spoiler-free? by micje (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @05:35PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    Good but not great (Score:2, Insightful)
    by craigeyb on Wednesday December 19, @03:45PM (#2728234)
    (User #518670 Info)
    LoTR is good but not great. It does a great job of bringing a mainstream story to the silver screen, but it doesn't introduce any new concepts or demonstrate any real creativity. This makes it a good film. Go ahead and flame me for this.
    [ Parent ]
    This review's good (Score:4, Informative)
    by meehawl (meehawl1@OOOnetsc ... minus threevowels) on Wednesday December 19, @03:45PM (#2728238)
    (User #73285 Info | http://www.meehawl.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 14, @08:55PM)

    This one [nypress.com] says:
    For long sections of the film, I didn’t take any notes; it’s hard to scribble when your jaw is on the floor. ... Visually, the film is astonishing–and nearly unique–because it deploys so much cutting-edge special effects technology with so little fuss. It’s arguably the first film with hundreds of spectacularly busy, yet curiously matter-of-fact, digital effects shots that somehow don’t take you out of the movie.
    [ Parent ]
      Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
      by 4mn0t1337 on Wednesday December 19, @04:05PM (#2728413)
      (User #446316 Info)
      I found my way to a midnight+5min showing last night to see one of the first screenings I could.

      Wow! I have been so afraid for months (years?) now about what it was going to come out like. Ever since I heard that viewers of a pre-screening (Before Cannes last year) had to sign a Non-(negative)-Disclosure, I was doubly concerned.

      Set your goals low and you can be pleasantly surprised. ;)

      I deliberately haven't read the books for a few years now, and I wanted to go into with as "fresh" of pair of eyes as I can. I avoided all the "Making of..."s. I didn't download the quicktime trailers. (well, maybe just one -- but only for a little bit.)

      Sure there are places that didn't stick exactly to the book. That has to be expected.
      Sure stuff got left out. (I thought they could have added 2 more hours. But then no one else would be sitting in the theater.)

      But I am glad they waited this long to do the film. To do it right.

      I was worried about Vigo cast as my favorite character. He did much better than I expected.
      Some one complained about Liv. I'll agree, but didn't let it get in my way.
      They kept the tongue of the Elves. (Subtitles for us non-speakers.) Beautiful.

      The scenery is STUNNING. Allow me to repeat: STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING.
      The sets are fantastic.
      The visuals in a lot of respects are what were in my mind's eye.
      The casting was otherwise great.

      The audience (after lining up for hours -- they opened 3 screens for it as they continuted to sell out of advance tickets all day) and sitting for over an hour in the theaters, was ecstatic.
      They cheered in the battles.
      The crinched in horror at the Balrog.
      And after over 4 and a half hours of sitting (plus the lines just waiting to get in), were visibly and audibly disappointed to see the film end.

      Take everyone you can to see it this weekend. In this age of inflated box office stats, I want to make sure this film sits above the drivel that seems to otherwise draw.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Fantastic! by oscarm (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:26PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @06:34PM
      • Re:Fantastic! by MtViewGuy (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @07:41PM
      • Re:Fantastic! by 3seas (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @07:46PM
      • Re:Fantastic! by CityZen (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @05:38AM
      • Re:Fantastic! [OT] by I. M. Bur (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @09:02AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:This review's good by SickKiwi (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @08:36PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    A chance to pass the book on (Score:2, Informative)
    by spineboy (spineboy@homedotcomcomcom) on Wednesday December 19, @03:45PM (#2728241)
    (User #22918 Info)
    The trilogy enjoyed a resurgence in th 70's and the movie will give it another boost into the limelight again. I hope that this will always be a popular novel - a gateway into reading sci-fi/fantasy for many people. I gave it to my nephew and now he can't get enough of it.
    [ Parent ]
    Liv Tyler (Score:2, Funny)
    by chemical55 on Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM (#2728243)
    (User #446280 Info)
    The movie is amazing and I'm not gonna go into it. (Just see it)

    But Liv Tyler gets on my nerves. How dumb can somebody look? Her elvish was annoying and really took me outta the movie.
    [ Parent ]
    LOTR icon (Score:4, Insightful)
    by TeleoMan on Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM (#2728245)
    (User #529859 Info)
    C'mon Taco... high time for a LOTR/Tolkien icon on slashdot methinks...
    [ Parent ]
    • Especially since... by powerlord (Score:3) Wednesday December 19, @05:06PM
    • My view by ektor (Score:3) Wednesday December 19, @07:32PM
      • Re:My view by scumdamn (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @08:28PM
      • Re:My view (Score:5, Informative)
        by Arandir on Wednesday December 19, @09:15PM (#2729954)
        (User #19206 Info | http://www.usermode.org/)
        What makes the book special is its language and the amazing detail with all the linguistics, anthropology, mythology, poetry, genealogy, geology, etc that J.R.R. Tolkien spent many years researching.

        Then the Silmarillion must, of course, be the better book by far! But a good novel it is not. There were times in the LOTR where I couldn't put the book down, even after the twentieth reading. But I could put the Silmarillion down at any random paragraph. I'm not belittling the Silmarillion, but the LOTR has all the best stuff of Sil. PLUS action, drama, character development, grand literary themes, etc.

        I think the characterization, imagery and locations are very good but not enough to recreate the content of the book.

        Nothing is good enough to recreate the content of the book. But be serious now, did you really expect ANY director to subject the audience to hour after hour of elvish poetry? Would the audience have endured every word spoken at the Council of Elrond? Frankly, even Boromir's lengthy rants about the valor of Gondor every four or five pages would have put me to sleep.

        But the movie did have all that language, linguistics, and anthropology, and even bits of poetry. It didn't have much geology, but then neither did the books (in the Fellowship the only reference I could find is the color of Caradhras).

        We saw Tengwar, Cirth and Anthergas scripts, and even a bit of Futhark! We heard both Sindarin and Quenya spoken. We saw the inscription of the ring, heard the translation proclaimed as a translation, and then heard the orginal in the Black Speech.

        We saw that the only Elves with dark hair were Elrond and his family. That may not be precisely true to the book, but it works to distinguish pure Elves from those with Mannish blood. We saw the creation of the Uruk-Hai, and commentary on them from the Wise. We saw Boromir lament the fallen glory of Gondor. We saw the heirlooms in Imladris and the reverence Aragorn had for them. The anthropology and mythology were there. I suspect that in meeting the Rohirrim and Dunlendings in the second book that we will see even more of it.

        A movie must by its nature be different from a book. A book is all words that the reader must interpret and visualize. A movie is all imagery and dialogue. They are media alien to each other. Where the book described in some detail the ruins at Weathertop, the House of Elrond, the Halls of Khazad-Dum and the Mallorn trees of Lothlorien, we get to see them immediately. This is not a bad thing, but a necessity of the media.

        Of course the book is not like the movie. The only way to make a movie just like a book is to have some orator sit in a chair and recite the book to the camera. Bah! The movie is a good movie. Criticising it because it is not a book is just plain wrong.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:My view by melee (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @03:04AM
        • Re:My view by Prior Restraint (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @03:40PM
          • Re:My view by iamblades (Score:1) Saturday December 29, @09:33AM
    • Ring icon maybe? by DiveX (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @09:45PM
    • Re:LOTR icon by rleyton (Score:2) Thursday December 20, @05:17AM
    • Tengwar != runes by yerricde (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @02:33AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Nothing like seeing it (Score:1)
    by moogla on Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM (#2728249)
    (User #118134 Info | http://moogletown.cjb.net/)
    at 12:01 in a theatre will some of your closest friends. The whole time we were leaning forward with our mouths slackjawed, trying not to blink too much lest we miss something.

    The one thing that was disappointing was the previews. Every one of them was flipped between cuts so fast that after 5 minutes or so, you felt like you were on speed. Thankfully, the opening credits to LOTR were calm, and unoverwhelming.
    [ Parent ]
    My Theater Experience (Score:3, Offtopic)
    by Shaheen (gandhimail@spam.worldnet.att.net) on Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM (#2728252)
    (User #313 Info | http://floach.pimpin.net/visigoth)
    My suitemates and I went to the midnight showing of Lord of the Rings yesterday at a local theater. I was totally impressed by the movie's accuracy. The Gates of Gondor were exactly as I had imagined them when reading the book. Wow.

    However, two things made my experience not the best it could have been:

    1. I half expected Elrond to say "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson"

    2. The audio in our showing became out of synch with the movie during the battle at the Gates of Gondor. I can't believe that I had to sit through the death of Boromir with the audio lagging by 5 seconds!
    [ Parent ]
    Lack of ol' Tom? (Score:1, Interesting)
    by ignipotentis (ignipotentis@echostorm.org) on Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM (#2728253)
    (User #461249 Info)
    At first I was dissapointed at the lack of Tom Bombadil (sp), but afterwords, I realzied he didn't play that big of a part, and it was probably good to cut the movie at 3 hours, instead of dragging it out. Thanks goes to the producers and screen play writers for thinking ahead...
    [ Parent ]
    Gandalf (Score:1)
    by vinnythenose on Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM (#2728254)
    (User #214595 Info)
    I haven't seen it yet, but from the previews Gandalf doesn't seem how I pictured him from the books. Physically yah he's pretty close (Except the hobbit clearly states the beard goes to his toes, but I imagine that could be annoying for the actor)

    Perhaps it will flesh out more when I see the movie, but the previews made him look ultra-super serious which I don't think he was all the time. He was pretty mellow except in extremely serious situation. Especially that clip of him asking "Do you have the ring", it seemed too intense on the preview.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Gandalf by jammer 4 (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:52PM
    • Re:Gandalf by Longstaff (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:42PM
      • Re:Gandalf by riotous (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @03:40AM
    • The Call of Temptation by virg_mattes (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @05:41PM
    • Re:Gandalf by kzinti (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @08:38PM
    • Re:Gandalf by vinnythenose (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @06:51PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    Awesome. (Score:1)
    by xfs (sfx at fade dash out dot org) on Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM (#2728256)
    (User #473411 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    I saw it this morning at 12:01am at a very nice theatre. Didn't hear any of the music problems you mentioned, but that could just be that I was totally entranced by the visuals ;) The fight scenes were well done, the battlescenes breathtaking... I only noticed one or two obvious cg scenes, but they were still fairly well-done.

    Out of 10 stars, I'd rate it about a 9.5 :)

    Good job Peter Jackson =]
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Awesome. by bughunter (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @05:46PM
      • Re:Awesome. by bughunter (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @08:01PM
      • Re:Awesome. by Larry_Dad (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @08:07PM
        • Re:Awesome. by Rolozo (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @11:15PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    I saw it this morning (Score:2)
    by banuaba (drborkNO@SPAMhotmail.com) on Wednesday December 19, @03:46PM (#2728257)
    (User #308937 Info)
    And I've got to grudgingly agree. The thing just kicked my ass and took it home in a box. In a very good way. I mean, I went to the showing expecting to hate Elijah Woods because of what a whiny little bitch he is, but his character got right in tune with the Hobbitt idea that I had cooked up in my brain after about the tenth reading of the trilogy.
     
    I've already got tickets to see it again tonight. woo!
    [ Parent ]
    this? (Score:1, Troll)
    by -razor- on Wednesday December 19, @03:47PM (#2728262)
    (User #69324 Info)
    This counts as a review?
    No kidding it was spoiler-free; it was content-free as well...
    There's a somewhat less mediocre review on kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]. In the comments, there's also links to way more in-depth reviews.
    I saw it last night, read a bunch of reviews this morning to see what everyone else was saying and the best review I read is on IMDB [imdb.com].
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:this? by arrow (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:16PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    What about Glorfindel (Score:1)
    by BCGlorfindel on Wednesday December 19, @03:48PM (#2728269)
    (User #256775 Info)
    -Potential Spoiler Warning-
    Is anyone else out there dissapointed to see Glorfindel's role of chasing the riders into the river being replaced by Liv Tyler? I know, I'm a bit biased myself, but it just seemed to make more sense to send Glorfindel out to meet them than Arwen.
    [ Parent ]
    My entire company is going (Score:2)
    by Quizme2000 on Wednesday December 19, @03:49PM (#2728285)
    (User #323961 Info | http://profiles.yahoo.com/quizme2000)
    My boss is treating everyone in company (about 200 people) to a showing at 2pm. My god he even reserved the tickets. I mean my boss is a hugh LOTR fan, and to allow about 600 hours of work to be skipped and foot the bill for the ticket. I guess I'll have to give him a real christmas present this year!
    [ Parent ]
    Horror'fied (Score:1, Insightful)
    by jammer 4 on Wednesday December 19, @03:49PM (#2728286)
    (User #34274 Info | http://dupadee.net)
    First, let me say I agree totally that this was a GREAT movie. I loved it. I was slightly disappointed though with how often Peter Jackson decided to delve into his roots as a horror movie maker and "scare" us. It just seemed that sometimes the fright and gore was put there just to be shocking and not really move the story.

    The main reason I guess this bothered me is that I think some people will be turned off by the movie becuase of the gore and won't be able to see the incredible story that they brought to life (and they did an EXCELLENT job at bringing it to life). For example, I don't think my kids will be seeing this till their older and I know my wife won't get into it as much because of the gore...
    [ Parent ]
    Um, okay. (Score:4, Interesting)
    by SlashChick on Wednesday December 19, @03:50PM (#2728289)
    (User #544252 Info | http://slashdot.org/~SlashChick/journal/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 06, @01:10AM)
    I got two things out of this review:

    1) CmdrTaco likes his job.
    2) CmdrTaco liked the movie.

    Which is great (I'm glad you liked it.) But this review doesn't tell me anything about why I would like the movie, or even the #1 reason to see this movie according to CmdrTaco. It doesn't even go into detail of why CmdrTaco liked the characters, or which one was his favorite and why.

    "I liked the movie and you should see it" is certainly passable for an elementary school show-and-tell, but for a popular geek website geared toward college students and adults, this doesn't cut it. Most of us have read the books, so even a little "This scene was like the book and that rocked" teaser would be helpful. At least give us one good reason to hand $8.75/person over to the movie theater!

    --
    SlashChick
    [ Parent ]
    • That is taco for you by Nick (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:21PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Um, okay. (Score:5, Insightful)
      by alexjohns (slashdot@almuric.com) on Wednesday December 19, @04:36PM (#2728645)
      (User #53323 Info | http://www.almuric.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 13, @01:43PM)
      Because when he goes into details he gets nit-picked to death by the trolls and /.-haters. For him to say something like: "I really loved the look of the Rock Troll" would be suicide. The purists would tell him that it wasn't an accurate portrayal. The nitpickers would point to faulty CGI in parts and ask him how he could possibly like this part. The /. trolls would come out to tell him that it wasn't a real troll, since it didn't scream 'First Post' in trollish when it lumbered into the room. The Taco haters would use it for ammunition to show how stupid he is, because, obviously, it isn't anywhere near the best part of the movie or even worth mentioning. And so on.

      It's much easier for him to just say "I liked it" and minimze the amount of ammunition he gives to people who seem to have nothing better to do than berate people on here.

      That may not be the only reason, but I bet it's at least part of it. The amount of flamage the staff of /. gets has got to be enormous. Minimizing your exposure is about all you can do, I guess. Just my opinion.

      [ Parent ]
    • here's a GOOD review by devphil (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @05:02PM
    • Re:Um, okay. by Indes (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:10PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    The One Ring? (Score:1, Funny)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19, @03:50PM (#2728294)
    Hmm....anyone seem to remember a Webring of Webrings?

    "One ring to connect to then all, and in the Ethernet bind them..."

    *wince* [Ducks myriad of popcorn and Glossettes from the back of the back of the theatre... [lordoftherings.net]

    Yeesh. Sorry 'bout that...



    What the hell, it's only Karma....
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Galadriel? (Score:1)
    by svara (sva.noosspam.raATgmxFULLSTOPnet) on Wednesday December 19, @03:50PM (#2728302)
    (User #467664 Info | http://www.ypr.34sp.com/)
    I saw the trailer of the fellowship of the ring, and was surprised to see Galadriel appeared in it - doesn't she appear in the second book ("the two towers", iirc) for the first time?
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Galadriel? by jammer 4 (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @03:54PM
    • Re:Galadriel? by Foochar (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @04:02PM
    • Re:Galadriel? by dunkelfalke (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @05:51PM
    • Re:Galadriel? by LightBender (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:32PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    Had to live up the legacy (Score:1)
    by hrbrmstr on Wednesday December 19, @03:52PM (#2728324)
    (User #324215 Info)
    Jackson had no option. It had to be spectacular.

    I'm T-3.25 hours from taking my daughter and 9 of her closest high school friends to the opening for her birthday.

    Her cake will have LOTR mini-action figures.

    Her presents are all (mostly) themed to LOTR.

    She's getting the BBC recordings for Christmas.

    She fell in love with "There And Back Again" when she was small. She became enthralled with LOTR when in high school; and she has lived in middle earth since she read the Silmarillion.

    For my daughter's sake (and for mine! *:^) I hope he really did measure up as well as our benevolent Cmdr said (I have little doubt that it trulyh will be spectacular).

    Ans as for those who remark about spoilers: yes, the story is old and known, but the unknowns are what Jackson & co. modified/whacked -- no T.B., Arewen is a jock, and tons of other small things that will hopefully be overshadowed by a remarkable performance by a very decent cast. I just hope I survive the gaggle of teenagers.

    "For the Shire!"
    [ Parent ]
    Trailer (Score:2, Funny)
    by DEATH AND HATRED (slash_cut_dot@slashdot.orphansonfire.com) on Wednesday December 19, @03:53PM (#2728326)
    (User #158846 Info | http://orphansonfire.com/)
    The icing on the cake? The Star Wars EPII trailer!
    [ Parent ]
    How many times... (Score:2, Funny)
    by doorbot.com (doorguy&doorbot,com) on Wednesday December 19, @03:57PM (#2728360)
    (User #184378 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    ...do we need someone Taco to mention he has Final Fantasy X?

    At least I have my copy of FFX (from this article)
    then play more FFX (slashdot://01/12/19/1356248 [slashdot.org])

    That's two within 6 hours.

    I wonder if you can still beat the game by simply repeatedly pressing the circle button. Call me jaded but the over-hyped FF7 was not that great; maybe I'm just not blinded by all the hype each time an FFn game is released.
    [ Parent ]
    Only.. (Score:1)
    by _marshall on Wednesday December 19, @03:58PM (#2728371)
    (User #71584 Info | http://www.arcaner.com)
    God damn. The hype is warranted. The wait was worth it. But 12 months for the next one? At least I have my copy of FFX to keep me occupied during maybe 40 hours of the next 8,760 or so

    Actually.. if you sleep 8 hours a night.. (365 * 8 = 2920) around 5,840 hours to go

    But who's counting?

    not me =)
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Only.. by gaudior (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @05:20PM
    • Re:Only.. by colmore (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @03:05AM
    Some nits (Score:4, Insightful)
    by ajs (ajs@ajs.com) on Wednesday December 19, @03:59PM (#2728374)
    (User #35943 Info | http://www.ajs.com/~ajs/)
    I saw it almost by accident last night (12:01 showing in Revere, MA). I've got some nits to pick, but was floored overall by the quality of this rendition. I want to make it clear that the small concerns I have below should be the level of critisism that EVERY movie can aspire to, this is not meant to diminish the film.
    1. I understand that a lot had to be cut for time, and to add some hollywood moments here and there, but why remove the repair of Aragorne's sword? It would seem to be critical later on.
    2. Jackson's take on what happens to the wearer when the ring is on is... a little out of place with what Bilbo goes through in The Hobbit
    3. Some of the special effects for the hobbits were inconsistant. I couldn't figure out if they were supposed to be 3 feet tall or 5 (though this faded as I got more into the movie and stopped paying attention to the details of FX)
    4. Gollum's part has been re-worked quite a bit. In place, we're given a visual omen of doom (the creation of the Uruk-Hai). I'm not sure I like that trade-off, though it does make for a more traditional Hollywood action feel, and bad-guy training montages never get old ;-).
    5. Everyone does a great job, but I really felt that Elrond was a little wooden compared to the rest of the cast. In just about any other film his performance would have simply been unremarkable, but the level of acting was so damn good, here....
    Now for just a few things that I think were brilliant:
    1. The eye. 'Nuff said.
    2. I thought that taking Tom Bombadil out of the beginning would break the pacing. Boy was I wrong! It's important in the book because we're being taken on a slow, guided tour of Frodo's education about the world. Tom is a gentle introduction. The movie simply ups the pace, and that works fine.
    3. Someone give Ian McKellan more money... NOW!
    4. The mines were perfectly done. I think that was probably the biggest challenge, visually, in the movie, and it was brilliant.
    Thanks, Peter. Oh, and about making us wait a year... YOU BASTARD! ;-)
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Some nits by bmoyles (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:11PM
      • Re:Some nits by Warin (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @05:35PM
    • Re:Some nits by Falshire (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:48PM
    • Re:Some nits by Freeptop (Score:3) Wednesday December 19, @04:55PM
      • Re:Some nits by Falshire (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @05:13PM
      • Re:Some nits by J. J. Ramsey (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @05:28PM
      • Re:Some nits by FeydReutha (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @02:37AM
      • Re:Some nits by glastonbur (Score:1) Saturday December 22, @04:31PM
    • Re:Some nits by west (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @05:06PM
      • Re:Some nits by Arandir (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @09:55PM
        • Re:Some nits by Flamerule (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @12:18PM
      • Re:Some nits by Xouba (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @03:54AM
      • Re:Some nits by Westacular (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @02:40PM
    • Re:Some nits by John_Booty (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @05:15PM
    • Re:Some nits by micje (Score:2) Wednesday December 19, @05:22PM
    • Re:Some nits by Ryano (Score:2) Thursday December 20, @05:49AM
    • Re:Some nits by irlbinky (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @05:53AM
    • oops try again by irlbinky (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @06:08AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Nitpick: Gandalf Humour (Score:2, Redundant)
    by handorf (handorf@penguinAR ... ASEGODpowered.com) on Wednesday December 19, @04:01PM (#2728387)
    (User #29768 Info | http://handorf.penguinpowered.com/~benvh)
    OK, I loved the movie. Very nice. They cut the right parts and I have no major bitches about the changes... save one:

    Was anyone else pissed off when Gandalf was made to look like a bit of a tottering old fool? In general, for the first 20-30 minutes, but specifically hitting his head on the DOOR? I mean JINKIES! He's a bloody WIZARD, one of the most powerful beings in middle earth. I don't recall him hitting his head on a bloody DOOR in the book!

    OK, end rant. Good movie. Go see it if you haven't.
    [ Parent ]
    My FOTR Review (Score:4, Insightful)
    by Dark Paladin (dpaladin@gamerspress.com) on Wednesday December 19, @04:04PM (#2728409)
    (User #116525 Info | http://www.gamerspress.com)
    Quick Note

    This is to the people who feel the need to bring their 2 year olds to midnight movie premieres. You shitheads are going to rot in your graves the next time you do that. If you're too fucking cheap and lazy to get a babysitter, then stay the hell home and don't ruin it for the rest of us. I like kids, but I do not want to hear them crying their eyes out because the movie gets loud, or when I go kick in their parents teeth for being selfish pricks.

    Thank you. We now continue with the review.

    Holy Fucking Shit

    When I was 15 years old, I dated a girl named Denise. Denise was a tall (3 inches taller than myself) redhead, full of curves up top, a flat belly in the middle, and blood as hot as fire. When she graduated and left for MIT (she was a senior, I was a junior) it broke my heart.

    I'll always remember one spring day in Washington, when she drove her car (she was 16, you realize) to the park. I won't go into detail, but the next 90 minutes in the backseat was one of the most incredible moments of my life, and the only thing that went through my head during the experience (which left windows fogged and two teenagers slick with sweat) was "Holy Fucking Shit".

    13 years later I'm watching Peter Jackman's adaptation of "The Fellowship of the Ring" (FOTR). I'm not even going to pretend that it was even close to making out with Denise in the back of her car. But only one thought went through my head when the closing credits aired.

    Holy.

            Fucking.

                    Shit.

    For those who have missed the last 50 years

    Once upon a time, there was this bad ass named Sauron, and he made this bad ass Ring. This wasn't just any Ring. With it, he could control all of these other powerful rings and the people who used them. It also turned him into the ultimate kick ass guy. He'd sweep his sword once, and 20 men would go flying. Entire buildings were built with the force of this ring. The ultimate in evil, The Spice Girls weren't created from the Ring - but the Backstreet Boys were.

    Well, one day Sauron decimating people left and right gets his fingers chopped off (not so invincible now, are ya?) and he gets destroyed. No, not really. Turns out that he put a large part of his own soul into the Ring, so as long as the ring exists, he exists. And the Ring wants to return to his master, for with it great and terrible things can be done. (Like Austin Powers 3.)

    For the Ring is evil. Not as in an evil thing, but as in an intelligent thing, one that tempts and corrupts all who touch it. (Kind of like Don King. Only without the stupid ass hair.) People just looking at it lust after it (like Denise and me), they need it, and only those pure of heart can hold it for long - and even these will ultimately become corrupted by the Ring.

    The ring, after betraying it's new wielder, passes from hand to hand, to Gollum who hides in the mountains, to Bilbo Baggins, who just happens to get lost in the mountains, and finally to Frodo, a young man who has no idea of the can of whoop ass he's holding in his hand.

    And this is where the story begins.

    Where the hell is page 53?

    "The Lord of the Rings" is a very long, and in my humble opinion, rather slow series of books. Events can take months to happen, and most of the books are spent with people talking their lips off at each other. Yes, it's all cool and good and the story of nobility and betrayal is the basis for pretty much all our fantasy today. But damn, it's long in getting there.

    The movie for FOTR gives the story a much needed jolt in the ass. Months are shortened to days, but they don't lose the core of the story. Just moves it along a little faster. We see Gandalf, master wizard and know-it-all at large, discovering that this magic ring his friend Bilbo has is The friggin' ri

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Parent ]
    Stuff I loved, and some not [SPOILERS] (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Gregoyle (gUNDERSCOREpelcakATyahooDOTcom) on Wednesday December 19, @04:09PM (#2728453)
    (User #122532 Info)
    That's labelled SPOILERS not because I give away the plot here, but because I give away some of the stuff people who've read the book might like to be surprised about upon seeing the movie. You have been warned. Since I got laid off a couple months ago, I had the sleep to spare to go see the 12:01 showing :-).



    Things I love:

    Oh my god the cinematography was incredible!! Many people usually say that to mean that the landscapes were great, and it sort of implies the whole _Braveheart_ thing of the characters walking on mountain ridges while the camera pans quickly about them. LotR has those, but some of the other cinematography is just as impressive. I'm talking lighting, focusing on characters' faces on key moments, and awesome camera angles. One cool thing that I think they got from the animated movie of all things was when the Nazgul attack the Prancing Pony at Bree. You'll have to see it, but my heart was in my throat.

    The acting(??)!! I couldn't believe it, but almost all the characters were well acted. I mean, REALLY well acted. I very much expected to be disappointed by the acting, because it is par for the course in any kind of sci-fi or fantasy or epic or even "big" movie. Not so here. I was blown away.

    The story. It was also amazing the Jackson didn't screw it up. There were some things I wish he had kept, but brevity *is* the soul of wit, at least when 3 hour feature films are concerned. Any deviations he made seemed perfectly justified to me, and some of them were really needed to make the film flow faster. The bit with Merry and Pippin and the fireworks was hilarious, and it allowed for good quick characterization of both of them. Pippin almost seems a whipping-boy for Gandalf throughout the movie, but it's all because of his foolishness.

    Stuff I didn't like as much:

    Aragorn. Aragorn was probably my second favorite character in the book (next to Faramir), and I didn't like the way he was portrayed as bearing a family "weakness". He isn't really supposed to be a "weak" character that needs to prove himself. In my mind he's supposed to be a breath from the amazement of the men of Westernesse. You kind of get a glimpse of what men used to be when you see him. Not so for this Aragorn. I very much understand why he's protrayed this way; in order to be an interesting movie character he needs to grow. He needs to come out of his insecure shell and become the king he was prophesized to be. I'm hoping that once he grows he'll recapture the wonder of Numenor(sic?).

    Boromir was too "evil" feeling. I never had the impression that he was more than just prideful and slightly arrogant. In the movie he feels deceitful and a little slimy. I also understand why that needed to be done, there needed to be more "undertones" within the party.

    Galadriel was too mystical. She was more of a "witch woman" than one of the last of the Noldor. This is really the only one I don't think was justified, but it was very minor in my eyes. It was almost just a different way of interpreting the character, so I don't hold it against the director. The contrast between her as the "terrible queen" and the elf queen was awesome though.

    OH OH OH. Gollum ROCKS!!

    [ Parent ]
    I fell asleep (Score:1)
    by Vspirit on Wednesday December 19, @04:10PM (#2728457)
    (User #200600 Info | http://www.sophistic.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday March 03, @04:35PM)
    It is now 22hours since I saw it in Denmark.
    Our theater had cut the show in two halfs.
    Personally I fell asleep in 2nd half.

    But I certainly dreamt nicely.

    something about elves, dwarfes, and tall men with long white beards. did your version also contain sex?
    [ Parent ]
    A classic AICN review (Score:2)
    by tswinzig on Wednesday December 19, @04:11PM (#2728470)
    (User #210999 Info | http://teddy-swinzig.com/)
    I love this kind of 'review.' Absolutely no spoilers, just an overall reaction to the film.

    Why the hell would I want to read an in-depth review of a film that I am getting ready to go see? It's almost as bad as those trailers that give you a summary of the movie instead of a teaser...
    [ Parent ]
    Perks? (Score:2)
    by isorox on Wednesday December 19, @04:11PM (#2728477)
    (User #205688 Info | http://www.xtv.org.uk/)
    One of the best perks about my job is the excuse to skip out and catch the first showing of Lord of the Rings at the local theater.

    And that's so much better then free coffee, think about the number of times you can make use of it!

    [ Parent ]
    So when's "Episode 1" out? (Score:1)
    by jamieo on Wednesday December 19, @04:13PM (#2728484)
    (User #22197 Info | http://popdog.dyndns.org/)
    Any bets on when Episode 1 (aka The Hobbit) will come out?

    Given the popularity of LotR at the moment - and over the next 2 years, all the marketing, merchandise, etc. it's bound to happen isn't it...
    [ Parent ]
    Slow going? No way! (Score:1)
    by binaryfeed (jeff@dontspambinaryfeed.org) on Wednesday December 19, @04:13PM (#2728493)
    (User #225333 Info | http://binaryfeed.org/)
    I felt like the whole thing was on fast-forward. Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the movie, but the whole thing was compressed.

    The first 45 minutes were especially compressed. No Bombadil, no Barrow Wights / Barrow Downs, c'mon!

    Still as an avid Tolkien fan (I've read LOTR 18 times, The Hobbit 6 times and the Silmarillion 2 times), I was both impressed and satisfied. I'm going to see it again today, in fact. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Ummm, OK. (Score:1, Interesting)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19, @04:14PM (#2728499)


    "If only the MPAA [slashdot.org] would go under." - CmdrTaco

    (((But only after CmdrTaco sees this awesome movie! In a word, WOW!)))

    "The only question is when will the MPAA [slashdot.org] give up? " - CmdrTaco

    (((Hopefully not before CmdrTaco has a chance to see this great movie! God Damn!)))

    "We should have the Stalin award for entities advancing the destruction of the first ammendment. We can nominate the evil organizations oppressing freedom of speech like the MPAA. [slashdot.org]" - CmdrTaco

    (((Freedom of speech? Who cares! LOTR RULES! WOW!)))

    "long before CDA, RIAA, MPAA [slashdot.org], DMCA, and the USPTO, there were other entities all too willing to block access to information." - CmdrTaco

    (((As long as they don't block CmdrTaco's access to this AWESOME MOVIE! WOW!)))

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Ummm, OK. by CodeShark (Score:1) Wednesday December 19, @04:35PM
    Please (Score:1)
    by Jack Web on Wednesday December 19, @04:30PM (#2728597)
    (User #537587 Info)
    Come on, people. Its a MOVIE. It's not going to be EXACTLY LIKE THE BOOK. Judge it by how close it did come to the book, which was pretty damn close by Hollywood standards. And another thing, stop expecting people to spoon-feed it to you! Taco's review of the film was HIS review. If you didn't get anything from it, GO SEE THE MOVIE and for your own opinion. This is a tech page, where folks are supposed to have a brain in their head. Don't forget to turn it on. Yes, the movie kicked ass.
    [ Parent ]
    Things I Missed From The Book (Score:3, Interesting)
    by John_Booty ([johnbooty] [at] [bootyproject.org]) on Wednesday December 19, @04:31PM (#2728601)
    (User #149925 Info | http://www.bootyproject.org/)
    First of all, it's a great movie. Secondly, they did a good job at choosing what to include from the novel. They couldn't have included everything- the movie would have been ten hours long (not that I would have minded). But having said that, here's things from the novel that I missed seeing in the movie. :(
    • Gimli's character was in the movie, but I wish he had more lines. He was one of my favorite characters in the books, but was just sort of a grunting axe-swinger in the movie
    • Gandalf's laughter after solving the "speak, friend, and enter" puzzle (or non-puzzle, hehe)
    • Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-Wights
    • Leisurely pace that made the action seem more intense and gave a greater sense of the scope of their journey. The movie was all action, which was kind of desensitizing.
    • Gandalf wondering if the galloping horses in the water were stylistic overkill (the water that carried the black riders away)
    [ Parent ]
    Call me crazy... (Score:4, Funny)
    by Enrico Pulatzo on Wednesday December 19, @04:32PM (#2728612)
    (User #536675 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    I know it sounds weird, but the addition of the Ewoks really made sense.
    [ Parent ]
    I was fairly dissapointed actually (Score:2, Funny)
    by Grelli (grelli@notthe51ststate.com) on Wednesday December 19, @04:34PM (#2728623)
    (User #98061 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    I too made it to a midnight showing. And I sat through the first 2 hours of the movie, and loved every minute of it. Then just when I thought nothing could ever go wrong with the movie, it happened.

    Apparently, the film that was being fed into the projector jumped, wrapped itself around something, locking a frame in place.

    I saw a frame MELT before my eyes on the silverscreen. I now have a free pass to see it again. I'm in pain. Let's hope I have better luck second time around.

    [ Parent ]
    Katie (Score:1)
    by alen on Wednesday December 19, @04:35PM (#2728636)
    (User #225700 Info)
    We all love her

    [ Parent ]
    Saw it last night @ 12:00am... (Score:1)
    by cr0sh on Wednesday December 19, @04:37PM (#2728656)
    (User #43134 Info | http://www.phoenixgarage.org/)
    Note: I don't think I have put any spoilers in, so this will be pretty bland - but if I have, please forgive my inclusion - I have not meant to give anything away...

    I can honestly say I was impressed with this film. From beginning to end, I sat entranced. Oh, sure - I noticed parts left out, parts put in that were not in the original, as well as other changes made - but most were due to limitations of the cinema, and it was apparent they were not done on a whim. A lot of times, had the parts been left in, the movie would have been 5 or 6 hours long, and not the three it already was.

    The movie starts out carefree - mostly with a sense of innocence. It is apparent that Gandalf is trying not to think of the real reason why he is in the Shire, and instead think about the party. However, it quickly becomes clear that things are not alright in Middle Earth, that there is evil afoot.

    So, Sam and Frodo, with urging from Gandalf, begin their adventure (I should say, a little reluctantly)...

    All of the characters are presented well: Gandalf is at times wise and easy going, at other times, very stern - and still others, such a force to be reckoned with it makes you move away from the screen!

    Frodo is an individual forced to grow up quickly - to leave his roots in the Shire, where things were safe, and bear his burden until the end. Sam is ever there, always stalwart and ready to help regardless of the problem. Merry and Pippin are not really fleshed out well, though - they seem put in (for this movie) as "comic relief" - but when it comes, it is certainly welcome.

    Bilbo is only seen for a few scenes (much like the book), but one scene showed a side of him, because of the ring's influence, that both frightened me for Frodo, and made me pity Bilbo.

    I want to go on - but this thing would get ultra long - I have to say that what I think makes a good movie is how well it "moves" me, how well it causes my emotions to run. I have to say, this movie brought them all out. I felt at times joyous and peaceful, at other times fearful, and sometimes angry. There were times of mirth interspersed as well. Sadness was there, too. Excitement and danger seemed ever present.

    Cinematically, the film was excellent - the Shire was the Shire. Bree, though, seemed both small and large to me, whereas it seemed much smaller to me in the book. Isengard was amazing, both before (a beautiful land), and after - sadly. The passage through Moria was a visual treat as well - much larger than what I felt the book was like, which served it well. The sweeping vistas of many of the scenes make me wish it had been playing at one of the IMAXs here locally - maybe one day they will play it on one...

    Oh, and finally - the one creature you really pity is Gollum. Portrayed as one foul and odious creature, there still seems to be something about him that makes you wish you could make it all better, or something...
    [ Parent ]
    so many characters; so little time (Score:3, Interesting)
    by peter303 on Wednesday December 19, @04:46PM (#2728709)
    (User #12292 Info)
    Reminded me of wedding where you briefly meet alot of long lost relatives who become blurred in your memory. There were the nine in the Fellowship, a couple of Elf Lords, a flaky uncle, two big bad guys, and a token love interest. Thats 16 main characters without mentioning the minor ones. Everyone gets 15 seconds of fame and recedes into the background. If I hadn't read the book six times I would have been lost. Another recent movie- Oceans 11- has about the same number of major characters, yet I felt I knew them better.
    [ Parent ]
    Teletubbies, Munchkinland, Mohicans? (Score:2)
    by peter303 on Wednesday December 19, @04:50PM (#2728736)
    (User #12292 Info)
    Sounds like an answer in Jepoardy.
    New Zealand was beautiful, though many of the
    scenes in the movie reminded of other movies.
    [ Parent ]
    Dear CmdrTaco: (Score:2)
    by dimator on Wednesday December 19, @04:53PM (#2728753)
    (User #71399 Info | http://www.linux.ucla.edu/~dimator/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 03, @08:42PM)
    I hate you so much. You watch movies, you play video games, you go to conventions. I hate you so much. Get a job. I hate you so much.
    [ Parent ]
    Re:Spoiler Free (Score:1)
    by greyfeld on Wednesday December 19, @04:55PM (#2728760)
    (User #521548 Info)
    There is one problem with leaving Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wight scenes out of the movie. While Bombadil and Goldberry play no part at all in the adventures that follow, Pippin and Merry get their swords (or rather daggers) from the barrow wight mound after they are saved by Bombadil. Merry's sword plays a vitally important role in the last episode - The Return of the King - so it will be interesting to see how they get these to them because undoubtedly they will have to be brought into the movie somehow.

    Really looking forward to the show tonight at 7:30 and got free tickets to boot. WOOT!

    [ Parent ]
    Never read the book - want to now :) (Score:1)
    by niola (jon@mediavortex.com) on Wednesday December 19, @04:56PM (#2728763)
    (User #74324 Info | http://www.mediavortex.com/)
    As somemeone who never read the ook, this movie has made me want to pick up a copy of the first book now and to some comparisons. This film was so beautifully filmed. The scene with the troll and the scene with the Balron were some great effects. I would also have to say that the Orcs looked evil as shit and gave you the willies. Great film! Only issue I had was when it ended it, though I have been told that is where the book ended, it did not feel like a natural ending. In fact, I was so caught up with the movie that when it ended I was pissed :) I wanted it to keep going! In like 2004 when they will probably release a DVD box set it will be awesome to watch the whole trilogy straight through :)

    --Jon
    [ Parent ]
    Warning Spoilage (Score:1)
    by dtd201 on Wednesday December 19, @04:57PM (#2728767)
    (User #220624 Info)
    I thought the movie was awesome. The battle with the Balrog was incredible. The only thing I didn't like was the weakening, ever so slighty, of Frodo's character. At the mountain, he just lets the Ring Wraiths stab him instead of fighting back. Also Frodo does not attack the hill troll using sting like he does in the book. Other than that, I have no complaints. I will be sure to see it again just for the balrog scene.
    [ Parent ]
    This little "review" at IMDB... (Score:1)
    by jguevin on Wednesday December 19, @05:07PM (#2728818)
    (User #453329 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    ...makes me want to want to see this movie all the more:
    I was looking forward to this movie and I didn't read the book before and maybe this was my fault. After 1 1/2 hours I couldn't understand what was going on, remeber all the names and places. So I got lost in all this stuff, not knowing what's going on. In my oppinion the movie has also no real ending! Ok, there'll be a sequel but a 3-hour movie without an ending, not knowing what happens is just boring! I didn't like the movie at all! Sorry guys!

    This tells me that those who speak English passably, have some attention span, and have read the books will love it. Hooray!
    [ Parent ]
    as spoiler free as i can make it... (Score:1)
    by Cruciform (cruciform@NoSPam.digitalextremes.com) on Wednesday December 19, @05:08PM (#2728825)
    (User #42896 Info | http://www.digitalextremes.com/)
    It wasn't the fiery balrog that sucked me in, nor any of the really over the top special FX. It was the subtleties, like how the size of the characters just seemed to work. The only reason Frodo or Sam looked a little out of place sometimes is because we've all seen Elijah and Sean in other movies.
    It's been 19 years since I read the books, but even I noticed changes here and there. Nothing that kills the spirit of the movie though. The characters, especially Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn are portrayed beautifully.
    The ringwraiths get the CG treatment too, but rather than trying to make them in-your-face, almost everything about them seems understated... something which makes them even more menacing. They're just predatory shadows waiting to run you down.
    Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett make me wish I could speak Elvish and that I had an exceptionally large tree under wish Santa would leave them.
    It rocks, but it does leave you hungry for more. At first I thought the emptiness I felt was disappointment, but it was just hunger for the next two parts.
    This is a definite must see movie for anyone who has ever enjoyed Tolkien or the genre of fantasy in general.
    [ Parent ]
    Great Movie. (Score:1)
    by Dwain_Snyders (dwS4inSPAMs@amd.com) on Wednesday December 19, @05:08PM (#2728827)
    (User #412284 Info | http://www.amd.com)

    Overall, it was brilliant. The adaptation was ner-perfect. The scenery was stunning, the characters played their parts well (especially Boromir, Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Galadriel....heck, all of them, really)..... but Sean Bean (Boromir) gets my vote for best supporting actor. His performance was astounding.



    There was no part of the movie where I thought: "No no! It shouldn't be like that...it should look totally different ..."... the screen adaptation that Peter Jackson did was very, very well thought out, and executed brilliantly. If he isn't considered director of the year, I will be very, very surprised.


    Of course, no adaptation could be perfect, and here are some of the things that annoyed me:


    They left out quite a bit of it, such as Tom Bombadil, the details of Bill the Pony, and they cut out entire speeches .... Galadriel to Frodo : "Small people can do big things."


    Sheeeesh!


    Overall, though, I don't think that a better adaptation could have been made... Peter Jackson is a true genius.

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Sean Bean by MartinB (Score:1) Thursday December 20, @06:53AM
    Question - Age of Kids at Movie?? (Score:2)
    by superid on Wednesday December 19, @05:10PM (#2728840)
    (User #46543 Info)
    I have 3 kids, 6, 9 and 11. How "age appropriate" is this movie? I'm sure its ok for the oldest, questionable for the middle, and probably not for the youngest? Note, they are all well behaved and never make a peep in movies so don't worry, we won't spoil your fun :)
    [ Parent ]
    Another Generation of lusers (Score:5, Funny)
    by The Ape With No Name on Wednesday December 19, @05:12PM (#2728847)
    (User #213531 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 13, @02:29PM)
    My only bitch is that I will have another bunch of dweeb kids who want to have their username/password to be:

     
    SunOS 5.8

    login: gandalf
    password: 6O11uM


    Please, God. Spare me.
    [ Parent ]
  • 34 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • (1) | 2 | 3 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
      Tcl tends to get ported to weird places like routers. -- Larry Wall in <199710071721.KAA19014@wall.org>
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]