Lord of the Rings: Two Towers Reviews Rolling In 440
flogger writes "After the first showing of The Two Towers, the reviews are now coming in. They are positive and SPOILER FILLED. Reviews can be found here, here and a short one here." Don't say you weren't warned. I'm not reading them. I finished re-reading TTT saturday, and am ready to see Ents walk.
I can wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, it is entirely possible that I will wait until the "Final" movie is released and get the "Super Mega Ultra Complete (untill the Sequel/Prequel) Boxed Set Collectors Version Directors Cut" and waste a whole week watching it.
Or I might just keep my money in my pocket and read a good book.
about spoilers (Score:5, Insightful)
Andrew O'Hehir [salon.com], at Salon.com
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you do that?
So you know whether or not you liked the film?
Szo
Re:Spoilers?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of spoilers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trailers are evil and spoilery.
Re:Speaking of spoilers... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:2, Insightful)
STUPID CLAIMS (Score:1, Insightful)
It's all a puritanistic approach, instead of seeing the true problem. I watched "Bowling for Columbine" flick the other day, and saw the true face of America, and not the one that they made the World Trade Center a god. It is horrible to see people die -- that's no fact it's reality.
But the claims of "...oooh don't say twin towers we recall the tragedy" is so stupid that it reaches on the same level as the cause of selling guns in America that lead to the youth shoots. You can see how fanatic you have been with no fault of your own. Instead of weeping over titles that are meaningless as if Tolkien knew the future and said "Heh I am going to entitle the next book 'Two Towers' so that in a sadistic way I will take revenge for the Americans after Grave", you should get yourselves into the real threat, your children's influence, the war that is destined to become another vietnam because of inability of the government administration and the genral status of the economy.
Sometimes I like that I am in a country that has real problems and not in a country that likes to create problems just to know that it is there.
Re:Trolling avoidance FAQ V1.0b (Score:1, Insightful)
Could you expand this faq to be a general "how and what to post?"If so, I would like to add a these points:
You are not funny if you post these "jokes":
2)something
3)???
4)profit
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are also some of us (well, me at least) who read the books many years ago and can only remember sketchy details. I don't know if being reminded of forgotten plot points counts as being spoiled, but I'm happier rediscovering them as the films progress.
Re:Unbiased reviews (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the imdb [imdb.com] - it has a 9.5 right now. I remember when the FOtR came out and it jumped to number one on the "best movies ever" list (#1 fantasy movie of all time, sure, #1 movie of all time, not quite). Eventually it settled to a more realistic spot.
If I got to see it right now, I would probably gush about it and inflate it's value too. But give me two months and I'll tell you how good it really was.
Re:I can wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that a plethora of "Director's Cut" DVDs argue against this claim notwithstanding, you are mistaken.
The director's cut is, simply enough, the director's last contribution to the film. Only a handful of directors are so well-respected/full of themselves to have so-called 'final cut' rights, wherein the director's cut really IS what you see on the theater screen.
For those directors not lucky enough to be in this group of maybe 5-10 directors, once they've finished their cut the film goes to the producers, who remove scenes that drag, reposition scenes to improve the flow of the story, and generally do their best to make sure the film is as accessible and lucrative as possible.
Some producers are phenomenally good at this. Jerry Bruckheimer springs to mind. He is as famous and sought after as he is because he can take a movie that's an utter piece of crap and turn it into a moderately high grossing piece of crap.
But, given that it is the fashion of the moment in Hollywood to imbue the director with a mystique that suggests he is the only person that really, truly counts when it comes to filmmaking, it is inevitable that "Director's Cut" DVDs get made. After all, who knows better than the director how the movie should be?
The sad truth that most movie fanboys (and naturally directors) ignore is that usually the director's cut is inferior to the cut put together by a talented producer. Often the director is so close to the source material that he cannot see subtle errors or elements that are inaccessible to the audience, let alone places that are simply uninteresting or weak. To him, those things have become a natural part of the plot, something the viewer *has* to see to truly appreciate the film.
Such problems are only compounded when the director, in addition to usurping the role of the producer, takes on the task of a screenwriter as well. None of these roles is especially easy, and while I concede that a rare individual might combine all the talents necessary to be a good writer, director and producer, I am quite unconvinced that any such individuals are presently working in the industry.
One example of this last should suffice: George Lucas' recent Star Wars films. Who out there hasn't longed for a "Producer's Cut" of Episode 1, where Jar Jar is silently snipped from sight for all time? Or for a "Talented Writer's Cut" of Episode 2, where Anakin is treated with more subtlety, given nuances of darkness rather than blatantly plotted as an angsty misunderstood passionate teenager whose turn to the dark side is inevitable?
Re:What disappointed me... (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said each of the six 'books' (each book in the trilogy is divided into a pair of 'books') has *some* resolution though sometimes an unhappy one and for obvious reasons usually a "cliffhanger"). At the end of the first book they make it to Rivendell, at the end of the second (the end of FOTR) the fellowship is broken, etc. By ganging up two 'books' into one book or movie you sort of dilute the feeling of resolution because half of the FOTR takes place before the fellowhip is even formed so it's disolution is less satisfying as an (cliffhanger) ending. Which makes me wonder if they could have pulled it off as six two-hour movies. Each movie would feel a little more complete on it's own by telling a smaller but more satisfyingly resolved story. They certainly seemed to have enough footage and even though I really liked FOTR I have to say 3.5 hours for the director's cut starts to get overwhelming/tedious. From a mercenary standpoint for the studio that is twice as many movie tickets/DVD/merchandise sales.
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite effective, actually.
Comic Relief (Score:4, Insightful)
We need comic relief in epic movies as much as we need Jar Jar Binks to show up in The Return Of The King. IMHO it is atrocious to have humor in any serious work of epic scope. I never felt that Gimli served that purpose in the novel and I certainly despise this act by Peter Jackson.
Improvement? (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope the sense of time is better in TTT (Score:1, Insightful)
But there was a little problem: the sense of time. In the book, there are weeks(months ?) that pass between the party Baggins throws at the beggining and the end of the book, where is in the movie it seems that the total adventure runs a few days only. This resulted to the movie missing some of the epic tone of the book.
I hope that they have done a better job in TTT regarding time.
Re:Spoiler filled? (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. Films aren't jack-in-the-boxes or jokes with punch lines.
Path (Score:2, Insightful)
In the map, I can see that Minas Tirith, Osgiliath, the Cross Road, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, and then Mt. Doom went almost in a straight line. So, it's only logical for me that the great battles should take place somewhere in this line, rather than far north in Morannon.
When Frodo arrived in the Black Gate of Morannon, Gollum argued that Sauron's attention would be concentrated in the north. 'He thinks no one can come to the Moontower without fighting big battles at the bridges, or getting lots of boats which they cannot hide and He will know about'. Off course Gollum was probably lying, but to me that statement was very ridiculous. After all, though he had enemies all round him, Minas Tirith was the nearest and that path was the most logical
When finally the Captains of the West captured the Crossroad (without big battles at the bridges, nor lots og boats), they again make a ridiculous move by riding north for several days to knock Mordor at their 'front door'. Off course Gandalf supposedly try to drive Sauron's attention away from Cirith Ungol where Frodo would pass, but actually he should know (by Faramir's account) that at that time Frodo was long gone from the pass
And then a logical move for Sauron is to take back the Crossroad (instead of moving his army to the north) and then either chase the silly army from behind of attemp another strike at Minas Tirith. After all he still outnumbers his enemies many time over at that point
Well, that's what's bugging me, hope someone could give a logical explanation
Re:What disappointed me... (spoiler) (Score:3, Insightful)
But it seems to me that some people missed the conflict and resolution of Fellowship even when the director ADDED AN ADDITIONAL SCENE OF DIALOG BETWEEN ARAGORN AND FRODO TO MAKE THE CONFLICT EXPLICIT! The conflict is that the ring corrupts everything that comes near it making the Fellowship its self a threat to the quest. The resolution is that Ringbearer tries to go alone.
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Path (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, even if his goal is capturing the Ring Bearer, why not lay siege to Minas Tirith?? You stand a good chance of uncovering the Ring Bearer in due time, you have the troops, you don't leave your enemies unhindered to plot against you. You either starve Minas Tirith or make the ring bearer show himself in their rescue.
I would think that under any circumstances I would at least have small patrols at each bridge. Not only for looking for the ring bearer, but for policing and taxation.
They also must be pretty sure that Sauron is too stupid to run. They do no work trying to make sure the area is secure. There is no intelligence gathering beyond a 1-2 night look over of the outside of the gates. Although I find it hard to believe that Sauron could be that stupid and old at the same time.
I guess that the real points are this: Tolkien was a linguist, not a strategist, and in his utopian society the evil lord doesn't even collect unjust taxes from public works like bridges.
The first rule in taking over any land is control the lanes and means of transportation. This restricts supply, etc. The second is to limit communication. Sauron does neither. The only good explanation is Hubris. Again, how can he be this stupid and old??
~Hammy
Spoilers (Score:2, Insightful)