Purists: Rate FOTR as a movie!

[Darth Saruman]

Forget about Tolkien. Forget that there ever was a book on LOTR. As disgusting as this may sound to you, pretend that PJ came up with the material all on his own and chose to make a movie out of it. Forget about your dislike for PJ himself!

Rate FOTR as a movie with an original screenplay, not as an adaptation!

Out of 5 stars.

[Talimon]

That depends what you compare it to. But I'd say that if you compare it to other fantasy films it's easily the best one ever made and as such deserves 5/5.

If you compare it to other films in general I personally would give it a 4/5.

But then again I don't really consider myself a "purist", only someone who has incalcuable love and admiration for Tolkiens work, and all other good works.

[Thorin]

Out of 5 doesn't leave much for an explainable margin....I would have to say 3 out of 5, but I would rather prefer 6.5 out of 10.

As Talimon said, as far as fantasy movie goes, it was quite good. I felt that all the awards it won at the Oscars, it deserved...I also think it deserved a few more technical awards that it never got...Costume, makeup, music, special effects, all were amazing. However, I just was not impressed with the character development of 80 percent of the characters. The dialogue was empty and cheesy in many places and the acting was not believable (with the exception of Gandalf and Boromir, and maybe Legolas).

I think that at the end of all three movies, when they can be taken together as a collective whole, a better and more accurate rating can be given.

[Talimon]

I completely agree on that last point. PJ himself has said that the ideal way to watch these movies will be as one long movie. It's hard to rate the original "Star Wars" as highly without having seen "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi".

[Ponte]

5 of 5.

[ReadWryt]

As a stand alone film I would give this 7 of 10 in production quality, 6 of 10 in how it was acted. I've always said nice things about the direction of this film, but I've a rather large base of reference to compare it to overall so when holding it up to the works of Akira Kurasawa, François Truffaut, Federico Fellini, Spielburg and Kubrick I'm afraid it gets a lower score then had I less experience with so many other director's works...

[SarahSpall]

would have to be 4/5 - whatever happened to Tom Bombadil but apart from that it was a great movie - best fantasy movie I have seen for a long time.:)

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by SarahSpall
would have to be 4/5 - whatever happened to Tom Bombadil but apart from that it was a great movie - best fantasy movie I have seen for a long time.:) If Bombadil was in this movie you'd have to probably give it 3/5.

[ReadWryt]

I don't know...I mean if they had Bob Hoskins playing Bombadil...*Shrug* :)

[Talimon]

I've a rather large base of reference to compare it to overall so when holding it up to the works of Akira Kurasawa, François Truffaut, Federico Fellini, Spielburg and Kubrick I'm afraid it gets a lower score then had I less experience with so many other director's works...

I don't think that's very fair. If that's the way you go judging every film then there have been very few good films in recent memory. I mean, you have to give each film it's own merits. I think it's somewhat amtuerish to be comparing Kubrick and Kurasawa to any adaptation of LotR. They are completely different types of movies with completely different goals. LotR is myth, and as such it has to be judged on a completely different scale then "Godfather", "2001", or "Seven Samurai". Indeed the only comparison I can personally make is with Star Wars, because SW is also myth. I can also compare it to Sparticus, maybe even Braveheart. That's the scale it's operating on. As good as the book is, it's goals aren't as personal and intricate as some of the subject matter Kubrick, Fellini, and Cappola have tackled. Of the directors you mention (with perhaps the exception of Spielberg) nearly all of thier movies are extremely charachter oriented. LotR, while certainly centering around a cast of charachters, is driven as much by it's plot as it's charachters, if not more. You just can't compare those two types of movies. As deep as Tolkiens tale is, I think some folks in their admiration for it have put it above and beyond the call of duty. LotR has it's messages and it's motifs, and for what those are worth they are some of the most powerful messages and motifs ever concieved. But they aren't the only messages out there, and as such you can't compare it with everything. You have to accept where it's place is. For me what PJ captures in the film, in terms of emotional power, doesn't lag much behind Tolkiens written word.

[Ithrynluin]

Despite some obvious flaws I'd give it 5/5.I don't really understanding all the "PJ-bashing" stuff.Let's face it,even if someone else made the movie,a certain amount of people would be dissatisfied (and that's putting it mildly).If,for example,I made the movie,I'd fashion it according to my tastes,my vision,..etc which WOULD NOT appeal to everyone.

[LadyGaladriel]

If the books didn't exsit *sob*..



But as a film (compared to or not to tolkien) it was a great one 5/5 , 10/10 100% welll you get the idea

[ReadWryt]

...wait, let me see if I can get this straight because I'm quite plainly missing something here...I'm asked to rate FOTR as a movie, but I'm not allowed to compare it to other movies that I respect because they are not the same GENRE of movie...So when it comes to the Mechanics of film making, the composition, technique, editing, acting, lighting, set design and effects it's unfair to compare this to anything but the rare and few MTYHIC films and so to hold it up to the yardstick of great movies I've seen in the past becomes moot...even though I am being asked to rate it as a movie?

I wasn't aware of this, I'm sorry...although stacking the deck like that DOES seem to force FOTR into the position of being the big fish in the tiny pond...

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
...wait, let me see if I can get this straight because I'm quite plainly missing something here...I'm asked to rate FOTR as a movie, but I'm not allowed to compare it to other movies that I respect because they are not the same GENRE of movie...So when it comes to the Mechanics of film making, the composition, technique, editing, acting, lighting, set design and effects it's unfair to compare this to anything but the rare and few MTYHIC films and so to hold it up to the yardstick of great movies I've seen in the past becomes moot...even though I am being asked to rate it as a movie?

I wasn't aware of this, I'm sorry...although stacking the deck like that DOES seem to force FOTR into the position of being the big fish in the tiny pond...

I don't know...I mean if they had Bob Hoskins playing Bombadil...*Shrug*

you see what happens when you try to think of too many thoughts all at once??? you get into a spin!!! :D

Bob Hoskins as a midget Bombadil...oh puhlease! just coz you think all the gratituous lesbian sex scenes in Mulholland Drive was awesome (as i did) :D

All he was saying was that in the age of cheesy americanism, what can you expect from an americanised film lol ;)

[lilhobo]

btw, Return of the Jedi and The empire strikes back were ****....if you took the 3 movies together, marks would have to be lowered for the production value of the last 2 movies.....

oh come on, in technologically advanced space travelling culture, who would design warships with four legs!!! :eek: The empire deserved all they got !!!

[Lorien]

Lol, Bob Hoskins would make an alright Bombadil IMO, maybe even Danny Devito.:)

As for FoTR the movie, 3/5 or 6/10 for the same reason that there wasn't enough character development in it for me.

ROTJ ans TESB were ****? Hmm, the majority of SW watchers *must* be wrong then:rolleyes: .

[Darth Saruman]

Hmmmm...I'm surprised that the reviews aren't higher.
Oh well...

[ReadWryt]

Bob Hoskins as a midget Bombadil...oh puhlease!

Oh yeah, I forgot..they haven't yet developed the technology to change the size of actors as they relate to the scene in a movie yet. My bad...(Who knew Ian Holm was so much shorter then the other Ian?)

[Amichi]

On a scale of one to five, eh? Ouch.

I'm going to have to cheat, here, and give it a 4.625 / 5.000 ...or roughly 95%. Even if the books had not hyped it up, the movie is probably the best movie I have ever seen... and that's saying a lot. I'm not a big fan of Tolkien (hey, I like the guy... but he's a little difficult to read, at times) so honestly, the movie stands on its own.

[LadyGaladriel]

I'm not a big fan of Tolkien

Huh? y are you on a Tolkien - forum then

[Amichi]

Huh? y are you on a Tolkien - forum then

Maybe I should have clarified that, eh? ;) What that -should- have read like is "Tolkien is good fiction, but it's not my favorite. I enjoy reading it, yes, but there are other books I'd choose to read first, if it came down to it."

I, in my haste to post, did not realize that it could have been interpreted as:

"Tolkien? Psh. Yea, well, it's there and I have read it. That's about all I can say about that."

I assure you, the first clarification better reflects my intent. ;-) Or rather, to make a short story long... I'm not a BIG fan of Tolkien, but I am nonetheless a fan. Casual admirer of his work, as it were.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Amichi
On a scale of one to five, eh? Ouch.

I'm going to have to cheat, here, and give it a 4.625 / 5.000 ...or roughly 95%. Even if the books had not hyped it up, the movie is probably the best movie I have ever seen... and that's saying a lot. I'm not a big fan of Tolkien (hey, I like the guy... but he's a little difficult to read, at times) so honestly, the movie stands on its own.


you didnt think you could get away with that post did ya :D

but i must admit Tolkien is hard reading. I remember half the time my imagination was running away from what tolkien was writing. And that may be the problem: the book "hyped" it up coz it allows the imagination to run wilde. People then get just a tad disappointed lol

[Amichi]

you didnt think you could get away with that post did ya

Heh. Yes.

I read it, I liked it, but you gotta admit... picking up a book by, say, Robert Aspirin is a lot easier than picking up a book by Mr. Tolkien. Mr. Tolkien takes commitment! ;)

[Ariana Undomiel]

As much as I loved the movie, I would only give it four stars because I really felt that the part with the spawing of the Urukai was just a bit too digusting. It's not that I got sick or anything, I just don't find pleasure or anything entertaining about something that disgusting.

~Ariana

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I am going to cheat a bit also and change the scale. I give it a 9/10 -not perfect because of a lack of balance (the pace freaked me out sometimes, like the length of the cave troll fight, and the dragged out scene of Frodo thinking and Sam drowning near the end. Also, I close my eyes every time, at the Orc birth and Lurtz drooling, which was just gratuitously sick, and also at the Wizard spinning, which was silly. Other than that, I think it was a beautiful and well made movie. And, I also compare it favorably to Speilberg and Lucas' movies, many of which, when looking back at them are, silly, and cheesy, (Especially Close Encounters O T 3rd K) with little depth. Well, at least Speilberg's have good humor in them and rollercoaster ride pacing. As for Rashomon, Ran, 7 Samari, and Lawrence of Arabia, those were good movies, but you'd have to tie me to my seat to force me to sit for three hours and watch any one of them a third time,
while I never get tired of viewing FOTR. (Another movie I can watch over and over is Gone With the Wind, but only once every 4 or 5 years)

[Talimon]

As for Rashomon, Ran, 7 Samari, and Lawrence of Arabia, those were good movies, but you'd have to tie me to my seat to force me to sit for three hours and watch any one of them a third time,
while I never get tired of viewing FOTR.

While I personally disagree regarding Lawrence of Arabia (the number of times I've spun that DVD is disgusting), you make an excellent point. FotR has to be the shortest 3 hours I've ever watched. While some argue that the movie doesn't show the distance the covered by the travelers, I think that same element actually works for the films advantage. The film doesn't pause anywhere a second longer then it needs to. There isn't one moment where you feel, "This scene really needs to just end now". And the color pallete is brilliant. There aren't many movies that have such a wide variety of colors, from the blackest depths of Moria to lush colors of the Shire. The more you look the more you see, and I think this makes the movie a lot more watchable.

[warrior of ice]

i think that you should think this way:
you never read the books but you know they exist
you sudenly go to see the movie
what do you think your opinion would be????'

[joxy]

This has brought up a lot of interesting points, but to answer the question: If I was watching for the first time with no knowledge of Tolkien I would be thinking "great, clever, beautiful, moving"- and then would suddenly find myself watching a scene that made me say "where did that come from, the silly action, the cheesy dialogue, from some third-rate author brought in to raise a cheap laugh or a shallow emotion?". The difference in quality between the genuine scenes and the invented ones is so clear that I am sure I would recognise them as false.
However, I do know Tolkien, very well, and I still give the film 9/10!

[warrior of ice]

yeah, you are right...
but all that is imposible to recoginise without reading the books
i think is really imposible to fell the same feeling a none reader of lotr has while wathcing the movie

[joxy]

Originally posted by warrior of ice
but all that is imposible to recoginise without reading the books
i think is really imposible to fell the same feeling a none reader of lotr has while wathcing the movie

I am suggesting that someone who was quite well-read, especially in epic, fantasy, and adventure, but who (inexplicably) was completely unaware of TLOR, would be able to watch the film, realise the general tone of the dialogue and action, and then distinguish which scenes are all or mainly Tolkien and which are all or mainly Jackson.

[Talimon]

I disagree. Boromirs death scene was different from the book but was as close to being Tolkien as anything else in the movie. And there is no way to tell that the Council wasn't as it was written. It's believeable, even if it's not accurate to the book. And Moria was also as real as it gets (short of Gimili getting his beard pulled).

[seadragon]

i'm very sorry but i am unable to see what the differences are in scenes using tolkien and original script. deeing as the entire thing was written as a screenplay.
i love the book but some of tolkiens speeches can be hard going.
the film reflects the world today, and as such deserves 9/10

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
I disagree. Boromirs death scene was different from the book but was as close to being Tolkien as anything else in the movie. And there is no way to tell that the Council wasn't as it was written. It's believeable, even if it's not accurate to the book. And Moria was also as real as it gets (short of Gimili getting his beard pulled).
My claim is that the literate person who knew nothing of Tolkien would be able to distinguish those parts of the death scene which are genuine (most of it) from those which aren't- the style of writing is different, and so is the characterisation the words imply. But as I have said the scene redeems itself by reverting to the original.
Moria looks magnificent, and most of the action is good, but there is more than the beard-pulling that detracts from it- the cave troll in particular, which should retreat as soon as Frodo stabs it- which PJ doesn't allow him to do.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by joxy

My claim is that the literate person who knew nothing of Tolkien would be able to distinguish those parts of the death scene which are genuine (most of it) from those which aren't- the style of writing is different, and so is the characterisation the words imply. But as I have said the scene redeems itself by reverting to the original.
Moria looks magnificent, and most of the action is good, but there is more than the beard-pulling that detracts from it- the cave troll in particular, which should retreat as soon as Frodo stabs it- which PJ doesn't allow him to do.

I highly doubt anyone, even were they to study Boromir and Aragorn's lines under and magnifying glass, could defferentiate between the book and the movie. There is nothing about, "I do not know what strength is in my blood, but I swear to you that I will not let the white city fall, nor out people fail" that doesn't sound like everything that has come before. Had you not read the book it would be easy to assume that most of the movie was made as it was written. Of course that depends in what standing you hold Tolkien, but everyone knows it's fantasy, and if you haven't read LotR and felt all it's realism and grit you could assume even as the movie is that it's one of deepest fantasy tales ever told.