Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" was eagerly awaited by many. From the very first time I heard of it, I had no interest to EVER see this film. After I came across a very positive review by a critic I enjoy very much, I thought to myself, well, why not. I'll go and see this movie.
Now, to be honest, in the first 20-30 minutes of the film it has a nice fairly-tale quality to it. I liked the production designs and the costumes and the art direction all of that stuff! It was a film where you can tell took a lot of time and craft to finish. And, if you have any appreciation for films, you would have taken noticed to that. But, for me, the charm wears off! When you have a movie that is 47 hours long, no story can sustain that time frame. The story to this film is not "strong" enough to go on so long. As I sat in the theatre I kept asking, 'Why can't the movie end now?'.
Certain books make wonderful films. Alexandre Dumas' "The Three Musketeer's" is one of those kinds of books. James' "The Portrait of a Lady", and Jules Verne's "Around the World in 80 Days" & 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". These books work in a visual medium. But for some reason, I don't think this book works in this medium. I've never read this book before, and I plan on keeping it that way, but, I'm sure if I did read it, it might be an exciting book. Full of suspense of action. And my mind would go to work on how everything must look. And might of taken me to a new world, as the best books do. But, this book, just doesn't work! I know many will disagree, saying it's full of life, and charm. But I sat in that theatre bored half way - no - completely OUT OF MY MIND! I couldn't take it anymore. I honestly don't mind a long movie. I've seen my share. "The Godfather", "Gone With The Wind", Bernardo Bertolucci's "1900" (which is actually longer than this film. That movie is 4 hours long.) and Theo Angelopoulos' "Ulysses' Gaze". And I enjoyed them all. Because they all had a story! A story in which we felt for the characters, we went along with them enjoying the experience. "Lord of the Rings" did not affect me in this way. The acting in the film is good. I liked Ian McKellan as Gandalf, I also liked Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins, and I thought Elijah Wood did a nice job as well. There are some mildly good points to say about this film. But, the story goes on far too long. Many will say, so what! If that's your only complaint about a movie, well, that's not a good one. I got news for you, it's the best one! Cause if your bored watching a movie, clearly what your watching is not holding your attention. Your not interested in the characters, the action, or anything else for that matter. If they would of cut this movie down to at least two hours maybe my reaction would be so strongly against it. I will never understand the hype surrounding this movie, nor will I ever understand why it's the #1 pick on this database. It's actually over such films as "The Godfather", "Wild Strawberries", & "The Bicycle Thief"! Truly a major disappointment of a movie. * 1\2 out of ****
Now, to be honest, in the first 20-30 minutes of the film it has a nice fairly-tale quality to it. I liked the production designs and the costumes and the art direction all of that stuff! It was a film where you can tell took a lot of time and craft to finish. And, if you have any appreciation for films, you would have taken noticed to that. But, for me, the charm wears off! When you have a movie that is 47 hours long, no story can sustain that time frame. The story to this film is not "strong" enough to go on so long. As I sat in the theatre I kept asking, 'Why can't the movie end now?'.
Certain books make wonderful films. Alexandre Dumas' "The Three Musketeer's" is one of those kinds of books. James' "The Portrait of a Lady", and Jules Verne's "Around the World in 80 Days" & 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". These books work in a visual medium. But for some reason, I don't think this book works in this medium. I've never read this book before, and I plan on keeping it that way, but, I'm sure if I did read it, it might be an exciting book. Full of suspense of action. And my mind would go to work on how everything must look. And might of taken me to a new world, as the best books do. But, this book, just doesn't work! I know many will disagree, saying it's full of life, and charm. But I sat in that theatre bored half way - no - completely OUT OF MY MIND! I couldn't take it anymore. I honestly don't mind a long movie. I've seen my share. "The Godfather", "Gone With The Wind", Bernardo Bertolucci's "1900" (which is actually longer than this film. That movie is 4 hours long.) and Theo Angelopoulos' "Ulysses' Gaze". And I enjoyed them all. Because they all had a story! A story in which we felt for the characters, we went along with them enjoying the experience. "Lord of the Rings" did not affect me in this way. The acting in the film is good. I liked Ian McKellan as Gandalf, I also liked Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins, and I thought Elijah Wood did a nice job as well. There are some mildly good points to say about this film. But, the story goes on far too long. Many will say, so what! If that's your only complaint about a movie, well, that's not a good one. I got news for you, it's the best one! Cause if your bored watching a movie, clearly what your watching is not holding your attention. Your not interested in the characters, the action, or anything else for that matter. If they would of cut this movie down to at least two hours maybe my reaction would be so strongly against it. I will never understand the hype surrounding this movie, nor will I ever understand why it's the #1 pick on this database. It's actually over such films as "The Godfather", "Wild Strawberries", & "The Bicycle Thief"! Truly a major disappointment of a movie. * 1\2 out of ****