Thursday, December 18, 2003
So Return of the King day has come and gone, and here I am still not having seen Peter Jackson's last (thankfully!) Lord of the Rings film. Am I the only person in the world who thinks these movies aren't all they're cracked up to be? Am I the only person in the world who thinks Ralph Bakshi's animated version of Fellowship of the Ring was better than Jackson's live-action pictures? The answer is: Almost definitely. :(
I saw both Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers on their respective opening nights, and I couldn't be more disappointed in a movie or in a director. Y'see, I'm a little familiar with Jackson's earlier works...back when he was just an independent film director in New Zealand making bizarre shlock horror films. Take Bad Taste or Dead Alive for instance. Both are classic Jackson -- horrific violence, characters with serious problems, creative scripts, hilarious situations...oh yeah, and did I mention the most gruesome violence ever put on the silver screen?
What happened to the edgy Peter Jackson, the director I admired for his sense of humour and his talent in crafting a film that nobody else would dare do. Well, I guess that edginess up and pissed off when Jackson was offered the chance to direct Lord of the Rings. I definitely hold no ill will against him for deciding to do so, but I do wish he had stuck to what made him a fine director in the first place. The first two LOTR movies (can't comment on the third yet) lacked edge so badly that they were more like spoons. In fact, I fell asleep for a few minutes during FOTR. People, I never fall asleep in the movie theatre, but it was so dreadfully boring and uninspired that my brain conked out for a few minutes.
The Two Towers was a touch better, in that at least there was more action. I'm hoping ROTK will save Jackson's trilogy and make the pain and suffering of watching the first two movies worth it. However, I'm skeptical.
On the plus side, watching any of these movies is certainly better than the utter crap that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote. The LOTR novels must be the most overrated pieces of fiction currently on the market. They're long, repetitive and frightfully boring. My brother became obsessed with the novels (starting with The Hobbit and going through the whole LOTR series) when he was a teenager, and after many failed attempts, he finally succeeded in putting the books in my hand.
First, I started with The Hobbit. This is a book where you can definitely tell it was made for children. Small children, that is. Those that can't even read yet. It's a tale that you know was meant to be told to kids by parents as they were falling asleep. I read the novel when I was around 20 years old. It wasn't written well, the poetry was lame and the story was okay. I put it aside, happy I had finally braved it but disappointed in it as a whole. Some time later, I tried to read FOTR. The truth is I only made it through the first half of the book before quitting in frustration. It was by far the worst thing I had ever read. I returned FOTR to my brother mostly unread.
I've since stated my opinion on many occasions about the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, and I'm usually tongue-lashed by the various Tolkienites out there that take my dislike for their precious books as a personal attack on them. It's like dealing with Gollum over and over again, I swear.
Chris: LOTR has to be one of the most overrated books of the 20th Century. It's repetitive, poorly written and shows little writing talent.
Tolkienite: What!! Fuck you, man! Tolkien was brilliant! How dares you insults the books...my preciouses. Masters is bad man! Hees lies to us. Hees makes funs of the preciouses. Masterses musts die!
Chris: Uh...yeah, dude. Chill out. It's just a book.
At this point, the only safest route is to back away slowly in the hopes that Gollum will not eat my eyes out or anything.
Jacquie and I are probably going to see the final LOTR flick this weekend. I'll try to avoid provoking the Tolkienites...hmm...or maybe not. A theatre full of Gollums might be amusing. :-/
I saw both Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers on their respective opening nights, and I couldn't be more disappointed in a movie or in a director. Y'see, I'm a little familiar with Jackson's earlier works...back when he was just an independent film director in New Zealand making bizarre shlock horror films. Take Bad Taste or Dead Alive for instance. Both are classic Jackson -- horrific violence, characters with serious problems, creative scripts, hilarious situations...oh yeah, and did I mention the most gruesome violence ever put on the silver screen?
What happened to the edgy Peter Jackson, the director I admired for his sense of humour and his talent in crafting a film that nobody else would dare do. Well, I guess that edginess up and pissed off when Jackson was offered the chance to direct Lord of the Rings. I definitely hold no ill will against him for deciding to do so, but I do wish he had stuck to what made him a fine director in the first place. The first two LOTR movies (can't comment on the third yet) lacked edge so badly that they were more like spoons. In fact, I fell asleep for a few minutes during FOTR. People, I never fall asleep in the movie theatre, but it was so dreadfully boring and uninspired that my brain conked out for a few minutes.
The Two Towers was a touch better, in that at least there was more action. I'm hoping ROTK will save Jackson's trilogy and make the pain and suffering of watching the first two movies worth it. However, I'm skeptical.
On the plus side, watching any of these movies is certainly better than the utter crap that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote. The LOTR novels must be the most overrated pieces of fiction currently on the market. They're long, repetitive and frightfully boring. My brother became obsessed with the novels (starting with The Hobbit and going through the whole LOTR series) when he was a teenager, and after many failed attempts, he finally succeeded in putting the books in my hand.
First, I started with The Hobbit. This is a book where you can definitely tell it was made for children. Small children, that is. Those that can't even read yet. It's a tale that you know was meant to be told to kids by parents as they were falling asleep. I read the novel when I was around 20 years old. It wasn't written well, the poetry was lame and the story was okay. I put it aside, happy I had finally braved it but disappointed in it as a whole. Some time later, I tried to read FOTR. The truth is I only made it through the first half of the book before quitting in frustration. It was by far the worst thing I had ever read. I returned FOTR to my brother mostly unread.
I've since stated my opinion on many occasions about the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, and I'm usually tongue-lashed by the various Tolkienites out there that take my dislike for their precious books as a personal attack on them. It's like dealing with Gollum over and over again, I swear.
Chris: LOTR has to be one of the most overrated books of the 20th Century. It's repetitive, poorly written and shows little writing talent.
Tolkienite: What!! Fuck you, man! Tolkien was brilliant! How dares you insults the books...my preciouses. Masters is bad man! Hees lies to us. Hees makes funs of the preciouses. Masterses musts die!
Chris: Uh...yeah, dude. Chill out. It's just a book.
At this point, the only safest route is to back away slowly in the hopes that Gollum will not eat my eyes out or anything.
Jacquie and I are probably going to see the final LOTR flick this weekend. I'll try to avoid provoking the Tolkienites...hmm...or maybe not. A theatre full of Gollums might be amusing. :-/
// posted by Chris @ 8:57 AM 
Number of visitors since Jan. 7, 2004:
