Tweet
So after Christmas, for the sake of family peace, I joined my darlings to see LORD OF THE RINGS Part III.
I just don't get it, what's so great about this third film? It is only a mediocre film showing a massive use swords, lots of horses, creatures and other dimwits and a hardly bearable bombardment with banal text lines. Indeed some suspense is created by an expert use of montage (rhythm, music), but already the mass scenes and effects don't cause the "awe" the makers aimed at. The plot is thin (but we knew that). What troubles me most is the utter lack of depth in the characters, most of them blurting out important, self-important, phrases of valour, honour and all the other empty rubbish you'd expect of Arnie Schwarzenegger (at least most most look a good deal better than that creep) and maybe the HOMELAND SECURITY Office.
Costly effects and computer tricks alone just don't make a good movie. But why if you spend so much time and effort, and money, on a film can't you go just a little further and create credible characters with a truly good cast? (Especially disappointed by Liv Tyler who did great in "Last Night at McCools" for instance). The only enjoyable parts were the constant playful squabble between Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli, the dwarf.
So, in all, LotR parts I to III were disappointing (while I am pleased that it was all Non-Hollywood and the Kiwis and Aussies were able to show what a lot of expertise and skill their film industries have).
In short term thinking I look forward very much to Harry Potter III (both first films were preferable to LotR any time, because they were pure fun - and not one little bit pretentious) and finally one day: ELRIC
I just don't get it, what's so great about this third film? It is only a mediocre film showing a massive use swords, lots of horses, creatures and other dimwits and a hardly bearable bombardment with banal text lines. Indeed some suspense is created by an expert use of montage (rhythm, music), but already the mass scenes and effects don't cause the "awe" the makers aimed at. The plot is thin (but we knew that). What troubles me most is the utter lack of depth in the characters, most of them blurting out important, self-important, phrases of valour, honour and all the other empty rubbish you'd expect of Arnie Schwarzenegger (at least most most look a good deal better than that creep) and maybe the HOMELAND SECURITY Office.
Costly effects and computer tricks alone just don't make a good movie. But why if you spend so much time and effort, and money, on a film can't you go just a little further and create credible characters with a truly good cast? (Especially disappointed by Liv Tyler who did great in "Last Night at McCools" for instance). The only enjoyable parts were the constant playful squabble between Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli, the dwarf.
So, in all, LotR parts I to III were disappointing (while I am pleased that it was all Non-Hollywood and the Kiwis and Aussies were able to show what a lot of expertise and skill their film industries have).
In short term thinking I look forward very much to Harry Potter III (both first films were preferable to LotR any time, because they were pure fun - and not one little bit pretentious) and finally one day: ELRIC
Comment