The Two Towers
Posted: Wed, 18th Dec 2002, 5:48pm
Post 1 of 73
We just got back from seeing the second installment of The Lord of the Rings.
The Two Towers is not a stand-alone film. Not in the slightest. If you have not seen The Fellowship of the Ring, then part two will make very little sense to you at all.
However, for fans of the first film the middle part of the trilogy drives the story furiously, dropping us straight in at the deep end (literally) and leading us swiftly along a fast and very exciting path.
Far more action-orientated than part one, some might find the extended battle sequences a little distancing, compared to the intimacy of the first film's character-based drama, but at the heart of the movie are strong performances from the entire cast, supported ably by Peter Jackson's talented crew and Tolkien's masterful story.
Technically the film raises the bar on almost every level. The structure may be more disjointed and have less cross-appeal than Fellowship, but The Two Towers is an undeniable instant classic, joining the ranks of films that will be with us for many, many years to come.
Posted: Wed, 18th Dec 2002, 10:58pm
Post 2 of 73
I just got back from seeing it too, an personally, I think it is millions of times better than the first. As this is a special effects forum, then the work on Golum, the Ents, and the shots that involve massive will be "interesting" to you to say the least. It's just riddled with amazing effects and creature designs.
One of the best films I've seen in ages,
Posted: Wed, 18th Dec 2002, 11:01pm
Post 3 of 73
I will see it Friday evening and I can't wait...!!!!
*petting my Lord of the Rings collectors box*
Posted: Wed, 18th Dec 2002, 11:46pm
Post 4 of 73
Yeah, the effects were astonishingly good. I mean, stupidly good.
Sure, there was the odd bit that was only 'good'. But in most other films those shots would have been 'excellent'. It's only because the rest of the effects are so brilliant that the other ones seem less so.
Gollum was great...still not quite 100% realistic, but the closest anyone's got so far. I'd argue that some of the shots were photorealistic, particularly shots of him just scrabbling about. The performance was very good, too.
The Ents were far, far better than I could have coped for. Very nicely done. They could have just looked plain silly, but instead had a great dignity whilst simultaneously being quite humorous ("It reminds me of going downhill...").
The Massive shots, though...oh boy. I can't quite comprehend how good they were yet. My mind hurts just thinking about the images that were burned into it today.
However, what's great about Two Towers (and was the same with Fellowship, in fact) is that I don't come out of it thinking "wow, amazing effects!" I come out of it remembering the characters and moments from the story. And that's why I love the Lord of the Rings films so much.
Posted: Wed, 18th Dec 2002, 11:48pm
Post 5 of 73
Loved the film, seeing it again on Friday. Seemed to have lost some of the magic and beauty of FOTR but it was still damn impressive and the best film of the year. I hope on my second viewing I'll find a little more of that magic coming back.
It is a totally different kind of film, and it is right that it has lost some of the beauty of FOTR. Looking forward to Friday...
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 12:15am
Post 6 of 73
I thought it had every bit of magic that Fellowship had, if not more.
I haven't been so gripped by a film since...hm...well, since I saw Fellowship of the Ring!
Two Towers has got to have the best opening to a film ever, as well? Surely? Can anybody think of a film with a better opening? I certainly can't.
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 12:22am
Post 7 of 73
star wars, a new hope?
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 12:23am
Post 8 of 73
That opening is cool, but goes a bit kaputski as soon as you go inside the Rebel ship...the actual opening shot is fantastic, of course.
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 12:24am
Post 9 of 73
I saw two towers today also and it has become my joint favorite film along with fotr. I just cannot decide between the two which is the better
The ents were the biggest success of the film I think as I agree with tarn about how they could have easily been done in a silly way.
I love the way the character of gimli developed in this film although he was the comic relief at points he was still a force to reckon with in the fights.
Having read the books myself it was interesting to notice the changes made to the story. Though to be honest I didn't think about it until the drive home from the cinema which shows that the changes worked.
Best film of the year but won't beat Road to perdition top the best picture Oscar in march nor will peter Jackson beat Sam Mendes which is a shame as Peter Jackson deserves to win everything possible for the way he's turned a once unmakable film into a classic that will forever be in the top ten greatest film lists.
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 10:43am
Post 10 of 73
i saw it last night aswell, and plan to see it again tonight again, thats how much i enjoyed it! i absolutly loved the first one and was wondering how The Two Towers could live up to it, but it did in style and surpassed all my expectations - everyone MUST go and see it! i agree with the intro bit too, i was wondering beforehand how they would continue on from the first, but this was perfect and dropped you into the story extremely well
the only bad thing is that now we have to wait another year for Return of the King
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 1:59pm
Post 11 of 73
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 2:01pm
Post 12 of 73
THAT WAS ME
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 3:20pm
Post 13 of 73
I would only give two towers about a 3.75/5
I don't see how you guys (i mean by people who saw screenings of the movie and critics) can give it 5 stars. I was quite bored through out, the only parts I looked forward to about half way through were Gollum/Smeagol and the last battle.
I was a little disappointed with the film, it didn't have any of the heart or soul of the first one and the changes were just too many and for the worse from the book. the big 45 minute battle at the end was a let down as well. though i knew it was in fact 20 minutes because of the cuts to merry/pippin, i still expected something more.
The fighting in Gladiator was much better and more interesting, even if there was slightly less.
Gollum though, was phenomenol. that would warrant the movie 5 stars if it weren't for many let downs. The biggest thing that got to me was the editing. Nearly all the scene transitions were just awful, the cuts were horrible. it never seemed to flow. the movie felt like it was a bunch of scenes put together in almost any order.
there were some beautiful cuts though, just not enough. one great cut was when gandalf got sarumon out of Theoden. Or gollum speaking to smeagol.
The camera was work was odd and not as good as the first one, save for the scenes with gollum, where the constant movement really made gollum look like he was there. One thing really made me sick, those aerial shots rotating around aragorn, gimli and legolas. Way too repetitive and unintersting after the 15th time.
I don't see how you guys can see that the effects were amazing. Did you not watch the wall expode? or the extremely obvoius blue screening on merry and pippin when on treebeard? or those big things at the gate of mordor that opened the door?
This movie was a lot darker than fellowship, which is good because that was the essence of the book, but i think we saw too much of aragorn, it became rather tiresome.
I would watch this film again, but only for gollum/smeagol. it is not a 5 star movie. i think that people were just to psyched (sp) about it and couldn't bear the fact that the movie was worse than expected. That usually seems to be the reason.
I still think minority report is the best movie of the year, along with road to perdition. and big trouble the best comedy. but other than that, nothing else comes to mind.
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 9:08pm
Post 14 of 73
I watched the movie twice yesterday, and I loved it. Though, like many others, I agree that it did not capture the same magical feeling. I think this is in large part due to the evolution of the characters, so I'm okay with it.
In Fellowship, there was always a sense of wonder and awe, as the Hobbitts saw and reacted to so many new amazing things. Everones a bit more jaded in Towers. The only time I felt that shared sense of wonder was the scenes with the ents and oliphaunts.
I also missed the colorful visuals of Fellowship. This movie was soooo gray. But again, it should be, for the type of story they were telling.
Posted: Thu, 19th Dec 2002, 11:25pm
Post 15 of 73
That movie was sweet! thats all i can say, it blowed my mind, i had no idea it was going to be this good.
Posted: Fri, 20th Dec 2002, 12:50pm
Post 16 of 73
I thought the movie was awesome, i dont like it as much as FOTR because again lik epeople have said here i think the magic went from this one it was like empire strikes back of the original star wars trilogy that being the darkest one i believe this was too, Gollum/Smeagal i thought was absolutely brilliant, if there was one thing i was worried about seeing this film it was how they would bring him to life, and would he look any good i was gobsmacked, especially the part where gollum was speaking to smeagal i heard many people afterward saying how freaky that scene was, i thought the end battle maybe was not as good as it was made out but certainly probably the best cinamatic battle ive seen, i thought that they did a great job with joining the stories together, i was hoping that they wouldnt split it up into three stories like i heard was orginally planned because i would not of enjoyoed it having the stories all merged in together worked very well, and the Ents were also bery impressive all in all i would give the film a 4 and a half outta 5 not quite as good as the first but damn worth waiting for.
Posted: Fri, 20th Dec 2002, 5:03pm
Post 17 of 73
I thought it was great, although there were a few things with the graphics were strangely a bit poor.
It was very odd because most of it was very cg intensive and looked brilliant although there were simple bits of bluecreening that looked bad. (like when Legolas ran over the hill)
The only bit of cg that I thought looked truely bad was the bit when Legolas flipped onto the horse.
I also didnt like the opening because the camera moved over it slowly and gave you so much time to look at it that you could see it was cg. I would have prefered quicker shots or a mix of real and cg peaks to distract from the fakeness. The detail was also a bit low on the slow pan around the norse town (sorry cant remember the proper name)
The story itself was great and flowed really well. I think Cypher's view that it was a bit choppy was because it flowed like a book, switching between several series of events happening simultaniously.
I don't think it lost any of the character element of the first, we learnt a lot more about arragon and golum and met plenty of new characters. The pace was just faster in this movie.
I think this one had many more subtleties than the first and will be even more wasted on the americans than the first. (Sorry if you are an American
I was particularly amused by the burning tree, many people didn't even spot it in the later shot.
Oh, one final thing. The music that they play whenever they do something good is pretty similar to the theme from Crimewatch!
Posted: Fri, 20th Dec 2002, 5:22pm
Post 18 of 73
Erm kid, "the norse town" as you put it was real, they built the whole thing on the top of that hill - it took months as it was in the middle of nowhere.
I couldn't quite work out the bit where he got on that horse - very odd.
Posted: Fri, 20th Dec 2002, 6:11pm
Post 19 of 73
Yeah, Edoras was built for real as far as I know. Although the lower levels may
have been CG, I'm pretty sure most of it was 100% real.
I thought Legolas getting on the horse was flippin' fantastic.
I also thought the mountains at the start were real. Didn't strike me for a moment that they weren't. Except perhaps the very final bit when it zoomed in on it, of course. If it was CG, then it was damned good.
This is the best opening I've ever seen to a film, I think. Quite genius.
Posted: Fri, 20th Dec 2002, 7:07pm
Post 20 of 73
Legolas getting on the horse got applause from the audience. I thought it looked a bit odd, though.
Overall TTT was an excellent film, but FotR was better. The emotion in FotR was missing from TTT. The only character I felt emotion towards was Gollum (absolutely brilliant). I also did not like the way the movie ended. A good chunk of the move was build up for the battle at Helm's Deep, then the battle, then the movie was over. There was no payoff. It was like the movie was going to self-destruct if it hit the 3-hour mark, so they wrapped it up just before that. The battle was only one chapter of the book, and making it the focus of the film was the wrong decision. Not that the battle was anything but breathtaking, its just that seeing what an amazing job they did with FotR I feel the movie could have been a little more than it was.
Posted: Fri, 20th Dec 2002, 7:28pm
Post 21 of 73
It's a pretty cool testament of the filmmakers' abilities when the only film people can say is arguably better is their previous film.
Lots of people have been saying that the emotional aspect of Fellowship was missing from Two Towers. I disagree heartily. Whilst I agree the emotion wasn't as evident as Fellowship, I definitely felt it was there. Fellowship had moments that were utterly crushing, or utterly uplifting - the 'death' of Gandalf, the death of Boromir, Aragorn's slaying of Lurtz, the discovery of Dwellendelve, the first time we see Rivendell and Lothlorien....
However, Two Towers was infused with emotion all the way through. It wasn't built up in peaks. The oncoming fear that pervaded the entire film, the sadness of leaving Edoras, the horror of the impending genocide and the sheer impossibility of the odds. The arrival of the Elves at Helms Deep was a magical moment for me, as were the moments of self-sacrifice through the film. Haldir's end was moving and fitting, inevitably not as powerful as Bormir's fall due to Haldir's shorter screen-time, but suprisingly moving for all that. Gandalf riding to the rescue with the riders of Rohan was perhaps the most glorious, awe-inspiring thing I have seen all year (and it has been a year filled with cinematic spectacle).
However, there was one moment that particularly got to me. I believe it was King Theoden, talking of the battle and the hopelessness. But no the hopelessness of the battle itself, but of the aftermath...that even if the battle was won, even if the war
was won - how do you ever go back? How do you regain that which you have lost? Return to your lives and families, having seen such things? It's something that for some reason rang very true to me at the moment.
The emotional content in Two Towers didn't present itself openly as it did in Fellowship. It was subtler, infused gently throughout, there if you wanted to find it. I found it to such an extent that I was on the verge of tears for most of the film, either through sadness or sheer giddy excitement.
This was also only the second film I have ever seen in a cinema where people clapped afterwards. None of the cast or crew were present, and yet people felt he need to clap. Only one film provoked this reaction before, and that was Fellowship. I think I saw Fellowship four times at the cinema, and each time people clapped as the end credits rolled. And that is something remarkable that should not be underestimated.
Last edited Fri, 20th Dec 2002, 8:30pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Fri, 20th Dec 2002, 8:27pm
Post 22 of 73
The clapping thing is interesting. I myself have only heard it a few times in recent memory.
Road to Perdition, A Beautiful Mind, Fellowship and Four feathers I believe.
TTT didn't get too many people clapping. I personally couldn't clap for the film. I wasn't that calibre.
It left me feeling disappointed by the filmmakers and wondering what went wrong.
And sadly as well, someone said somewhere that the best parts were pretty much in the trailer, which I think are true. Except for Gollum.
I had more fun making fun of it when it got boring and lost my interest.
The begining was a marvelous idea, but the whole film didn't really amount to anything. I left the theatre thinking "A year for this?"
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 12:29am
Post 23 of 73
First thing i'm certain that the mountain at the beginning was real. But what a compliment to the film if people complain about poor cgi on real effects. That must mean that what was cgi was realistic.
the effect of legolas was clearly cgi bit it was such a brief moment that it passed without really mattering. It got the job done coz the audience loved it when i saw it with them.
I agree with Tarn about there being plenty of emotioal impact in Two Towers. Didn't you feel any emotion for Theoden who wakes up from a terrible nightmare to find his only son dead plus his kingdom in ruin. Applause goes to Bernard Hill who played Theoden perfectly.
How about Treebeard finding his friends cut down and burnt or when Frodo nearly kills Sam. In fact watching the effect the ring had on Frodo and how different he was from teh begining of FOTR brought up emotion within me.
When i see a scene in a film that emotionally effects me i find i get goosebumps. Even in crap films like Pearl Harbour i found myself getting goosebumps when cuba gooding jr's character takes the gun in the attack. I rate my films by have often i get that feeling and every five minutes something happened in Two Towers that gave me that effect.
A crucial point I think some people are missing here is that u should not compare Two Towers to FOTR as if they are sequels because TT is not a sequel, it is a continuation of teh story. FOTR showed us teh magic of middle earth and people feel it is missing from teh second because it is. Middle earth is falling into darkness and is no longer a magical wonderful place thus the reason people are willing to go to war to save it. When it comes out on dvd watch teh films back to back and see if that changes ur opinion.
I must confess i also laughed at the burning tree at the end diving into the water
I personally think that lord of the rings is teh best film made ever coz i have so much confidance in ROTK. I say lord of the rings because I consider them as one film unlike star wars.
WOW that must be the longest post for me on this site
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 4:13am
Post 24 of 73
Lord of the Rings is supposed to be one film, same as the books were to be ONE NOVEL. Tolkien said it himself, that's its all one thing, just broken up into parts.
In TTT, there weren't any "moments" that i would find memorable except for gollum. By moments, i mean everything that encompasses the part, including performance, dialogue, music, framing. Fellowship had many like the fall of Gandalf when the film is slowed down and it focuses on Aragorn etc. The part where Boromir picks up the rings. WHen Boromire dies. When Aragorn says "Let's hunt some orc". And many more.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 11:29am
Post 25 of 73
I've just seen it as well and thought it was fantastic!
The pictures in the first half of TTT we'rent as beautiful as the ones in FOTR, but in all else I think the movie has increased. Storytelling was much faster, characters a lot deeper and humour was great. I didn't really had to laugh a lot in FOTR, but in TTT I was fully entertained and time went b. I thought TTT seemed shorter cause of that.
The seond half of the Films was ingenious... The mass scenes we're simply fantastic!
All in all I think TTT was better than FOTR, less beautiful, but more intense.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 1:49pm
Post 26 of 73
I think the opening scene of the mountains and the swing around shot of Edoras were cg because it is simply tricky to do those shots irl.
Although most of the shots of Edoras looked real there was this one where it all suddenly dropped in detail and the stone wall the main buiding sits on went a bit flat and shinier. You were looking from a long way off but it looked odd.
The mountains simply have no fine detail and recurring patterns. Also the camera made sudden movement changes that in thinking about it would be hard to pull off. Did it look like helicopter footage to you? I am less sure about the mountains being cg than that shot of Eforas but I was pretty sure as I watched it, I'll have to look closer next time I go and see it
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 2:01pm
Post 27 of 73
Edoras was definitely real. I have seen footage of them building it. The only bits that I don't definitely know were real were the very lower levels of the city. But the upper bit that you had issues with was definitely real.
The mountains had a certain magic to them. I suspect that they were all real except for the very closest bit, as the helicopter would have been passing very close without getting a shadow...I'll have to see it again to be sure though.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 4:49pm
Post 28 of 73
Tarn is right about Edoras. In the US there was a special on TTT the week before it came out. They make a big deal about Edoras because it took them something like 7 months to build it and they spent, well, a lot less time there filming.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 6:17pm
Post 29 of 73
Yeah, as I said, it was real.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 6:35pm
Post 30 of 73
Just got back from watching it, and I have to concur with the general sentiment here! TTT is so wicked, a lot of the images are still replaying in my mind. I loved the epic battle scenes, especially the period of apprehension when the orcs were busily arranging themselves into formation. Gollum was also fantastic: by far the most realistic non-human CG character to date.
I only have one gripe: did anyone else feel that the Liv Tyler 'dream sequences' were utterly pointless like I did? I felt that they broke the flow of the movie.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 6:41pm
Post 31 of 73
The Arwen bits did seem slightly irrelevant to the main stories in TT. However, I think they were absolutely vital with regard to the character of Aragorn. The disruption of his relationship with Arwen has happened at the same time that he is having to face up to his ancestors and the great responsibility that lies ahead of him. Everything is changing and in turmoil for Aragorn, and that he can still lead is testament to his strength.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 6:41pm
Post 32 of 73
chainsawash wrote:Tarn is right about Edoras. In the US there was a special on TTT the week before it came out. They make a big deal about Edoras because it took them something like 7 months to build it and they spent, well, a lot less time there filming.
This doesn't mean anything, I realise it was real most of the time just not in this one specific shot.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 6:44pm
Post 33 of 73
Kid, if they spent 7 months building a real Edoras, they're not going to bother building a CG version of it as well. Not when you can just jump in a helicopter and film it for real.
And besides, they wouldn't have built a CG model of the place at any rate, they would have built a miniature of it, like with all the other locations in the film.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 6:48pm
Post 34 of 73
I think the dream sequences were very relavant, also they were only kind of dream sequences. Half dream/half memory/half actually happening.
It told us a lot about Aragorn and his relationship with liv tyler, which they didnt really go into in the last film.
Without it, her wanting to save him and convincing the elves to help wouldn't have made any sense. But it showed how deeply she felt for him.
Also it showed us how it gave him the strength to get back there after falling off that cliff into the river and hinted that they were using their control over nature to help him a bit there.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 6:52pm
Post 35 of 73
Yeah, good points kid. The dream sequences were very clever the way they crossed the boundaries between real and dream, past, present and future.
I particularly liked the shot of Aragorn's tomb and Minas Tirirth (presumably) crumbling away whilst Arwen stood unaged by herself. That hammered home the loneliness of her situation perfectly.
Although I don't quite understand about the whole thing in Fellowship where she 'gave up' her immortality and chose a mortal life. Did she actually give up her immortality, or was that just metaphorical because she was going to be leaving the Elves and spending the rest of Aragorn's life with him?
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 7:08pm
Post 36 of 73
maybe she will die' but it will take a long time...a lot longer then it takes a normal person to die.
For those of you saying that this lacked emotion, then you are not watching very closely. How many people saw the wink from gandalf to aragorn before he went to Theoden? Or the symbolism in the flag ripping away from the pole?
My only gripe is that the camera was never down in the crowd when Massive was used. You were in the action in the prolougue of the first movie, where you had real guys in front, then vast armies stretching away in the distance. They didn't have that here. it was either far shots, or close, blurry shots.
Posted: Sat, 21st Dec 2002, 7:29pm
Post 37 of 73
Arwen giving the jewel to aragorn didn't mean she became mortal it was a metaphoric sign that arwen was willing to stay behind, leave her people to spend the rest off aragorns life with him instead of going to valindor(?) and finding someone to love without the fear of death creeping up on them. Which leads to elrond telling aragorn to let her go.
Posted: Sun, 22nd Dec 2002, 12:56am
Post 38 of 73
isn't it scary how LOTR resembles todays world. We have a story about rising up to fight the evil that is threatening ur lands such as terroism and depending on your opinion Iraq.
But not only do we have a story about fighting evil we also have a story of Frodo who holds this very powerful weapon that can destroy the enemy like nuclear weapons today. But if we use this weapon for good through us it will create an unspeakable evil such as nuclear fallout etc. Is it okay to us to use evil to destroy evil or do we need to show some restraint?
I could go on and on about teh revelance of LOTR on todays world. Its scary that we hadn't evolved as a society enough to avoid the dangers that Tolkien could see 50 years ago.
Posted: Sun, 22nd Dec 2002, 1:27am
Post 39 of 73
Tolkien structured and wrote LotR as a new myth, a new legend. Middle-Earth was to be the new stories that would be handed down from generation to generation. Stories that showed right and wrong, good and evil, the greys in-between, aspects of growing up, finding your place in life...everything, really.
Therefore it's not surprising that it still has relevance today. I think it will always have relevance. And if you take it back in time, I think it would probably have relevance there too.
Posted: Sun, 22nd Dec 2002, 3:14am
Post 40 of 73
*spoilers for the whole series! Do not read if you have not read the books!*
Actually, I'm pretty sure it is a reference to WWII.
Look closely, and you'll see it all. The ring being destroyed correlates with the first nuclear bomb, which ended the war, and the elves are heading over the seas to Valindor (i.e. America). Sauron was destroyed in the first war (WWI) but his death was never totally resolved, and many of the races were slow to act when he started to build up his forces again (League of Nations). Cities, like Minas Tirith can be taken to represent London, and Gondor is Paris, which is nearly adjacent to Mordor, and fell to Sauron's (Hitler's) forces. The attack on the gate in the last book can also be seen as D-Day, and the battle in Plennor feilds as the battle of London.
They even have communism in the shire after they finish fighting, just like how communism started to break out after WWII!
Posted: Sun, 22nd Dec 2002, 5:51am
Post 41 of 73
Just got back from seeing Two Towers. I loved it! Maybe didn't have 100% of the magic it had in the first one, but it was still awesome! The special effects were awesome, especially Golemn. The one scene that irked me was when Pippin and Merry(sp?) were riding the tree, it was a side shot. The greenscreening in that shot was just so bad!! Besides that though, I didn't notice any other major flaws. The trees were pretty good too.
The comedy was han't half bad either. I thought it gave the film a nice touch.
Overall, I would give it 3.5/4 stars.
Posted: Sun, 22nd Dec 2002, 1:35pm
Post 42 of 73
Greyo wrote:isn't it scary how LOTR resembles todays world.
There's even a hint of environmentalism in TTT, which show the Ents (representing Nature) rising up to bite "evil" (i.e. us, human beings) in the butt! Pretty cool, in my opinion
Posted: Sun, 22nd Dec 2002, 4:01pm
Post 43 of 73
i loved it!
Posted: Mon, 23rd Dec 2002, 4:32am
Post 44 of 73
I forgot to add that I thought TTT was lightyears better than FOTR. I found FOTR to be an absolute bore
I heard the extended version makes FOTR much more watchable though: is there any merit to these claims?
Posted: Mon, 23rd Dec 2002, 10:59am
Post 45 of 73
FOTR is one of the most perfect films ever imo. The extended version does not flow so perfectly at the start but it makes up for that later on. I think I'll always watch the extended version from now on.
I'm looking forward to seeing the TTT again, many of you have raised the same points I did - it seems to have lost something compared to FOTR. I found the camera work and editing to be less perfect and the overall image of the film less artistic.
Maybe my second viewing will bring it all back.
Posted: Thu, 26th Dec 2002, 11:44am
Post 46 of 73
I think I'll borrow the 4-disc DVD set from my sis soon. I hear the bonus features are awesome
Posted: Fri, 27th Dec 2002, 5:42pm
Post 47 of 73
Just saw it!!!!!!!!!!! That was one of the best movies I have ever seen! Wow! Wow! 7 stars out of 5! Amazing. I liked it better than FOTR but when I forst saw FOTR I didn't like it much. I don't know why. I saw it the second time and went wow! what was I thinking!
All of the FX are still hard to grasp. Thinking that Gimli is 6'1" is still doing a number on my head. I have to watch it again!
Posted: Sat, 28th Dec 2002, 12:00pm
Post 48 of 73
Saw Two Towers for a second time yesterday. The second viewing is usually the one when I form my more-or-less final opinion about a film. First time round I can often be overwhelmed by effects/gloss/etc and not realise that the film itself is rather crap (eg, Titanic).
Well, I'm glad to say that I enjoyed Two Towers far more second time round. It definitely stands right beside Fellowship of the Ring for me. In some respects I prefer Two Towers, in others I prefer Fellowship. I can't really choose between them, as they're essentially the same story...
Posted: Sat, 28th Dec 2002, 1:20pm
Post 49 of 73
Just got the 4 cd set! As they say knowledge is power and I can feel my film making power growing! I will make the one film. One film to rule them all! One film to......
Actually, the 4cd set is giving me even more appreciation for the film! Further updates later.
Posted: Sat, 28th Dec 2002, 7:00pm
Post 50 of 73
Tarn, how can you say Titanic was a crap movie? It's not a crap movie.
Only problem I found with it is that up until the iceberg hits, its rather boring, and i wouldn't watch too many times, but after the iceberg hits, its cinematic perfection for the rest of the film.
Same goes with fellowship, there are some parts that are just boring and uninteresting given that i know what happens, ie, most of rivendell, lothlorien, even the shire.
Watch Titanic again, I'm sure you'll appreciate it more. Maybe ill do the same for Two Towers. I'll give it another view, and maybe ill be more happy with the overall experience.
Posted: Sat, 28th Dec 2002, 9:22pm
Post 51 of 73
I just watched it for the second time, though that wasnt the most entertaining thing tonight
there was a fight, without orc but with lots of popcorn, coke and a fat female flying two rows after being pushed by the person who got his seat taken
Posted: Sat, 28th Dec 2002, 11:39pm
Post 52 of 73
Cypher, I've seen Titanic about four or five times now. My conclusion is that it is a bad movie.
Certainly, it has some fantastic technical achievements. The sets are astounding, the costumes and prop design are superb, the special effects are breathtaking. But, y'know, I can say the same thing about The Perfect Storm.
Point is, Titanic has an appalling script. No matter how good the rest of the film is, the bad script will always let it down. And it does. Badly.
As you say, the last third of the film is very entertaining to watch. Why? Because it is 90% special effects and action. That doesn't mean it is a good film.
I don't find the 'pre-sink' parts of Titanic boring, I just find them trite and obvious, peppered with terrible dialogue and dubious acting from Leo.
The 'boring' parts of Fellowship, on the other hand, I find to be fascinating glimpses of another world, or into the characters. I don't watch Lord of the Rings just for the (admittedly brilliant) action sequences.
I don't watch movies for just action and effects. If I did, I doubtless would consider Titanic and The Matrix classic films.
Posted: Sun, 29th Dec 2002, 12:26am
Post 53 of 73
You can't put the Matrix in the same boat as Titanic!!! (pardon the pun)
The Matrix has underlying meaning and subtlety that most people overlook. Yes the effects are good, yes it is an action movie, but that doesn't mean it has a bad story.
Titanic was just shallow and boring. Yes, the effects were good but that just made it even more boring cos it seemed like they wern't even effects most of the time.
Posted: Sun, 29th Dec 2002, 1:02am
Post 54 of 73
i must say i have to agree with kid on this one. The effects in the matrix was so good that it can overshadow the great story that the film had.
Titanic is good in parts and great in teh last third but when its bad it is really bad. But still not as bad as pearl harbour
any no way should titanic and LOTR be discussed in teh same sentance, not even the same language. LOTR has so much depth to it that in every scene there is something that amazes me even if its just the scenery or props.
Posted: Sun, 29th Dec 2002, 4:56am
Post 55 of 73
I still don't think titanic is a bad movie.
Ive seen it 3 times, ie, the full thing, not just parts. And I cant say it had horrible dialogue. Ya, some sounded cheesy, but in every movie ive ever seen there have been some cheesy lines. I mean, look at Fellowship, most of merry and pippins dialogue was quite bad. Only one or two lines actually were humourous, though more were trying to be funny. And don't forget Butterbur, the owner of the prancing pony. I mean... what the **** was that? Even if Tolkien himself wrote it.
I don't see how you can say that Leo's acting was dubious. Maybe not the best, but it got across the character effectively.
Most of the acting in fellowship and quite a bit in two towers was wooden. The only good performance in my opinion were Ian Holm, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Ian McKellen and whoever played Thedoen in two towers. That's it. I mean, a $300 million budget, you would think they could have cast the film better.
Matrix in general was a great movie. Main reason i would say is because of the joy I have watching it. Very entertaining movie. Interesting story, well acted, somewhat predictable, but hey, most movies are.
And Greyo, I agree. Pearl Harbour was quite bad. Boring B-S.
As you say, the last third of the film is very entertaining to watch. Why? Because it is 90% special effects and action.
Not at all. The movie managed to drag me into so well that I could imagine being there with the rest of everyone there. Whenever I see parts like the dead babies in the water, or the mother telling the children to go to sleep (when deck filling with water), I feel great sympathy.
In Two Towers, on the other hand, say the example that someone brought up, when Theoden "comes back" and finds out his son is dead, none of that connected with me and i wasn't moved. Also, his words about how you can't go back to how things were, it was nicely written, but something about it was out-of-place. To me, it didn't seem to flow. But that's just me.
I do agree though, the most audiences tend to focus on the effects first. Remember Attack of the Clones? Everyone loved it at first cuz of the beautiful CG on coruscant etc. Now, most people agree that its a pretty average movie, if not bad. Better than Phantom Menace, but still, very dry.
Posted: Sun, 29th Dec 2002, 3:52pm
Post 56 of 73
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 12:06am
Post 57 of 73
that was not funny.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 5:37am
Post 58 of 73
Bad DarkJedi bad
Damnit who let him out of his cage. Joe joe the monkey boy is loose too.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 5:48am
Post 59 of 73
Ah I dream of having Darkjedi in a cage so that me and Blueshift and Xcession and Fallen can all dance around it and poke him with sticks through the bars.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 10:45am
Post 60 of 73
I think its totally fair to put Titanic and the Matrix in the same boat, in fact Titanic was more important than the Matrix as an effects movie. It had extensive use of digital doubles and the models and set making is only surpassed by LOTR. The Matrix really is over rated tripe.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 4:03pm
Post 61 of 73
That is, according to Schwar.
As for the rest of humankind, we found The Matrix to be superb, and containing depth (which can easily be missed).
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 5:05pm
Post 62 of 73
Not all humankind...
I have never been really impressed by the matrix. To me it's an average film wich tells the oldest and most told story mankind knows, filled with cool sunglasses, hip musicvideocolors, technomusic and socalled "new" effects (wich have been used before by the way) for the young generation to go "booooohhhayyyy"...
Didn't work here...
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 5:45pm
Post 63 of 73
Well funny you complain about old stories. The story star wars is based on is even older and lord of the rings isnt exactly new either.
Yeah Titanic has a lot of special effects, and so does the Matrix, but if all you see when you watch a movie are the effects then you are missing out on a lot. Unfortunatly Schwar is one of those people who has been consumed by effects recently. This is also the reason why films have been mostly shoddy in the last year or two. They have all been trying to out do the previous film in effects and have forgotten the plot.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 6:20pm
Post 64 of 73
Just for the record, I'm not a star wars fan either
With "old" I didn't mean "it's written 30 years ago" or so. The concept of the "matrix" is a philosophical groundtheory wich is over 2000 years old and has been discussed in millions of ways over and over, wich is the main point. The story has been told trillions of times. Except the film had sunglasses and aliens.(even the name "matrix" has been combine with this theory long before the film)
And it's not that I have something against old stories, but "matrix" is handed by fans as something "absolutely new", that's why I'm saying this. It isn't. Not in the story, not in the effects. The Matrix hasn't got ONE new aspect.
Don't get me wrong, the Matrix is an absolutely cool actionfilm wich entertained me a lot and I will go and see the sequels too. But it isn't groundbreaking. A solid, entertaining action movie with great effects. Nothing less and nothing more.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 6:30pm
Post 65 of 73
Oh, and I completely disagree with you that newer films lack of storytelling.
When I think of "Memento", "Road to perdition", "Titus", "John Q", "Bowling for Columbine", "the Lord of the rings" and even "Spiderman". They all had well developed stories and rich charachters in my opinion.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 6:32pm
Post 66 of 73
well, yeah, the story isn't new, but when was the last time you saw a movie about it?
The Matrix had a new style, and captured the same underlying story perfectly.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 6:40pm
Post 67 of 73
No story is new. The same general priciples apply to us as at the beginning of civilization. Its all just reworking old stories.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 6:55pm
Post 68 of 73
I find it rather amusing when people go on about the depth in The Matrix and the amazing subtleties.
The Matrix is about as subtle as an iron in the face.
People seem to think that slotting in the standard biblical references, having a tiny bit of foreshadowing and having a story that is a few levels above a Van Damme movie makes a movie subtle and complex.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad that The Matrix raised the bar from the rest of the action movies that Hollywood was churning out in the late 90s. There's no doubt that it was better than the rest of the action movies coming out at the time, and is still better than most of the dross.
But is it deep? Is it complex? Is it meaningful? Does it have a single ounce of newness to it? No, of course it doesn't.
Doesn't mean you kind find it a lot of fun. Hell, I found xXx and The Scorpion King a whole lot of fun. Doesn't mean they were good.
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 7:02pm
Post 69 of 73
The Matrix wasn't a new style - did you see Blade?
"Unfortunatly Schwar is one of those people who has been consumed by effects recently." - Kid, what the hell are you talking about?
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 7:43pm
Post 70 of 73
Sollthar wrote:Oh, and I completely disagree with you that newer films lack of storytelling.
When I think of "Memento", "Road to perdition", "Titus", "John Q", "Bowling for Columbine", "the Lord of the rings" and even "Spiderman". They all had well developed stories and rich charachters in my opinion.
Memento deserves special mention; what a great film!
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 9:04pm
Post 71 of 73
Dark City did the constructed reality story used in the Matrix a couple of years before Matrix came out. I watch every film on it's individual merits though, so I don't really compare and contrast that much.
There are only 8 stories that exist in the world, they were invented around the same time as humans popped into existence. Since then people have been retelling and combining elements from these basic stories.
I think Beowulf is the best story told, and that's a thousand years old. Unfortunately they made a cheapo sci-fi flick with Christopher Lambert and probably ruined the tale...
Posted: Mon, 30th Dec 2002, 11:00pm
Post 72 of 73
John Q and Memento both had great stories. I personally haven't seen anything with those ideas, but then again, i haven't seen every single film ever made, and neither have any of you. Though more have seen than others.
It's funny you bring up SpiderMan. I believe that spiderman falls into a category with movies like The Mummy/Returns, Baseketball, Forrest Gump. Reason is, all of these movies have something that makes them feel complete. Ie, i don't want/need/care to know more, everything i want is there. They all have great beginings to get you interested, enough plot twists to keep you entertained (even stupid, yet funny ones like in baseketball) and all have appropriate endings. Many people i know complained about the ending of spiderman. I think it was perfect. The whole green goblin and spiderman born is wrapped up. Spiderman settles into his own, finally get's recognized by MJ. And ends off just slightly slipping away Peter Parker's identity. I don't want anything more. Of coures, I would have been happier if they didn't including the last shot with spiderman flying about everywhere, but i'll forgive them for that little slip up. They needed to make it standout more as american after sept 11.
That's all I have to say about that.
Posted: Tue, 31st Dec 2002, 5:55pm
Post 73 of 73
In response to this whole "I've seen that story told before" topic. I read a screenwriting book and at the start of the "Content" part of the book he begins with a subheading "write a great story". I won't rewrite the whole first two pages but he basically says there are only so many stories out there and gives many examples, ie: "Any number of horror pictures, including all the Aliens, are based on Agatha Christie's classic Ten Little Indians." He then says "so if there are a finite number of stories, there is an infinite ways to tell them." He then decides to change his subheader to "write a story great".
For those interested the book is "How Not to Write a Screenplay" by Denny Martin Flinn. I liked it because he writes with a sense of humor making it a fun read.