Posted by Neredbojias on 10/06/07 15:46

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:32:46
GMT andrew scribed:

>> Haven't read that story nor perused the Silmarillion much (-although
>> I once owned a copy.) If I get a chance in the future...
>>
>> How did you like the LOTR (3-part) movie?
>
> Good to see New Zealand on the world stage (my next door neighbour)!
> Loved parts of it: the Balrog was perfect. Saddest piece missing was
> the 'scouring of the shire'.

Oh, are you from Australia? Somehow I had the idea you were from New
Zealand - dunno why, though.

I thought the movie was... well, let's say "uneven". Yeah, the Balrog was
good, and some of the other sfx stuff. (Really liked the gate-openers.)
Some of the acting was good, and some of the story. I don't think it was
particularly faithful to the main _gist_ of the book, although,
technically, it probably "followed the script" well. Couldn't stand the
Frodo and Samwise actors - probably because my pre-conceived notion of them
is so strong - but thought the Samwise actor did a good job, regardless.
No one can equal my conception of Luthien Tinuviel, although Liv Tyler
(whatever character she played) likely is the closest to it alive. Whoever
thought Viggo Mortensen could act must be a jokester, yet, still, I liked
him in "Hidalgo". Liked Gandalf and some of the other lesser characters;
didn't like others. Thought they could have done more with Sauron.

Anyway, part of the problem may be that I saw part 2 first, then 1, then 3.
Someday I will sit down and watch the whole thing in the right order, and
my opinion may change a bit, though, I suspect, not radically.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Back to original message]