The Two Towers, review

Jeslek

Jeslek

Banned
Please don't post spoilers in this thread... What was your opinion?

I heard some people that read the book did a geek analysis on the movie and came up with a 6/10 because it was so ... Hollywoodish, but I tell you, screw them.

I found the movie to be better than the first one... Good computer graphics, good story, more humor, and a beautiful babe with freckles (the king's niece). (Freckles are ... amazing to me.) I would give it a 10/10. Excellent movie.
 
Absofrickenlutely mind blowing! The action took my breath away. Some of the best action i have ever seen in a movie. Some of the most beautiful scenes i have ever seen on film. The scene with The white wizard coming down the hill with the light at his back was reminiscent of a Michaelangelo original. My expectations for this film were so high that i was actually worried i was going to spoil it for myself. Infact it was simply an amazing event that one must experience at the the theatre. I'm still buzzing

I give it a 9.79.( Impossible to get a ten out of me) If i had any complaint whatsoever it would be that the heroics were ludicrous. But hey, i like it that way.
 
Jerrek said:
Please don't post spoilers in this thread... What was your opinion?

I heard some people that read the book did a geek analysis on the movie and came up with a 6/10 because it was so ... Hollywoodish, but I tell you, screw them.

I found the movie to be better than the first one... Good computer graphics, good story, more humor, and a beautiful babe with freckles (the king's niece). (Freckles are ... amazing to me.) I would give it a 10/10. Excellent movie.
Click to expand...
If youre going to say 'screw you' to anyone that would post an opinion that isnt dead on with yours, I won't bother to impart my input.
 
Re: Re: The Two Towers, review

unclehobart said:
If youre going to say 'screw you' to anyone that would post an opinion that isnt dead on with yours, I won't bother to impart my input.
Click to expand...
Where the fuck did that come from? :rolleyes: I couldn't care less if you didn't like it or thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.
 
Reread your initial post. Thats where the fuck that came from.

Your first line asked for an opinion of a movie.

Your second line was you giving your opinion of others giving their opinion about the movie... not an opinion of the movie itself. That is utterly uncalled for. You've already set the stage for discarding the opinion of others by attacking them on the personal level; by dismissing them as geeks ...so screw em.
 
unclehobart said:
Your second line was you giving your opinion of others giving their opinion about the movie... not an opinion of the movie itself. That is utterly uncalled for. You've already set the stage for discarding the opinion of others by attacking them on the personal level; by dismissing them as geeks ...so screw em.
Click to expand...
I asked what you thought of the movie, not the way the movie complemented the book. When the same people were asked how they liked it as a movie, they gave it 9 or 10s. I haven't read the books so I can't comment on how it fits in with the book, so I started a thread on how the movie is as a whole, ignoring the book and obvious ways the director had to go to make it a good movie (even if it meant not following the book).
 
You did no such thing. Nowhere do I see you asking others their opinion of the movie aside from the book.

The Two Towers, review ....What was your opinion?, in no way resembles what you claim to have intended.

If it were pretty much anyone else I would have given them the benefit of the doubt and let it pass. Its just that you have such a tremendous history for being an agressive and condescending jerk. Most of your recently generated enemies here have learned slowly over time that you aren't capable of being nice, fair, cordial, or mature and have just put you on permanent ignore. The only reason that I'm up in your face about this is that I am one those 'screw those geeks' that you are spitting on.
 
Not spitting on, just ignoring because I haven't read the book and I honestly don't care if its inline or out of line. If I weren't clear on what I meant, sorry. I know I have issues a lot of times in clearly communicating what I mean. :)
 
Good, hmmm...what is good? I think Unc is correct in the respect that LL is rather opinionated. The combination of that, being young and smart has the tendancy to fashion ones opinion into the likes of a porcupine. Although i don't think your mean LL, you do have the tendancy to speak before you think which is plenty cause to get people up in arms. It actually sounded to me like you were trying to make the point that there were critics who were not going to like this movie regardless of anything(for their own reasons) but i can easily see how it could be interpreted otherwise. Then again maybe that was just my interpretation and it's inaccurate. I'm still an opinionated person(although i make every ettempt to be open minded) but when i was younger it was more of a problem for me. There's nothing wrong with being opinionated so to speak, the problem comes when the opinionated individual adds closure to the comment(s) making it sound as if it were the only opinion that matters. Scathing comments are a common reaction to such a worded statement. Now all these things aside, i really would like to hear more of your reviews of this movie(Unc) & everyone else, even if it conflicts with mine which is obviously the most accurate opinion.:D
 
eek....I was a bit disappointed with the film. And I don't even think of it as a film. I think of the whole thing as one continuous story, because it was written as one, Peter Jackson filmed it as one, and Tolkien expressed his desire for it not to be split up.

It only disappointed me because it didn't pull at my heart strings in all the places it could have, and probably intended to. I'm sure it did affect other people more than it did me...but I just can't help thinking about all the things that they could have done differently.
The thing is...visually the two films couldn't be more impressive. When I watched the first one I thought it was the best film, visually, that I've ever seen...the lanscapes and the special effects being as great as they were.
But I just feel it's such an incredible shame that other things about the movie don't match up to it. Like it could've been so much more....EVEN more than it was...with a more delicately subtle and clever script, a more natural style of acting etc. The things that are so so important to making the audience feel like they are living the story instead of just watching it being acted out.
I just felt too much like I was sitting in the audience.
 
It sounds as if so many people were disapointed with the quality of the characters. Not that they didn't have depth which they had tons of imo, but that there were no academy performances in this movie. I can see people setting this expectation if they read the book(s) and felt a bond with the characters as well as seeing them as real and convinceable people(orcs, hobbits, elves). I do understand this view as it is and has been the dilemma between books and their transgression onto film for years. I didn't have this issue since i haven't read the books(yet) but i was perfectly happy with the characters and found them very likable although admittedly there were no academy performances. I think there is also an explanation for this inconsistancy between the book and the movie. I know Peter Jackson read the books. I also know theat he knows the rating commision very well and how frugal & tedious they are. I think if you left every line and graphic exactly as they are and instead of having this line of actors had an entire crew of convincing academy performances, this movie might have been rated R. That would have closed the door on a large audience and i don't think Peter Jackson wanted that. This is my attempt to explain why he(Peter Jackson) added a lightheartedness to the atmosphere of characters rather then focusing on absolutely convincing performances.
 
I've just came back from seeing it (and still in commotion). I personnaly think "kickass" would be hell of an understatement :headbang:

I'd say Jerrek's first post resumed all I would've said (except I still prefer Arwen than the king's niece ;)) and the more than excellent combats. I also like how it flows from the first one while having a character of its own, thus I don't think it is better/worse/equal than the first one, it's just definately my movie of the year :cool:

As for being exactly like in the books, Peter Jackson said a hundred times it wouldn't, and more importantly couldn't be so.
If "real geeks" wanted a movie like the books they just had to film themselves reading the trilogy then play it back...
 
I posted some detailed comments about my disappointment with how they altered the plot in the thread Altron started. Here, I'll just say that I agree with Scanty, and add that I felt they went out of their way to undercut the moral heroism of some of the main characters. Apparently, they felt the audience wouldn't blink at wizards, orcs, elves, etc; but moral clarity in humans?? Let's not get too fantastic. :rolleyes:
 
The only bad thing i found in it was the excessive stupid humour, too much Gimli fun, i'm sure that wasn't on the book.

I wasn't there to laugh (and i didn't), i expected it to be a great movie without the "Jar Jar Binks" humour style.
 
jerrek in response to your first statement ill say this. books are never as good as the movies but please watch what you say as i think unc does have a point you did call them geeks. and although i loved the live action the cartoons were great too
 
freako104 said:
jerrek in response to your first statement ill say this. books are never as good as the movies
Click to expand...

God I hope that was a typo. I have never seen a movie that I though truly lived up to the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top