|
|
THE LORD OF THE RINGSby Mike NurseyWell, I really likes it and I think the millions have been well spent. Yes there were some minor changes but it follows the books very well overall. The battle scenes are well done and not too blood thirsty for the younger ones. The settings and landscapes were excellent, characters well cast, and the special effects something to see it twice for. I would liken it to Kubriks 2001, although you can understand the story better with the LOTR. It will sweep the oscars, and the next two will be eagerly awaited by many. I haven't yet seen one critic who hasn't liked it. And let's face it in the fantasy film genre what do we have. Hawk The Slayer, Conan, and of course who could forget Red Sonja with Bridget Neilson's two friends. Dragonheart was memorable for;- well the dragon and Sean Connery's voice. So, really we haven't got much else and Jackson et al has done a fine job, at the risk of bankrupting his own company he went all out to make a classic. I'm told there is over one hour of film that was cut so the DVD and director's cut will be coming out as well. I can't wait. Richard and Judy: their review of Lord of the Ringsby Mike NurseyWell it had to happen, and yes folks, people everywhere are trying to put new meaning onto the books. Oh dear. Richard proudly announces in their joint column in the Saturday Express 22/12/01 that the eleven queen Galadriel is a forerunner of: Margaret Thatcher, eh.!!!!!! Well I suppose as Galadriel was about 3000 years old and Thatcher is likened to the undead then yes, there are similarities. His main hypothesis, well his only one in fact is that the hobbits were being manipulated by the elves. Eh!!!! He admits he hasn't read the book for twenty years, yes, and it shows. Judy meanwhile protests that the film is one for the boys, and why weren't there any female hobbits. Obviously she hasn't read the book, and her attention span being so short she missed Bilbo's party in the film. Keep up the good work Richard and Judy. |