LOTR (1 Viewer)

[anon]

Anyone ever see peter jackson's (dir. LOTR) first movie Bad Taste ????

 

[treelo]

tom bombadil? jeeeeesus, thank christ they left him out. THE most annoying fictitious character EVER. i think it took me a month to get throuh that chapter.
agree: big fuck-up with that enya nonsense, bad bad idea. and the effects were abit poxy here and there.
disagree (obviously): film better than book. loser.

i thought hobbits could've a bit fatter, what with all their eating, but aragorn and legolas, phwaorgh, muchos studos. gandalf's great, as is gimli, but elrond's a bit scary isn't he?

 

[Optimus]

A kid coming out of the 3:30 showing on Wednesday in the Savoy proudly pronounced to his mother that it was a pretty poor rip off of Harry Potter and that he couldn't believe they got away with such thievery. Oh you crazy kids...

Legolas shooting the Orc in the face with an arrow at point blank range and then immediately firing the same arrow at a different Orc was the highlight for me. That and Gimli's "Nobody tosses a dwarf" comment.

 

[pete]

anon (22 Dec, 2001 01:01 p.m.):
Anyone ever see peter jackson's (dir. LOTR) first movie Bad Taste ????

In keeping with the spirit of the season, Channel 4 are showing that on st stephens's's' night

 

[hugh]

Even better they are showing Braindead on Xmas night ... my favourite Jackson movie ... features a tremendous scene where the main character gorily massacres scores of zombies with a lawnmower. I think it was a Flymo. Very effective.

 

[gipetto]

Are they gonna show the uncut version? I've only ever met 4 people who saw the uncut and they were all German so they couldnt explain all the gorey bits to me. Unfortunately. All though it is great by itself.

 

[anon]

pete (22 Dec, 2001 05:38 p.m.):

anon (22 Dec, 2001 01:01 p.m.):
Anyone ever see peter jackson's (dir. LOTR) first movie Bad Taste ????

In keeping with the spirit of the season, Channel 4 are showing that on st stephens's's' night

According to the RTE guide ....channel 4 are showing Night of the living dead.. on stephens's night...........

that's the cool thing about channel 4 , everyone else is showing antz or it's a wonderful life, channel 4 are showing zombie movies

by the way where the fuck is Willy wonka .......it's not Chrtistmas without it

 

[Optimus]

You can only get the uncut version of Braindead over here... the cut one is called Dead Alive and is about an hour long.

 

[1984]

anon (22 Dec, 2001 01:01 p.m.):
Anyone ever see peter jackson's (dir. LOTR) first movie Bad Taste ????

I have.

Some people find it funny I just think it's shite, but for a low budget did it for the laugh kinda way I guess it's ok.

 

[Goodbye]

Forget about your early Peter Jackson stuff, anyone remember the first vertion of Lord of the Rims by Ralph "mighty mouse" Backshe...
Fuckin shite...
Went to see it in the movies with my cousin when it first came out with their big hairy feet and their magic fuckin spells... even as a kid I knew it was bollix... theres know way I'm waistin my money on that shit when the new movie by the Coen brothers is out soon.
I know which side my bread is buttered.

 

[gipetto]

okay. scary part: Frodo and Bilbo are reunited in the elf place and Bilbo see's the ring on Frodo. He makes a grab for it and pulls the scariest face ever. Turbospooky.


And braindead was only fantastic last night. You gotta love that Lawnmower scene.

 

[Goodbye]

Let me get this straight..., Frodo grabs Bilbos ring... pthfuffkththth

 

[snap-apple]

PeeWee bud, hate to disappoint you but "The Man Who Wasn't There" ain't great shakes neither - great visually - but boooooooooooooring and the worst ending to any Coen brothers film. It is soooo long since I actually came out of the cinema thinking "that film was great". Getting old...

 

[Anne OMalley]

I can stand by no longer.

I find it hard to imagine how anyone who thinks "The Man Who Wasn't There" is boring can be a lover of cinema. If you think you love cinema, go see it.

Even if you find the rest of the Coens' work excessively cerebral, "TMWWT" is an amazing piece of work and a more somber, intense film than one might expect from them. Never mind the visuals - difficult, admittedly, 'cos they're stunning - the story is pure Chandleresque genius. It's convoluted without being arbitrary; it's nuanced without being too dense. The characters are incredibly well observed, the script is thematically rich and packed with fabulous ideas, motifs and metaphors. Also, the acting is first-rate.

It's tremendously entertaining cinema, of the sort that nobody else in the world is making right now. It's stirring, complex and almost terrifyingly intelligent.

Never mind the "blown away" factor that some people seem to think is the absolute criterion of excellence for a film. "The Man Who Wasn't There" will smoulder away in memory, gathering a loyal core of fans that recognise its brilliance and in time it will come to be recognised as a classic.

Getting old is no excuse, Conor. Not everything of genius offers itself up to you on a plate.

Conor (02 Jan, 2002 01:33 p.m.):
PeeWee bud, hate to disappoint you but "The Man Who Wasn't There" ain't great shakes neither - great visually - but boooooooooooooring and the worst ending to any Coen brothers film. It is soooo long since I actually came out of the cinema thinking "that film was great". Getting old...

 

[snap-apple]

-----------------------------------------------
the story is pure Chandleresque genius. It's convoluted without being arbitrary; it's nuanced without being too dense. The characters are incredibly well observed, the script is thematically rich and packed with fabulous ideas, motifs and metaphors. Also, the acting is first-rate.
-----------------------------------------------


for the above read - meandering, misguided, cliche'd, obscure, obtuse.


awrigh', gloves off time. if i'd never seen any coen brothers film before i would rate it more highly and i'm not a big fan of the Chandleresque genre admittedly. It is well acted, well directed, extremely funny in places, better than harry potter, better than lord of the rings, better than 90% of stuff out there but in my opinion the weakest coen brothers film - i.e. a let-down. i really enjoyed it for the first hour or so but then it became very slow moving and seemed to have no point to make - or else i just didn't get the more subtle metaphors etc. if it's meant to be a thriller i'm afraid it's not edge of the seat stuff. it is however a thinker as are most of the coen's movies but this has little to offer outside that by maybe being a bit too clever.

the sort of movie that film buffs and people that go to the ifc every week love to love (which implies a certain wank element). i wouldn't discourage people from seeing tmwwt (or lotr) - quite the opposite - and it will probably become a cult classic in time in certain circles but not in my opinion the best of the coen's work. i guess i was just disappointed and didn't get alot of the references.

B+, try less hard


(at this point i should state that the big lebowski is my favourite coen movie - this no doubt renders me a neaderthal in the flim critic world, but i like things simple)

 

[krystal]

but look - did no one else except me spot the amazing similarity between Pippin and Tom Dunne??

Aragorn - phowargh x 1,000,000 - I'd give him a bath any day of the week.

 

[Anne OMalley]

Hardly. I'm also a big "Big Lebowski" fan and I agree with your implication that a film doesn't have to be intellectually clever to be good. In fact I reckon many, if not most, clever films are total shite (see nearly all US indy films from the last 10 years, for example).

Mind you, did anyone see that recent film from the US "George Washington"? Hugely accomplished - very influenced by Terence Malick, esp. his "The Thin Red Line". The director, a 26-year old chap by the name of David Gordon Green, said in an interview something like "If my films are ever clever, shoot me." I know what he means, but he's probably over-reacting to the excess of "message" films coming out of the US these days. What a bore American cinema has become, when you consider the maverick movies of the late 60s/early 70s or the noir classics of the 40s.

"The Big Lebowski" is probably the Coens' most immediately gratifying film, though, you have to admit. It's hilarious from the opening 10 seconds of the cowboy's voice-over right up to the final scene where poignancy in the scattering of Donnie's ashes turns to farce. Dunno how long this will continue to be funny, though, but I suspect the John Goodman's Walter Sobjzek will remain forever with me ("Calmer'n you are, Dude. Calmer'n you are," his neck taut with fury.)

Still, I found I only appreciated some of their best work e.g. Miller's Crossing after multiple viewings (possibly because I only came close to understanding the plot around then.) And conversely, some of their most immediately enjoyable ones e.g. Barton Fink tend to lose their sheen after the second viewing.

I reckon "TMWWT" will glow even more brightly after a second viewing.

Conor (03 Jan, 2002 12:30 p.m.):
-----------------------------------------------
the story is pure Chandleresque genius. It's convoluted without being arbitrary; it's nuanced without being too dense. The characters are incredibly well observed, the script is thematically rich and packed with fabulous ideas, motifs and metaphors. Also, the acting is first-rate.
-----------------------------------------------


for the above read - meandering, misguided, cliche'd, obscure, obtuse.


awrigh', gloves off time. if i'd never seen any coen brothers film before i would rate it more highly and i'm not a big fan of the Chandleresque genre admittedly. It is well acted, well directed, extremely funny in places, better than harry potter, better than lord of the rings, better than 90% of stuff out there but in my opinion the weakest coen brothers film - i.e. a let-down. i really enjoyed it for the first hour or so but then it became very slow moving and seemed to have no point to make - or else i just didn't get the more subtle metaphors etc. if it's meant to be a thriller i'm afraid it's not edge of the seat stuff. it is however a thinker as are most of the coen's movies but this has little to offer outside that by maybe being a bit too clever. i wouldn't discourage people from seeing it (or lotr) - quite the opposite - and it will probably become a cult classic in time but not in my opinion the best of the coen's work.

B+, try less hard


(at this point i should state that the big lebowski is my favourite coen movie - this no doubt renders me a neaderthal in the flim critic world, but i like things simple)

 

[chriths]

kirstie (03 Jan, 2002 12:45 p.m.):
but look - did no one else except me spot the amazing similarity between Pippin and Tom Dunne??

that's it! that's it! it's fucking uncanny. that was really annoying me at the start of the film. i was convinced it was someone in my class in secondary school and found myself distracted trying to remember their ugly noggins.

well done missus.

(the bit when bilbo tried to grab the ring back off frodo and his inner gollum came out for a split second really put the shits up me. shudder)

 

[krystal]

Imagine pippin had had the chance to use some parachutes, or petrol, even. That would have been even funnier. Oh yeah.

 

[Stuart Little]

http://www.movie-mistakes.com/film.php?filmid=1778

i can't imagine the freaks who sat with notepads recording all these mistakes. some of them are so obscure it's hard to believe.

movie mistake no 1: there's no such thing as hobbits.