Set in England (or a small island just off the coast) however none of this movie feels like England, which isn't surprising considering it was filmed in the U. S. Even lacking English accents (accurate ones, anyway), and awkwardly including American idioms throughout (e.g. English police do not carry guns). An uninteresting mystery with an unlikable protagonist and a rather boring conclusion. It sets itself up as the potential first in a series of movies starring the same amateur sleuth, but I will not be interested in anything that follows. It is nothing like the Agatha Christie mysteries it is trying to emulate, and it leaves a rather unpleasant taste, so I'm off to watch something starring David Suchet to cleanse my palate.
Reviews
19 Reviews
Viking Wolf
(2022)
Prone to exaggeration (not this movie, but the other reviews)
14 March 2023
My review title is referring to the reviewers and their ratings, not the movie. Modern day reviewer ratings seem to be mostly either 1 or 10, which is ridiculous. To me, a 1 (the lowest score possible) is saying the movie has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and a 10 is saying the movie is absolutely perfect. I am older than most reviewers on here, and have seen tens of thousands of movies, yet I have probably only ever rated two movies a 10, and only a handful a 1.
I believe I've seen almost every werewolf movie & T. V. programme ever made (every one that I can lay my hands on anyway), and a few related movies that don't exactly fit the genre. As for Vikingulven, I give it a 6.5. The positives of this movie: good acting, a Norwegian take on the werewolf genre, decent effects (not always great), and a pretty good transformation scene. The negatives: no twists in the plot, brings nothing significantly new to the genre, some questionable choices by characters, and a slightly ambiguous ending.
As for people comparing this to Ginger Snaps, they are clutching at straws - yes, both movies involve a werewolf and two sisters, but that is about it. You could also say that American Werewolf in London and (the original, Michael J. Fox) Teen Wolf are comparable because they both have werewolves and two male friends.
In contrast to a lot of terrible (fixed rubber masked) werewolf movies that have come out in the past few years, this one is passable and somewhat entertaining.
I believe I've seen almost every werewolf movie & T. V. programme ever made (every one that I can lay my hands on anyway), and a few related movies that don't exactly fit the genre. As for Vikingulven, I give it a 6.5. The positives of this movie: good acting, a Norwegian take on the werewolf genre, decent effects (not always great), and a pretty good transformation scene. The negatives: no twists in the plot, brings nothing significantly new to the genre, some questionable choices by characters, and a slightly ambiguous ending.
As for people comparing this to Ginger Snaps, they are clutching at straws - yes, both movies involve a werewolf and two sisters, but that is about it. You could also say that American Werewolf in London and (the original, Michael J. Fox) Teen Wolf are comparable because they both have werewolves and two male friends.
In contrast to a lot of terrible (fixed rubber masked) werewolf movies that have come out in the past few years, this one is passable and somewhat entertaining.
Sharper
(2023)
A tidy, entertainig, but predicatable thriller
11 March 2023
An entertaining flick. Every twist was telegraphed, so I saw what was coming before it happened, except one minor one that had zero effect on the plot. The overall arc/outcome was predictable early on, however I would be happy if I had come up with that plot myself (although I would have invented some events that occur a little earlier in the timeline covered by the movie). That said, everything else was good. A few reviewers commented on the inconsistent pace, but I thought the pace was perfect - it was a slow build to a busy but satisfying conclusion, which is how most thrillers go. I enjoyed it and would recommend it.
The Wolf of Snow Hollow
(2020)
Elements of a great movie that don't quite come together.
11 October 2020
The effects were great. The directing was competent. The writing needed work, as the story misfired and meandered, defied logic, and had a random reveal that seemed to have little to do with the investigation/clues that had preceded it. The acting was great, with one exception: Jim Cummings, who destroyed every scene he was in - I can't tell if that is the way he normally acts, or if it was a choice, but it was bad. Other reviewers have mentioned comedy, but I found absolutely none (not that I needed any). I'm a werewolf movie fan, and this could have been so good (every attack scene was great). To the reviewer that asked that no more werewolf movies ever be made - that's just daft; you may as well say to never again make a vampire movie, or a drama, or a comedy, or a horror, or a movie about a hit-man, etc. Bring on more werewolf movies - just make them a better.
The Escape
(II) (2017)
Subtle story of abuse and escape
26 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
A woman with an absolute ar*e of a husband gets up the courage to escape despite any emotional/maternal feeling she has left for her children. I applaud her courage. No one should live in a life where they are emotionally and physically abused, a life that makes them constantly depressed and feel worthless. Too many people take abuse and never get out of that situation. Gemma Arterton is a goddess, even when she is (very realistically) portraying someone who hates all aspects of her situation. For those viewers who say she should stay in that situation, shame on you - enablers are almost as guilty as the abuser.
Spy
(2015)
Avoid
25 March 2018
I avoided this bomb for 3 years, but with little other choice of things to watch, and my sister saying she had enjoyed it, I gave it a chance. Full of things even a child would not find funny (the likes of fart jokes and excessive profanity), but unfortunately completely void of humour. And they are considering a sequel?
Little Boy Blue
(2017)
Wanted to like it, but...
1 March 2018
The shaky cam was so bad my head was spinning and I had to give up less than 7 minutes in. I'm sure I would have been gripped by the story and drama unfolding, and that it was an accurate telling of a senseless crime, but I didn't get the chance to be able to judge that. Why directors insist on using hand held cameras that induce nausea when watching is beyond me.
Bon Cop Bad Cop
(2006)
Bon Cop, Great Movie
19 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
On the 'net many Quebecois have stated that they hope that this movie will gain an English audience, I assume because they think it too French. However, coming from a Kiwi in Canada that doesn't understand French, nor hockey, I found this movie to be thoroughly refreshing and humorous. I may not have understood half the jokes in the movie, but I the one's I did understand easily outnumbered the number of laughs from the so-called Hollywood comedies - and this wasn't strictly a comedy.
Not a "perfect" movie, as you might start wondering how certain elements of the plot came about or what happened to others (**minor spoiler** for example, was the marijuana only there for comic relief or was that a plot thread that wasn't tied up?), however "Bon Cop Bad Cop" is far superior to most of what Hollywood can produce. Even the action sequences weren't impossible martial art moves or cars leaping gigantic gaps in pavement, they were exactly what you would expect to happen in real life.
I hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves, as it is one of the best I've seen for a while. I can't wait for a sequel, and hope that the relationship threads left hanging are hints of more to come.
Not a "perfect" movie, as you might start wondering how certain elements of the plot came about or what happened to others (**minor spoiler** for example, was the marijuana only there for comic relief or was that a plot thread that wasn't tied up?), however "Bon Cop Bad Cop" is far superior to most of what Hollywood can produce. Even the action sequences weren't impossible martial art moves or cars leaping gigantic gaps in pavement, they were exactly what you would expect to happen in real life.
I hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves, as it is one of the best I've seen for a while. I can't wait for a sequel, and hope that the relationship threads left hanging are hints of more to come.
The Jennie Project
(2001 TV Movie)
The book was excellent.
12 February 2005
I just finished reading the book "Jennie" by Douglas Preston and thought "This would make a great movie". Curiosity got the better of me and I decided to double check Douglas Preston's name on IMDb and lo and behold, there already was a movie.
Sadly, after reading the reviews posted here, I can see that the movie hasn't taken any of what was presented in the book at all. In fact, many of the names have changed and the fact that the main character in the book, Jennie, was not mentioned in any of the reviews is cause enough to realise Disney certainly did a disservice to this wonderful book.
The book is slow to start with, but it certainly is plot driven and builds to a shocking climax. The last 30 pages were read through tear-filled eyes.
Read the book. It's the best one I've read in over two years, and I read about 50 a year. "Inspirational", "amazing", "moving", "thought provoking".
From reading the other reviews, it just goes to show that Hollywood (or Disney) can truly destroy an originally creative idea.
Sadly, after reading the reviews posted here, I can see that the movie hasn't taken any of what was presented in the book at all. In fact, many of the names have changed and the fact that the main character in the book, Jennie, was not mentioned in any of the reviews is cause enough to realise Disney certainly did a disservice to this wonderful book.
The book is slow to start with, but it certainly is plot driven and builds to a shocking climax. The last 30 pages were read through tear-filled eyes.
Read the book. It's the best one I've read in over two years, and I read about 50 a year. "Inspirational", "amazing", "moving", "thought provoking".
From reading the other reviews, it just goes to show that Hollywood (or Disney) can truly destroy an originally creative idea.
Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed
(2004)
Clever, unique take on lycanthropy
8 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
*** Some minor spoilers follow***
A clever, insightful, dark, twisted follow-up to the original Ginger Snaps. Almost unique in it's approach of portraying a werewolf as the protagonist slowly undergoing the physical changes as the virus slowly takes control (personally, I never felt Ginger as a protagonist in the original). A nice build of tension throughout and subtle use of effects. As the first movie parallels the menstruation cycle to the transformation into a werewolf, this movie parallels drug addiction to the use of a herb to stay the transformation. The first looked at two sisters obsessed with gruesome deaths, this focuses more on the act of self mutilation (for the purpose of measuring how close transformation is). An intelligent movie that proves that the horror genre can have thoughtful entries that don't just have to shock to entertain. More of the same, please!
This sequel does exactly what sequels should do, not take the first movie and re-hash it! Ginger Snaps: Unleashed takes a fresh approach, and is better for it.
Emily Perkins, as Brigitte, puts forth a believable performance as the doomed sister of Ginger, ever hopeful of a delay, or cure, to the virus raging in her veins. Her downward spiral, showing an extremely thin, wasting teen (those of you who described her as "dumpy" must have seen an entirely different movie - there's no excess fat on that body, and she certainly isn't shabby. Bad fashion sense, but not shabby. Perhaps you meant "frumpy"?) shows the pressure she is under all too well - burdened with the virus, having the drug/herb that holds the transformation at bay withheld from her, the fact that she can't tell anyone what is happening to her, as well as having another werewolf tracking her for the purpose of mating (and who cares who the other werewolf is - that matters not).
I felt Emily Perkins was the force in the first movie, and here she gets to show just how great an actress she can be. To anyone who ruminates the lack of Ginger in this movie - get over it! How could you possibly expect her to have a large role in this flick? She's dead. Move on.
An unexpected end to the movie, which some will like and some will dislike, sets up an interesting premise for a fourth movie (if one is ever to be made). The choice of different directors for each of the movies help to make each unique. The third movie, due for release later this year, is actually a prequel set during the 1800's. Sounds like it has promise - I can't wait!
A clever, insightful, dark, twisted follow-up to the original Ginger Snaps. Almost unique in it's approach of portraying a werewolf as the protagonist slowly undergoing the physical changes as the virus slowly takes control (personally, I never felt Ginger as a protagonist in the original). A nice build of tension throughout and subtle use of effects. As the first movie parallels the menstruation cycle to the transformation into a werewolf, this movie parallels drug addiction to the use of a herb to stay the transformation. The first looked at two sisters obsessed with gruesome deaths, this focuses more on the act of self mutilation (for the purpose of measuring how close transformation is). An intelligent movie that proves that the horror genre can have thoughtful entries that don't just have to shock to entertain. More of the same, please!
This sequel does exactly what sequels should do, not take the first movie and re-hash it! Ginger Snaps: Unleashed takes a fresh approach, and is better for it.
Emily Perkins, as Brigitte, puts forth a believable performance as the doomed sister of Ginger, ever hopeful of a delay, or cure, to the virus raging in her veins. Her downward spiral, showing an extremely thin, wasting teen (those of you who described her as "dumpy" must have seen an entirely different movie - there's no excess fat on that body, and she certainly isn't shabby. Bad fashion sense, but not shabby. Perhaps you meant "frumpy"?) shows the pressure she is under all too well - burdened with the virus, having the drug/herb that holds the transformation at bay withheld from her, the fact that she can't tell anyone what is happening to her, as well as having another werewolf tracking her for the purpose of mating (and who cares who the other werewolf is - that matters not).
I felt Emily Perkins was the force in the first movie, and here she gets to show just how great an actress she can be. To anyone who ruminates the lack of Ginger in this movie - get over it! How could you possibly expect her to have a large role in this flick? She's dead. Move on.
An unexpected end to the movie, which some will like and some will dislike, sets up an interesting premise for a fourth movie (if one is ever to be made). The choice of different directors for each of the movies help to make each unique. The third movie, due for release later this year, is actually a prequel set during the 1800's. Sounds like it has promise - I can't wait!
Walking Tall
(2004)
Walking a bit too short.
3 April 2004
This movie seemed to be over just as I thought it was getting started. The final conflict between Jay and Chris was brief and too soon. Perhaps they didn't know how to build some suspense and plot layer that could engage the audience more. Maybe I was expecting too much.
Also, was I wrong, or was there some knowing eye contact between Ray and Jay during the trial, inferring that Ray was in Jay's pocket? If so, it never went anywhere.
The Rock has filled Schwarzenegger's shoes well, and he's easier to understand, but he has yet to figure out that the mindless plot does not a great movie make.
Also, was I wrong, or was there some knowing eye contact between Ray and Jay during the trial, inferring that Ray was in Jay's pocket? If so, it never went anywhere.
The Rock has filled Schwarzenegger's shoes well, and he's easier to understand, but he has yet to figure out that the mindless plot does not a great movie make.
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
Non-entertaining
3 April 2004
I walked out after an hour of this snore-fest. The dialogue was a joke - it had even more lame questions in answer to questions than Matrix Reloaded had. The suspense was certainly not suspenseful and the characters seemed quite unbelievable. The King and his followers were depicted as hysterical drag queens and Pilate is a weak character that can't make a decision. A movie that reduces my compassion for the suffering Christ went through is not a great movie in my book. After hearing all of the hype, I thought this was going to be some amazing telling of Christ's last days. Sorely disappointed. I'm surprised Christians all over are making Mel ultra-rich over this uninspired retelling.
Hidalgo
(2004)
A refreshingly clean piece of entertainment.
3 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***minor spoilers***
Finally.. an action movie that doesn't use the too-quick-for-the-eye type of editing that is used to compensate for bad special effects that appears in just about EVERY movie made today. Nor does it use the action to compensate for other aspects of the movie. The action is appropriate and not overdone.
After reading a few of the other comments posted, I wonder if I saw the same version of the movie that others did. A number of people mention gaping holes in the plot. Admittedly the plot isn't one of the greatest and may have some minor holes, but some inconsistencies mentioned did not seem inconsistent to me.
One was the "praying to the gods" scene that was mentioned to be out of place. It was a mirage of Frank's ancestor's, showing that maybe he finally has accepted the fact he is half Indian, and also the part he played in the final massacre of his people. It tied parts of the movie together nicely, especially when it was set on two different nations.
The other was the explanation of how the other characters in the film could "beat" the fastest horses in the world to the mid and end points of the race. It was explained in the movie, but to reiterate, they used a road that went alongside the desert, thus allowing them to make faster progress. The horses running through the desert were mostly moving at a walking, or even crawling, pace through sand throughout most of the race. The heat of the desert and lack of food and water would have only made their progress even slower.
Not necessarily a great movie, but certainly very entertaining and a visual treat.
Okay, now that those inconsistencies are explained.... go and see it on the big screen while you can. It needs the large screen to do justice to the wide vistas. It may be a little long for some, but it's refreshingly crisp in editing and clean in content and dialogue.
Finally.. an action movie that doesn't use the too-quick-for-the-eye type of editing that is used to compensate for bad special effects that appears in just about EVERY movie made today. Nor does it use the action to compensate for other aspects of the movie. The action is appropriate and not overdone.
After reading a few of the other comments posted, I wonder if I saw the same version of the movie that others did. A number of people mention gaping holes in the plot. Admittedly the plot isn't one of the greatest and may have some minor holes, but some inconsistencies mentioned did not seem inconsistent to me.
One was the "praying to the gods" scene that was mentioned to be out of place. It was a mirage of Frank's ancestor's, showing that maybe he finally has accepted the fact he is half Indian, and also the part he played in the final massacre of his people. It tied parts of the movie together nicely, especially when it was set on two different nations.
The other was the explanation of how the other characters in the film could "beat" the fastest horses in the world to the mid and end points of the race. It was explained in the movie, but to reiterate, they used a road that went alongside the desert, thus allowing them to make faster progress. The horses running through the desert were mostly moving at a walking, or even crawling, pace through sand throughout most of the race. The heat of the desert and lack of food and water would have only made their progress even slower.
Not necessarily a great movie, but certainly very entertaining and a visual treat.
Okay, now that those inconsistencies are explained.... go and see it on the big screen while you can. It needs the large screen to do justice to the wide vistas. It may be a little long for some, but it's refreshingly crisp in editing and clean in content and dialogue.
The Matrix Revolutions
(2003)
They should have left it as one movie!
10 January 2004
Too many irrelevant concepts introduced. No questions raised in the previous movie were answered, or even hinted at. The ending wasn't an ending, just a cliff hanger so they can churn out sequel after sequel after sequel, progressively getting worse and worse. MAKE A CHOICE WACHOWSKI!!!
A complete ending to a highly anticipated trilogy.
10 January 2004
I never thought, when I went to see `Bad Taste' in a film festival in Hamilton, New Zealand, those many years ago, that the director of that low-budget hilarity would eventually be making The LotR's trilogy to an eager world-wide audience.
Let me say that the first time I saw RotK, I didn't think it up to par with the first two parts. However, after a second viewing (where I didn't sit as close to the screen) and some time to digest it all, I rate it just as good.
In reality, I don't consider this to be a single entity, just the third section of an extended movie. Therefor, saying whether RotK is better or worse than FotR or TTT, doesn't make sense to me. As a complete story, they are incredible in depth, breadth and scope. For those of you out there who give it negative reviews, take a bit of time and think about whether or not you could pull off something so huge and to satisfy so many.
A point to note: A number of reviewers comment on the trilogy not being true to the book, and state that an adaptation should not change or modify the original, merely visualise the exact words and scenes already created. Firstly, let me point out that the Miriam Webster dictionary defines adaptation to mean "modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment" or "a composition rewritten into a new form". This second meaning hits the point home. Note the words "rewritten" and "new form". It is a director's job to ensure that they bring to the screen a fresh, exciting and thoughtful version of a work. In that regard, Peter Jackson has succeeded. Give him his due. Just a mention to those of you who give Shakespeare as an example of something that should never be re-interpreted, I have seen a number of productions of the bard where scenes are cut or rearranged to allow for the director's vision to shine through. I don't judge these as being bad, just a new way of looking at things, and I enjoy being exposed to differing points of view on how things are interpreted. Personally, I hate seeing movies that are an exact replica of the book. Why on earth would I want to see the movie then????
Okay, one last gripe, and notice my gripes are about the negative reviewers, not the movie itself (despite the fact that all movies have flaws). The ending is NOT 35-45 minutes as one reviewer stated. It is approximately 23. Considering the trilogy is about 9 1/2 hours in length (more when you consider the EE's) this amount of time is not excessive. It equates to around a 4 or 5 minute ending on a 2 hour movie. Allowing the audience to experience a satisfactorily wrapped ending is obviously NOT what some viewers want. I thought it a pleasant change to actually have a movie end without loose ends or parts unexplained. (another recently concluded trilogy that introduced many irrelevant concepts and failed to explain even the relevant ones will remain unnamed).
All in all, a thorough job well done! In some ways different from the book, but better because of it! Peter Jackson and crew, I hope you get all the credit and reward you deserve for this incredible feat. Many thanx from a fellow Kiwi, albeit uprooted. I can't wait for King Kong.
P.S. Peter, maybe you should consider doing `The Hobbit', as the rumours indicate there is a lot of interest from the movie-going public.
Let me say that the first time I saw RotK, I didn't think it up to par with the first two parts. However, after a second viewing (where I didn't sit as close to the screen) and some time to digest it all, I rate it just as good.
In reality, I don't consider this to be a single entity, just the third section of an extended movie. Therefor, saying whether RotK is better or worse than FotR or TTT, doesn't make sense to me. As a complete story, they are incredible in depth, breadth and scope. For those of you out there who give it negative reviews, take a bit of time and think about whether or not you could pull off something so huge and to satisfy so many.
A point to note: A number of reviewers comment on the trilogy not being true to the book, and state that an adaptation should not change or modify the original, merely visualise the exact words and scenes already created. Firstly, let me point out that the Miriam Webster dictionary defines adaptation to mean "modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment" or "a composition rewritten into a new form". This second meaning hits the point home. Note the words "rewritten" and "new form". It is a director's job to ensure that they bring to the screen a fresh, exciting and thoughtful version of a work. In that regard, Peter Jackson has succeeded. Give him his due. Just a mention to those of you who give Shakespeare as an example of something that should never be re-interpreted, I have seen a number of productions of the bard where scenes are cut or rearranged to allow for the director's vision to shine through. I don't judge these as being bad, just a new way of looking at things, and I enjoy being exposed to differing points of view on how things are interpreted. Personally, I hate seeing movies that are an exact replica of the book. Why on earth would I want to see the movie then????
Okay, one last gripe, and notice my gripes are about the negative reviewers, not the movie itself (despite the fact that all movies have flaws). The ending is NOT 35-45 minutes as one reviewer stated. It is approximately 23. Considering the trilogy is about 9 1/2 hours in length (more when you consider the EE's) this amount of time is not excessive. It equates to around a 4 or 5 minute ending on a 2 hour movie. Allowing the audience to experience a satisfactorily wrapped ending is obviously NOT what some viewers want. I thought it a pleasant change to actually have a movie end without loose ends or parts unexplained. (another recently concluded trilogy that introduced many irrelevant concepts and failed to explain even the relevant ones will remain unnamed).
All in all, a thorough job well done! In some ways different from the book, but better because of it! Peter Jackson and crew, I hope you get all the credit and reward you deserve for this incredible feat. Many thanx from a fellow Kiwi, albeit uprooted. I can't wait for King Kong.
P.S. Peter, maybe you should consider doing `The Hobbit', as the rumours indicate there is a lot of interest from the movie-going public.
An excellent movie then, and excellent movie now.
10 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
(slight spoiler)
An excellent mix of comedy, horror and romance. No movie has done as good a job with crossing these genres before or since. The makeup was awesome then and stands the test of time. Definitely a 10 out of 10. Strange that some people find the ending abrupt or out of place. It's PERFECT. How else could you end the movie? And not all movies have to have happy endings - this ends more realistically, assuming that werewolves actually exist.
Not only a great movie, but the best werewolf movie made thus far. Being a connoisseur of lycanthrope movies, I find there aren't many good one's out there. Here, in my opinion, are the next top 3 ... Ginger Snaps, The Howling, TeenWolf. I wish there were more I could add to the list, but unfortunately there isn't.
P.S. The sequel, American Werewolf In Paris, bears no comparison. A lame attempt to cash in on one of the greats.
An excellent mix of comedy, horror and romance. No movie has done as good a job with crossing these genres before or since. The makeup was awesome then and stands the test of time. Definitely a 10 out of 10. Strange that some people find the ending abrupt or out of place. It's PERFECT. How else could you end the movie? And not all movies have to have happy endings - this ends more realistically, assuming that werewolves actually exist.
Not only a great movie, but the best werewolf movie made thus far. Being a connoisseur of lycanthrope movies, I find there aren't many good one's out there. Here, in my opinion, are the next top 3 ... Ginger Snaps, The Howling, TeenWolf. I wish there were more I could add to the list, but unfortunately there isn't.
P.S. The sequel, American Werewolf In Paris, bears no comparison. A lame attempt to cash in on one of the greats.
Despite the criticism, is highly deserving of praise
23 December 2002
Other viewers have made many comments, criticisms and comparisons and each are equally valid. Rather than reiterate what they've said, I'll leave most of the praise/criticism aside.
Personally I enjoyed this movie both times I saw it, and more so the second time. Every movie I've ever seen has its faults, and this is no exception. The exception here is that I didn't care. The faults disappeared amongst everything else that was transpiring on screen.
A number of viewers have commented on how "different" the movie is from the book. However, having seen a number of movie adaptations of books (and read a number of novelisations of movies) I enjoy it more when the director takes a few liberties and throws me a surprise or gives me something to challenge me mentally. A strict telling of the novel can often be boring and mundane. Nor may it translate to the silver screen well. How often I've thought that I would love to see entirely different endings to the book. Wouldn't it be radical to see evil triumph just once? Jokes aside, let the director take some artistic licence. Movies are not books, and nor are books movies. Enjoy each for its own accomplishments. I've thoroughly enjoyed Tolkien's books and thoroughly enjoyed Jackson's movies. They are both amazing in their own right, not exactly the same, but that makes them more enjoyable.
I can't wait for the DVD to come out and breathe even more life into Middle Earth.
Personally I enjoyed this movie both times I saw it, and more so the second time. Every movie I've ever seen has its faults, and this is no exception. The exception here is that I didn't care. The faults disappeared amongst everything else that was transpiring on screen.
A number of viewers have commented on how "different" the movie is from the book. However, having seen a number of movie adaptations of books (and read a number of novelisations of movies) I enjoy it more when the director takes a few liberties and throws me a surprise or gives me something to challenge me mentally. A strict telling of the novel can often be boring and mundane. Nor may it translate to the silver screen well. How often I've thought that I would love to see entirely different endings to the book. Wouldn't it be radical to see evil triumph just once? Jokes aside, let the director take some artistic licence. Movies are not books, and nor are books movies. Enjoy each for its own accomplishments. I've thoroughly enjoyed Tolkien's books and thoroughly enjoyed Jackson's movies. They are both amazing in their own right, not exactly the same, but that makes them more enjoyable.
I can't wait for the DVD to come out and breathe even more life into Middle Earth.
Tell Your Friends