In "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is the first installment in the J.R.R Tolken's trilogy. The film directed by Peter Jackson is an epic in every way. The Fellowship of the Ring boasts beautiful visual effects with near perfect sets placed in New Zealand. Tolken's world is brought to life and put right in front of the audience to see. I think Peter Jackson really has satisfied on the magnitude of Middle Earth portrayed through Tolken's immensely popular books.
I do have a one problem with this movie though. The movie repeats itself for three hours as Frodo and his friends are pursued by the Ring Wraiths that serve under Sauron. The movie goes on for quite some time coming and going from one quest to another, however, that is pretty much the point of an epic.
I would say it's fairly safe to say that "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is mostly accurate to the book. There are few films based off books that actually stay true to the story it's based off. As we all know, The Lord of the Rings is a very long trilogy so naturally, the films are longer. A book requires much more detail and usually involves a slower paced story progression. Although some may find this movie a bit repetitive and redundant, I see it as Peter Jackson preserving the quality of Tolkien's story, allowing the tale to be told in the manner it was meant to be told.
In "The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" I thought of the movie as a very good movie portrayal of the first part to the epic that Tolkien made. The movie does give a great start to the 3 part series. I prefer this movie to the second. For it establishes way better character development than "The Two Towers" I preferred the first book over the second as well.
The only problem I have is that some parts from the book are left out. But since the book was so very large and filled with many side quests and characters. It would be hard for someone to put it in to a movie. Which sometimes is sad. Though even with extended features this movie hits about 3 hours long which is very long for me. Reminds me much of the Sergio Leone films which dragged on for 2 1/2 hours + long.
Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" has a big on the evolution of characters throughout the film. The characters that most noticeably do so are Samwise Gamgee, Frodo Baggins, and Boromir. Samwise starts off as a scared, shy, and non confrontational character starting off in the Shire. An example is when he eavesdrops on Frodo and Gandalf's conversation about the ring. Sam starts to come out of his rut of self pity at Moria after his first fight. Frodo is outgoing and confident at the beginning of "The Lord of the Rings". After getting the ring though, he starts to become a dark and brooding character. He becomes mistrusting of everyone who references to the ring. Boromir does not really change until the end. The audience sees him right when we meet him as a greedy character. He keeps his intentions about the ring to himself after his initial proposition to use the ring. Boromir dies defending the hobbits after trying to take the ring away when the orcs attack at the end of the film.
I think the person who changes mentally and physically the most through out the film is Frodo Baggins. He starts out as a simple shire folk boy who just reads down by the river and enjoys the village life. But than he is quickly thrown on a epic adventure in which he meets many new people. Visits places he never thought of going to *such as Rivendale the elvish city*
He establishes new friends grows stronger physically and mentally. And gets closer to his friends he had before such as Sam. Overall Elijah Wood does a good job portraying him as a character.
Frodo's character development throughout the film is definitely the most noticeable. It begins with him being scared and confused about the urgent task thats has been abruptly presented to him. He has a lot to conquer and much evil to face. There is also a strong inner struggle between him and the temptation of power that comes from the ring. towards the end of the film, we see stronger and more adventurous hobbit, but we also see someone who may easily fall under the irresistible evil power that encumbers the ring.
I did not like Peter Jackson's "King Kong". First, I thought the film was very inconsistant both in cinematic style and in plot. In the begginning of the film the filming changes quite a big. Editing techniques such as blurring of "dramatic" items and slow motion of important actions of characters were frequent until the second half of the film. Jackson made a few scenes much to long such as the reaction shots between Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and Kong. There are too many shots between the reaction of Ann and the screams of the monkey lasting from 3-4 minutes of the monkey just yelling at the blonde actress. The plot itself was very inconsistant. In the begginning it is about Ann Darrow and her run in with Carl Denham (Jack Black). About an hour and half into the film when the crew is on the island, it suddenly turns 180 degrees into some kind of blend of "Indiana Jones" and "Resident Evil" with CG bug monsters stabbing anything that moves or a the conflict with the natives. At the end of "King Kong", the film turns into a "sad" love story between Ann and Kong. I didn't like the script of the film. It tried to mix humor with dramatic moments, all of which did not work at all. Jack Black's character, Carl, provides most of these moments from his antics doing actions Jack Black's characters are known for and being a all knowing character with the map to Skull Island. The ship mates in the film often tried to have a dramatic feel to their character though vague lines, but it felt pretty pathetic as well. The situations the characters are put in are extremely unplausable, mostly from the sheer stupidity most of them show through the script. From risking nearly 30 men to save one character or from the ignorance Jack Black's character shows I felt that there was no cohesivness to the story. The plot moves forward either much too fast or much to slow. I was dissapointed in how I could see the budget this film had from the special effects, but the effect on me fell flat. The whole film revolves around the characters in a huge green screen or an expensive set that looks fake. The visual effects didn't really immerse me into the movie. I had higher hopes for the visual effects such as in the previous film, "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". Lastly the characters were not very well executed. The cast in the movie was really big in the begginning of the film when they search for Skull Island. Characters such as many of the ship mates were given little depth then killed off on the island. The actor I have a big problem with is Jack Black. He was the worst choice possible for the role. His character was SUPPOSED to be funny and sometimes insightful, but I was hoping throughout the whole film that King Kong would stomp on him. His character gets extremely annoying from his stupidity and the pathetic little "dramatic" moments he is supposed to have. I could not take Jack Black seriously at all in this role. As you can probably tell, I really did not like this film as it bordered from dissapointing to anger on how stupid some parts of the movie are. I do have a few compliments for the film though. Some of the visual effects really did hit home such as the landscape of the island or the scene before the crew gets shipwrecked. Some of the characters such as Lumpy (Andy Serkis) really were funny throughout the film. Characters such as Ann Darrow, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) and Captain Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann) accually had depth and didn't fall flat like the others.
I think that King Kong compared to Lord of the Rings wasn't as good. Since Lord of the Rings had such a epic tail and King Kong's been remade so many times I just forget all the ones made. I thought King Kong was a pretty good movie interesting. Reminded me of a action pacted gorilla movie mixed with Jurassic Park. The cast of the movie was interesting. When Jack Black played a regular part. He usually does a comedic character yet in this movie he choose to be a more serious one. It was sort of odd. Adrian Brody who was in "The Pianist" also played a key role he did a good job. The special effects in the movie were pretty good latest technology. Overall this movie was pretty good but length was pretty long though.
Peter Jackson uses many different kinds of cinematic style combined with other choices throughout the shooting to build "King Kong". The costumes in "King Kong" were very representative of the time. All the cloths each characters were wearing was authentic and stylized connecting with the 1930's. Set items such as the cars and boats shown in Peter Jackson's film, were also well thought out. The cars were modeled to look like the cars produced by Ford. Many of the sets looked quite good for the most part. The 1930's scenes in the beginning and end of the film looked authentic as well. The buildings and the costumes for the huge set of characters made their world seem vivid. Throughout almost the whole film, "King Kong" is shot throughout high-key lighting. Even the nights on the boat seemed very bright. Only on scenes like when some of the crew is stuck inside a canyon was it low key. I also noticed that Kong was almost always shown on a very low angle shot to make him seem large and the humans were always shown on high angles. The reaction shots of many characters were extremely overdone as some scenes lasted 3-4 minutes of the monkey and the humans exchanging reactions before any actual action even started. Jackson uses a tracking dolly shot to follow the crew on the island as they progress through it to save Ann. Cutting was used to transition. I did not notice any other transitions such as dissolve to go through scenes. The sounds the film has have a mixture of diagetic and non diagetic.
Although the film "King Kong" may not live up to the greatness of "The lord of the Rings" trilogy, It is still a well crafted film. Being such a large budget film, I can't help but feel that there was more effort put into the action sequences of the movie rather than the plot itself. An improved plot would allow the story to go deeper and allow us to care more about what is happening to King Kong instead of being more focused on the action sequences in the film.
I think that my favorite part of the movie was probably getting Kong from the island. It was very interesting how they manage to capture the beast and lug him all the way to New York City. The main characters were put up against the biggest obstacle. Some people were lost in the process. But the key characters made it out alive. I did like the fight between the T-Rex or Raptors and Kong it was pretty dang epic to watch. And the bug part was pretty creepy. Just the bizarre things you saw was cool. It truely made it a adventure film.
The last film in our Director project was Peter Jacksons critically acclaimed film Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. This film was nominated for I believe 14 academy awards and won 11 of them it ranks amoung the most academy awards won and nominated in the academys history. I watched this film already have watched it a few times before. I do enjoy this one alot. But the one thing that can get boring after awhile is the countless battle sequences. I read the book and I do realize theres alot of battles in the last book. But compared to the first 2 books or movies. There was usually only 2 major battle sequences. In this film there was about 10 battle sequences. Many in which took place at Minus Tirith. And other locations as well. I do enjoy the film because I think it was a excellent way to conclude the series. It did good with how the book was written. It followed up pretty damn well. So all in all excellent film.
"The Lord of the Ring: The Return of the King" is the 3rd installment of the series. In this film the special effects are even better than the first. The setting in this film is extremely intricate and complex. This becomes even more noticeable during the extreme battle sequences. Every detail put into these scenes is near perfect and breathtaking. There are a large number of actors to play the parts as both the soldiers and the orcs. The music score in "The Lord of the Rings" is very fitting. The music was produced and conducted by Howard Shore.
This film was quite a bit more enjoyable for me. The plot was the biggest enjoyment for me compared to the first. The characters are more bright and vibrant. The plot delves deep into character development as each character goes through their own trials in the conquest for good. It just flowed better than the two previous films. The only problem were the scenes with Frodo, Sam, and Smeagle. Even though they are the main characters, I just found the scenes dull and boring. I disliked Frodo's personality as dark and brooding. In the first film, there were a few good battle sequences. In "The Return of the King" ,however, it puts almost every other scenes of war behind it because of the sheer size and measure of detail into those scenes. Every monster and man that are fighting throughout these sequences such as Ithilian and Minas Tirith were thought out thoroughly. There were only brief moments of the scene in which I could clearly see the fake green screen moments. The designers and directors took more chances with this, so it landed and bombed more times.
The "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is a critically acclaimed film, winning 11 Oscars.These included: best director, costume design, visual effects, picture, adapted screenplay, sound mixing, original score, original song, makeup, editing, and set decoration. There is a scene in which showed almost all of these elements. The scene in which the king of Minas Tirith, Denethor, sends his remaining son on a suicide run to the orc base. Peter Jackson combines many elements to make this scene a very dramatic one. There is a slow motion scene as Faramir marches down the isles of Minas Tirith's crowds with a high angle shot, making his men seem like they are already doomed. The scene cuts to the king sloppily eating with close ups of him. This shows that he truly has gone to a descent of madness as he shows no care that he will lose both of his sons. Peregren or Pippin Took sings a sad song (originally a poem that J.R. Tolken wrote) that silences sounds of the orc army and Faramir's men clashing. The scene ends along with Pippin's song with Denethor still stuffing his face.
This is my seventh year teaching film, and ninth overall. I got my B.A. in journalism in 1998 from the University of Minnesota, then worked as a sports writer at The Star Tribune for awhile. I eventually went back to the U for my master's degree in English education, and started teaching in 2001.
I live in Minneapolis with Susan (wife, works at General Mills), Jack (son, born in August '08), and Gunnar (dog, a PBGV -- look it up).
14 comments:
In "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is the first installment in the J.R.R Tolken's trilogy. The film directed by Peter Jackson is an epic in every way. The Fellowship of the Ring boasts beautiful visual effects with near perfect sets placed in New Zealand.
Tolken's world is brought to life and put right in front of the audience to see. I think Peter Jackson really has satisfied on the magnitude of Middle Earth portrayed through Tolken's immensely popular books.
I do have a one problem with this movie though. The movie repeats itself for three hours as Frodo and his friends are pursued by the Ring Wraiths that serve under Sauron. The movie goes on for quite some time coming and going from one quest to another, however, that is pretty much the point of an epic.
I would say it's fairly safe to say that "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is mostly accurate to the book. There are few films based off books that actually stay true to the story it's based off. As we all know, The Lord of the Rings is a very long trilogy so naturally, the films are longer. A book requires much more detail and usually involves a slower paced story progression. Although some may find this movie a bit repetitive and redundant, I see it as Peter Jackson preserving the quality of Tolkien's story, allowing the tale to be told in the manner it was meant to be told.
In "The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" I thought of the movie as a very good movie portrayal of the first part to the epic that Tolkien made. The movie does give a great start to the 3 part series. I prefer this movie to the second. For it establishes way better character development than "The Two Towers" I preferred the first book over the second as well.
The only problem I have is that some parts from the book are left out. But since the book was so very large and filled with many side quests and characters. It would be hard for someone to put it in to a movie. Which sometimes is sad. Though even with extended features this movie hits about 3 hours long which is very long for me. Reminds me much of the Sergio Leone films which dragged on for 2 1/2 hours + long.
Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" has a big on the evolution of characters throughout the film. The characters that most noticeably do so are Samwise Gamgee, Frodo Baggins, and Boromir.
Samwise starts off as a scared, shy, and non confrontational character starting off in the Shire. An example is when he eavesdrops on Frodo and Gandalf's conversation about the ring. Sam starts to come out of his rut of self pity at Moria after his first fight.
Frodo is outgoing and confident at the beginning of "The Lord of the Rings". After getting the ring though, he starts to become a dark and brooding character. He becomes mistrusting of everyone who references to the ring.
Boromir does not really change until the end. The audience sees him right when we meet him as a greedy character. He keeps his intentions about the ring to himself after his initial proposition to use the ring. Boromir dies defending the hobbits after trying to take the ring away when the orcs attack at the end of the film.
I think the person who changes mentally and physically the most through out the film is Frodo Baggins. He starts out as a simple shire folk boy who just reads down by the river and enjoys the village life. But than he is quickly thrown on a epic adventure in which he meets many new people. Visits places he never thought of going to *such as Rivendale the elvish city*
He establishes new friends grows stronger physically and mentally. And gets closer to his friends he had before such as Sam. Overall Elijah Wood does a good job portraying him as a character.
Frodo's character development throughout the film is definitely the most noticeable. It begins with him being scared and confused about the urgent task thats has been abruptly presented to him. He has a lot to conquer and much evil to face. There is also a strong inner struggle between him and the temptation of power that comes from the ring. towards the end of the film, we see stronger and more adventurous hobbit, but we also see someone who may easily fall under the irresistible evil power that encumbers the ring.
I did not like Peter Jackson's "King Kong". First, I thought the film was very inconsistant both in cinematic style and in plot. In the begginning of the film the filming changes quite a big. Editing techniques such as blurring of "dramatic" items and slow motion of important actions of characters were frequent until the second half of the film. Jackson made a few scenes much to long such as the reaction shots between Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and Kong. There are too many shots between the reaction of Ann and the screams of the monkey lasting from 3-4 minutes of the monkey just yelling at the blonde actress. The plot itself was very inconsistant. In the begginning it is about Ann Darrow and her run in with Carl Denham (Jack Black). About an hour and half into the film when the crew is on the island, it suddenly turns 180 degrees into some kind of blend of "Indiana Jones" and "Resident Evil" with CG bug monsters stabbing anything that moves or a the conflict with the natives. At the end of "King Kong", the film turns into a "sad" love story between Ann and Kong.
I didn't like the script of the film. It tried to mix humor with dramatic moments, all of which did not work at all. Jack Black's character, Carl, provides most of these moments from his antics doing actions Jack Black's characters are known for and being a all knowing character with the map to Skull Island. The ship mates in the film often tried to have a dramatic feel to their character though vague lines, but it felt pretty pathetic as well. The situations the characters are put in are extremely unplausable, mostly from the sheer stupidity most of them show through the script. From risking nearly 30 men to save one character or from the ignorance Jack Black's character shows I felt that there was no cohesivness to the story. The plot moves forward either much too fast or much to slow.
I was dissapointed in how I could see the budget this film had from the special effects, but the effect on me fell flat. The whole film revolves around the characters in a huge green screen or an expensive set that looks fake. The visual effects didn't really immerse me into the movie. I had higher hopes for the visual effects such as in the previous film, "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring".
Lastly the characters were not very well executed. The cast in the movie was really big in the begginning of the film when they search for Skull Island. Characters such as many of the ship mates were given little depth then killed off on the island. The actor I have a big problem with is Jack Black. He was the worst choice possible for the role. His character was SUPPOSED to be funny and sometimes insightful, but I was hoping throughout the whole film that King Kong would stomp on him. His character gets extremely annoying from his stupidity and the pathetic little "dramatic" moments he is supposed to have. I could not take Jack Black seriously at all in this role.
As you can probably tell, I really did not like this film as it bordered from dissapointing to anger on how stupid some parts of the movie are. I do have a few compliments for the film though. Some of the visual effects really did hit home such as the landscape of the island or the scene before the crew gets shipwrecked. Some of the characters such as Lumpy (Andy Serkis) really were funny throughout the film. Characters such as Ann Darrow, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) and Captain Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann) accually had depth and didn't fall flat like the others.
I think that King Kong compared to Lord of the Rings wasn't as good. Since Lord of the Rings had such a epic tail and King Kong's been remade so many times I just forget all the ones made. I thought King Kong was a pretty good movie interesting. Reminded me of a action pacted gorilla movie mixed with Jurassic Park. The cast of the movie was interesting. When Jack Black played a regular part. He usually does a comedic character yet in this movie he choose to be a more serious one. It was sort of odd. Adrian Brody who was in "The Pianist" also played a key role he did a good job. The special effects in the movie were pretty good latest technology. Overall this movie was pretty good but length was pretty long though.
Peter Jackson uses many different kinds of cinematic style combined with other choices throughout the shooting to build "King Kong".
The costumes in "King Kong" were very representative of the time. All the cloths each characters were wearing was authentic and stylized connecting with the 1930's.
Set items such as the cars and boats shown in Peter Jackson's film, were also well thought out. The cars were modeled to look like the cars produced by Ford. Many of the sets looked quite good for the most part. The 1930's scenes in the beginning and end of the film looked authentic as well. The buildings and the costumes for the huge set of characters made their world seem vivid.
Throughout almost the whole film, "King Kong" is shot throughout high-key lighting. Even the nights on the boat seemed very bright. Only on scenes like when some of the crew is stuck inside a canyon was it low key. I also noticed that Kong was almost always shown on a very low angle shot to make him seem large and the humans were always shown on high angles. The reaction shots of many characters were extremely overdone as some scenes lasted 3-4 minutes of the monkey and the humans exchanging reactions before any actual action even started. Jackson uses a tracking dolly shot to follow the crew on the island as they progress through it to save Ann. Cutting was used to transition. I did not notice any other transitions such as dissolve to go through scenes. The sounds the film has have a mixture of diagetic and non diagetic.
Although the film "King Kong" may not live up to the greatness of "The lord of the Rings" trilogy, It is still a well crafted film. Being such a large budget film, I can't help but feel that there was more effort put into the action sequences of the movie rather than the plot itself. An improved plot would allow the story to go deeper and allow us to care more about what is happening to King Kong instead of being more focused on the action sequences in the film.
I think that my favorite part of the movie was probably getting Kong from the island. It was very interesting how they manage to capture the beast and lug him all the way to New York City. The main characters were put up against the biggest obstacle. Some people were lost in the process. But the key characters made it out alive. I did like the fight between the T-Rex or Raptors and Kong it was pretty dang epic to watch. And the bug part was pretty creepy. Just the bizarre things you saw was cool. It truely made it a adventure film.
The last film in our Director project was Peter Jacksons critically acclaimed film Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. This film was nominated for I believe 14 academy awards and won 11 of them it ranks amoung the most academy awards won and nominated in the academys history. I watched this film already have watched it a few times before. I do enjoy this one alot. But the one thing that can get boring after awhile is the countless battle sequences. I read the book and I do realize theres alot of battles in the last book. But compared to the first 2 books or movies. There was usually only 2 major battle sequences. In this film there was about 10 battle sequences. Many in which took place at Minus Tirith. And other locations as well. I do enjoy the film because I think it was a excellent way to conclude the series. It did good with how the book was written. It followed up pretty damn well. So all in all excellent film.
"The Lord of the Ring: The Return of the King" is the 3rd installment of the series. In this film the special effects are even better than the first. The setting in this film is extremely intricate and complex. This becomes even more noticeable during the extreme battle sequences. Every detail put into these scenes is near perfect and breathtaking. There are a large number of actors to play the parts as both the soldiers and the orcs. The music score in "The Lord of the Rings" is very fitting. The music was produced and conducted by Howard Shore.
This film was quite a bit more enjoyable for me. The plot was the biggest enjoyment for me compared to the first. The characters are more bright and vibrant. The plot delves deep into character development as each character goes through their own trials in the conquest for good. It just flowed better than the two previous films. The only problem were the scenes with Frodo, Sam, and Smeagle. Even though they are the main characters, I just found the scenes dull and boring. I disliked Frodo's personality as dark and brooding. In the first film, there were a few good battle sequences. In "The Return of the King" ,however, it puts almost every other scenes of war behind it because of the sheer size and measure of detail into those scenes. Every monster and man that are fighting throughout these sequences such as Ithilian and Minas Tirith were thought out thoroughly. There were only brief moments of the scene in which I could clearly see the fake green screen moments. The designers and directors took more chances with this, so it landed and bombed more times.
The "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is a critically acclaimed film, winning 11 Oscars.These included: best director, costume design, visual effects, picture, adapted screenplay, sound mixing, original score, original song, makeup, editing, and set decoration. There is a scene in which showed almost all of these elements. The scene in which the king of Minas Tirith, Denethor, sends his remaining son on a suicide run to the orc base. Peter Jackson combines many elements to make this scene a very dramatic one. There is a slow motion scene as Faramir marches down the isles of Minas Tirith's crowds with a high angle shot, making his men seem like they are already doomed. The scene cuts to the king sloppily eating with close ups of him. This shows that he truly has gone to a descent of madness as he shows no care that he will lose both of his sons. Peregren or Pippin Took sings a sad song (originally a poem that J.R. Tolken wrote) that silences sounds of the orc army and Faramir's men clashing. The scene ends along with Pippin's song with Denethor still stuffing his face.
Post a Comment