Just got back and I loved it. I made one crucial mistake though, drank a soda before going into the theater and had an Icee in the theater

I thought it followed the book very well (probably the best book adaption I have seen since Dune) - and was a great movie on its own merits. First time I felt like I got my money's worth out of a movie in a long time

Tools for Wizardry(r) 7

• RE: Lord of the Rings (the movie),joan212, 12:03 PM, Jan-31-02
  • RE: Lord of the Rings (the movie),Kuli (Guest), 08:26 AM, Feb-01-02
• RE: Lord of the Rings (the movie),myrddin, 03:02 AM, Feb-15-02
  • Lynch version,Llevram, 07:53 AM, Feb-15-02
    • RE: Lynch version,myrddin, 09:44 AM, Feb-15-02

I've only seen it three times, some of my friends have seen it four. Great movie, can hardly wait for part two. I agree that it should be considered a classic. They managed to caputre the feel even though they had to leave so much out. wonderful job. joan

Yes, I have to agree with you. A great movie and I loved to see all the folks and places of middle-earth come to life and walk "in reality". The actors are quite well chosen I think, though Legolas' introduction was a bit stupid: "Halt, Boromir, don't you know who you are talking to?"

Hobbingen looked truly idyllic and Bruchtal had a great scenery (are these names correct? I only know that Bilbo and Frodo are called Baggins in the original, whereas they are called "Beutlin" in German - seems we need a Tolkien-dictionary ). My favourite was Moria, especially the entrance. "This is a grave".

But though I loved the movie I think there were some essential things missing - Galadriel's gifts to the fellowship for example or Legolas' and Gimli's dawning friendship. Two things I didn't like are that Aragorn is revealed as Gondor's king-to-come so early and that Merry and Pippin go with Frodo and Sam just by accident (I loved their little "conspiracy" in the book). But apart from those small points the movie is just great!!! Looking forward to the "Director's Cut" - DVD, which is announced for November and of course the second part (we will see Ents!)

As I am a HUGE Dune fan - I have to ask when you say best adaption since Dune - which version are you talking about?

The recent one on the Sci-Fi channel or the older David Lynch version?

-Myrddin

I love a lot of his stuff (Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet). I did not get to see teh recent adaptation ... heard mixed things about it ... seemed like it was great at soem stuff adn really second (or third) rate in other areas.

Tools for Wizardry(r) 7

Well, I'm glad to hear that as I found the Sci-Fi version to be absolute drivel and a poop throwing monkey could have done a better job.

I like Lynch's version a LOT. I think it rocks. I think even though there are some changes in his version, he got the overall tone and feel down just right. Not to mention the characterization in that version was right on the nose - which was not the cast AT ALL in the "other" version and what I thought to be the worst and most damaging flaw of the "other" version.