(no subject)
Dec. 24th, 2002 08:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anotheranonWent to go see "The Two Towers" today. Still a crowded theater, but worth the crowding.
Very clearly a middle movie/"second act" - I thought the story was rather slow but cumbersome - too many stories going on at once (and not enough with Frodo, given that he's the Ringbearer). But the action made up for it! The battle of Helms Deep did indeed live up to the hype, and the other battles with the hyena-like creatures and oliphants were impressive as well.
Miscellaneous thoughts:
Gollum: well done. The main things that made him so realistic were 1) the extremely natural movement, up to and including breathing, and 2) the variety of textures of his skin. Really, this makes a huge difference - by comparison, characters like JarJar Binks or the Jurassic Park dinosaurs have great texture, but it is uniform, which is not natural to living creatures (look at the skin on your elbow, and compare to the skin on your face. See?)
Gimli - picked up the comic relief from Merry/Pippin quite well, but I kept expecting Rhys-Davies to reprise his role from the "Indiana Jones" movies ("Aragorn, I'm so pleased you're not dead!")
Dirt and grime - included and rightly so, as battles and quests aren't clean. Exceptions were:
Legolas/The Elves - does dirt not stick, and does their hair magically fall into place? I get that they are supposed to be utterly perfect and beautiful, but they were pushing believability. Which brings us to:
Ents - I thought these were very well done. They kind of reminded me of the trees from "The Wizard of Oz" but much more detailed and better done. There did seem to be some very obvious blue-screen superimpositions with Merry and Pippin as well.
Aragorn - has a sense of humor! And stubble update: hot as clearly he's got Eowyn and Arwen both after him. No, I've not read the books, so I don't know how that plays out.
Eowyn - sword lady, and I wish they'd shown her getting out there smacking down with the guys. Yes, I know that Tolkien was writing in the 1940s and girls didn't kick ass then, but it would have been nice. Nice clothes, but Arwen's are better.
Theodin/Wormtongue - if it was in the book, ok, but I thought the Saruman "posession" of Theodin and subsequent exorcism by Gandalf seemed like a frail plot device to get Gandalf into the plot. And was I the only one that noticed that Wormtongue was played by the same actor who played Piter DeVries in David Lynch's "Dune"? Another reprisal of role - his sheer ickiness and leching on Eowyn was appropriately repellent, if only because it reminded me of Piter/Lady Jessica.
All in all, good movie, worth the hype, one I would even consider seeing in theaters again, given the visual scope.
It was snowing when we left the theater, and I must say it's pretty because I know I won't have to drive in it tomorrow :P
I'm going to spend the evening reading and tomorrow doing I know not what. Perhaps some online geneological research as I'll have the time.
Very clearly a middle movie/"second act" - I thought the story was rather slow but cumbersome - too many stories going on at once (and not enough with Frodo, given that he's the Ringbearer). But the action made up for it! The battle of Helms Deep did indeed live up to the hype, and the other battles with the hyena-like creatures and oliphants were impressive as well.
Miscellaneous thoughts:
Gollum: well done. The main things that made him so realistic were 1) the extremely natural movement, up to and including breathing, and 2) the variety of textures of his skin. Really, this makes a huge difference - by comparison, characters like JarJar Binks or the Jurassic Park dinosaurs have great texture, but it is uniform, which is not natural to living creatures (look at the skin on your elbow, and compare to the skin on your face. See?)
Gimli - picked up the comic relief from Merry/Pippin quite well, but I kept expecting Rhys-Davies to reprise his role from the "Indiana Jones" movies ("Aragorn, I'm so pleased you're not dead!")
Dirt and grime - included and rightly so, as battles and quests aren't clean. Exceptions were:
Legolas/The Elves - does dirt not stick, and does their hair magically fall into place? I get that they are supposed to be utterly perfect and beautiful, but they were pushing believability. Which brings us to:
Ents - I thought these were very well done. They kind of reminded me of the trees from "The Wizard of Oz" but much more detailed and better done. There did seem to be some very obvious blue-screen superimpositions with Merry and Pippin as well.
Aragorn - has a sense of humor! And stubble update: hot as clearly he's got Eowyn and Arwen both after him. No, I've not read the books, so I don't know how that plays out.
Eowyn - sword lady, and I wish they'd shown her getting out there smacking down with the guys. Yes, I know that Tolkien was writing in the 1940s and girls didn't kick ass then, but it would have been nice. Nice clothes, but Arwen's are better.
Theodin/Wormtongue - if it was in the book, ok, but I thought the Saruman "posession" of Theodin and subsequent exorcism by Gandalf seemed like a frail plot device to get Gandalf into the plot. And was I the only one that noticed that Wormtongue was played by the same actor who played Piter DeVries in David Lynch's "Dune"? Another reprisal of role - his sheer ickiness and leching on Eowyn was appropriately repellent, if only because it reminded me of Piter/Lady Jessica.
All in all, good movie, worth the hype, one I would even consider seeing in theaters again, given the visual scope.
It was snowing when we left the theater, and I must say it's pretty because I know I won't have to drive in it tomorrow :P
I'm going to spend the evening reading and tomorrow doing I know not what. Perhaps some online geneological research as I'll have the time.
