Reviews

I'm still reeling from this film! The performances, costuming, props and special effects, direction, and cinematography are astounding. There were times whilst viewing this film when I was on the edge of my seat or grabbing my seat to hold on; times when my heart was pounding; times when I was moved to shed a tear by either sadness or greatness. The movie captures every part of human emotions, wraps them all up, and unleashes them at the viewer at an almost rapid pace; which can, at times, be a bit too much. The Fellowship Of The Ring is a very strong, very powerful, visually stunning, and entirely emotive film. And I give top marks to WETA for the highly notable achievement of creating a thoroughly credible height ratio effect for the Hobbits and Dwarves in regards to the taller races of Middle-earth. Brilliant!

However, as much as I was stunned by this film, the screenplay and adaptions were absolute rubbish! In my opinion, Mrs. Jackson and anyone who worked with her should be fed to the Balrog, along with Peter Jackson himself for allowing it. Their were changes in characters and character, aspirations, and events. Tolkien's dialogue was rarely followed. Some reviewers say this doesn't deter from the story. It does deter from the story! That's exactly what it does. How difficult is it to follow a story and dialogue that has already been written? Editing is one thing and is understandable when approaching a big screen adaptation with time constraints, but arrant changes to a story are not. This I find unforgivable. In addition, no Fatty Bolger playing up appearances in Frodo's new house in Buckland; no Willow The Wisp; no Tom Bombadil; no Barrow-wights; no Rhadaghast The Brown, and very little attention payed to the Hobbits' stealth from and cat and mouse games with the Black Riders in The Shire. In addition, very little of Tolkien's dialogue was covered. The Fellowship Of The Ring is mainly dialogue, and takes place mainly in The Shire. What happened to Peter Jackson's boasting about how closely he was going to follow Tolkien's story? With all its faults, Ralph Bakshi's film follows Tolkien's story and dialogue more closely than Jackson's version does! Jackson is either pandering to his own ego (or his wife's), or just trying to make the film(s) appeal to more people than just Tolkien fans; and the only reason for the latter would be money.

Aside from the above criticism, I was very annoyed by WETA's cheesy computer-generated Cave Troll and Balrog. This garbage belongs in a video game, not an important epic film. What ever happened to employing the talents of real artists like Ray Harryhausen or Jim Henson's Creature Shop? Is it just me, or are today's film makers relying too heavily on computer-generated effects, and using the words "can't be done" or "not within the budget" as a scape-goat to seeking alternative ways of creating effects, like the filmmakers of old had to do?

However all scrutinising aside, The Fellowship Of The Ring is an overwhelming cinematic experience, and one which should not be missed by anyone; with the exception of pre-teens, to whom this film will only terrorise. This is a tremendous Christmas present, and I thank Peter Jackson and everyone involved in its creation for it. It's difficult to believe that there are two more films of this calibre to follow. I look forward to their release, as well as a few more viewings of The Fellowship Of The Ring.

In closing I'd just like to say that Tolkien fans have still not been given a definitive screen version of The Lord Of The Rings. In fact, the only way I believe it would be possible to remain faithful to Tolkien's story and (even edited) dialogue, would be to make a complete mini-series for non-commercial television; basically, a visual accompaniment to the long BBC Radio production. Perhaps one day someone with enough integrity and who cares enough will.

I'm still reeling from this film! The performances, costuming, props and special effects, direction, and cinematography are astounding. There were times whilst viewing this film when I was on the edge of my seat or grabbing my seat to hold on; times when my heart was pounding; times when I was moved to shed a tear by either sadness or greatness. The movie captures every part of human emotions, wraps them all up, and unleashes them at the viewer at an almost rapid pace; which can, at times, be a bit too much. The Fellowship Of The Ring is a very strong, very powerful, visually stunning, and entirely emotive film. And I give top marks to WETA for the highly notable achievement of creating a thoroughly credible height ratio effect for the Hobbits and Dwarves in regards to the taller races of Middle-earth. Brilliant!

However, as much as I was stunned by this film, the screenplay and adaptions were absolute rubbish! In my opinion, Mrs. Jackson and anyone who worked with her should be fed to the Balrog, along with Peter Jackson himself for allowing it. Their were changes in characters and character, aspirations, and events. Tolkien's dialogue was rarely followed. Some reviewers say this doesn't deter from the story. It does deter from the story! That's exactly what it does. How difficult is it to follow a story and dialogue that has already been written? Editing is one thing and is understandable when approaching a big screen adaptation with time constraints, but arrant changes to a story are not. This I find unforgivable. In addition, no Fatty Bolger playing up appearances in Frodo's new house in Buckland; no Willow The Wisp; no Tom Bombadil; no Barrow-wights; and very little attention payed to the Hobbits' stealth from and cat and mouse games with the Black Riders in The Shire. In addition, very little of Tolkien's dialogue was covered. The Fellowship Of The Ring is mainly dialogue, and takes place mainly in The Shire. What happened to Peter Jackson's boasting about how closely he was going to follow Tolkien's story? With all its faults, Ralph Bakshi's film follows Tolkien's story and dialogue more closely than Jackson's version does! Jackson is either pandering to his own ego (or his wife's), or just trying to make the film(s) appeal to more people than just Tolkien fans; and the only reason for the latter would be money.

Aside from the above criticism, I was very annoyed by WETA's cheesy computer-generated Cave Troll and Balrog. This garbage belongs in a video game, not an important epic film. What ever happened to employing the talents of real artists like Ray Harryhausen or Jim Henson's Creature Shop? Is it just me, or are today's film makers relying too heavily on computer-generated effects, and using the words "can't be done" or "not within the budget" as a scape-goat to seeking alternative ways of creating effects, like the filmmakers of old had to do?

However all scrutinising aside, The Fellowship Of The Ring is an overwhelming cinematic experience, and one which should not be missed by anyone; with the exception of pre-teens, to whom this film will only terrorise. This is a tremendous Christmas present, and I thank Peter Jackson and everyone involved in its creation for it. It's difficult to believe that there are two more films of this calibre to follow. I look forward to their release, as well as a few more viewings of The Fellowship Of The Ring.

In closing I'd just like to say that Tolkien fans have still not been given a definitive screen version of The Lord Of The Rings. In fact, the only way I believe it would be possible to remain faithful to Tolkien's story and (even edited) dialogue, would be to make a complete mini-series for non-commercial television; basically, a visual accompaniment to the long BBC Radio production. Perhaps one day someone with enough integrity and who cares enough will.

The Omega Man, along with another Heston film round the same time, Soylent Green, is one of the worst made films I have ever seen in my life. This film can only be regarded as true camp, as the film was taken fairly seriously when it was made, and has strong moral implications, but the results betray the seriousness and implications implied. Even more disturbing than the low quality of the movie itself is the movie's original musical soundtrack score done by Ron Granier. I'm a big fan of Granier's work for Steptoe & Son, Dr. Who, The Prisoner, etc., but his score for The Omega man is simply atrocious; it's as though he was scoring for a completely different film altogether, as well as different scenes.

As a campy, low budget, Sci-Fi B film, The Omega Man is entertaining enough because of its star, Charleton Heston, and because of the interesting story that it tells, but don't expect much more than terrible effects, terrible acting, terrible directing, and terrible music. Of course, some people really seem to revel in low quality films like this, so it doesn't surprise me that this is one of those midnight movie cult favourites that is praised by awkward sci-fi geeks who more than likely peed their trousers in primary school.

With the exception of the television show Dark Shadows, George A. Romero's "Martin", and Tobe Hooper's "Salem's Lot: The Mini-series", I'm not a fan of vampire-related entertainment--especially where Count Dracula is concerned. However, Werner Herzog's 1979 film, "Nosferatu", is, in my opinion, the best vampire film ever made, next to the 1922 original "Nosferatu".

Herzog's "Nosferatu" evokes strong images, feelings, and moods in a subtle, but stirring way. There's no glitz, no glamour, or romanticism. The film is eerie, ugly, beautiful, strongly visual, at times scary, and always completely compelling. "Noseferatu" is a film that displays film artistry, but not film "artsiness". Well acted, well scored, well directed, and great cinematography, "Nosferatu" captures the true spirit of the myth known as the Vampyre.

The 1984 film, Dune, is as unique, intense, and brilliant a film as can be. Visually, this film is absolutely remarkable. The acting talents are equally remarkable. The directing is impeccable. The special effects are wonderful. The costuming is accurate, if not originally imaginative. There is little about this film I dislike. I look at Dune the film vs. Dune the book(s) the same way I look at The Lord Of The Rings the film(s) vs. The Lord Of The Rings the novels. To make a big film adaption of either of those stories takes an incredible amount of undertaking and research, and the end result, whether completely accurate to the literary text or not, as well as matching the vision of the author or not, shouldn't be judged too critically, and should be respected. (I've always thought the Harkonens in the film look brilliant with orange coloured hair, as opposed to the black hair of the Harkonens in the book; a little change and originality can be good when adapting.)

Mr. Lynch, I can't stand your other films, but I applaud your efforts for Dune. An absolute work of art!

I was amazed when I first saw this film in the mid-1980s. This film captured my heart and touched on that fantasy world atmosphere I've envisioned since I was a child more so than any other film I've ever seen. The Company Of Wolves is a sort of glamourised, horrific telling of the tale, Little Red Riding Hood. The casting, the lighting, the camera angles, the beautiful dream world atmosphere, the special effects, and the old world-style of story telling is remarkable. This film has a passionate soul. Equally remarkable and integral is George Fenton's fantastic impressionist/romantic musical score to the film.

If you are a fan of well-made, intelligent horror films, and/or of atmospheric fantasy films like, for example, "Legend", you'll simply fall in love with this buried and thoroughly underrated gem of a film by Neil Jordan.

I'm not quite sure what it is about this mini-series, but I absolutely love it, and I never tire of watching it. I'm usually not a fan of vampire films (as they are by and large absolute trite), but I am a fan of well-made horror films, and "Salem's Lot: The Mini-series" is just that. One of the reasons I like this film is because the story is given time to develop, as well as certain characters--which isn't a usual characteristic of horror films. The film is well cast, well acted, contains appropriate music, is very eerie and quite scary at times. The story is actually original, as well--aside from the usual vampire aspects. Nothing particularly brilliant about "Salem's Lot: The Mini-series", but it has its own undefinable charm and is very entertaining.

If you haven't seen "Salem's Lot" yet, I highly recommend seeing the full mini-series rather than the edited film version.

One of the better Stephen King films adapted from his books.

There is nothing about "Watership Down" that I dislike. This film is a flawless adult fantasy that I never tire of viewing. The music is pure class, the voice talent is remarkable, the animation is charming (as are the characters), the story relevant, witty, humourous, and thought-provoking.

Although this is an animated film about a society of rabbits seeking to establish a new warren in unknown lands, "Watership Down" is perhaps not a good film for young children, as the mood can be creepy at times, and there is a bit of violence and blood shed; certainly not in the same mood as, say, "The Secret Of Nimh".

After viewing this film, one thing is for sure: you'll never look at rabbits in the same way ever again.

Sure delight!

I saw this film a year after it was released. I knew the film was fiction. I didn't buy into the hype. I didn't see the preview short films on cable that were used as a precursor and marketing tool to promote interest and background for this film. I saw clips of this film, as well as an interview with Heather Donahue, and wasn't too impressed by what I saw and heard. However, the film was in the video store for a low price, and the time was right to see the film, as Halloween was approaching. I brought the film home late one evening to my spacious apartment, popped the film into my VCR, turned off the lights, and proceeded to watch the film alone.

The results were a unique and brilliant film. No script, no incidental music, acting is totally improvised based on a vague plot the actors were given, film is shot entirely from the visual perspective of the three students involved in the story, etc. Viewing this film scared me like no other viewing of a film ever has. However, the film ITSELF is not scary. YOU SCARE YOU, provided you have imagination. The film throws you into a situation where your imagination is provoked into running wild; and providing certain memories of your youth are triggered (this is very important to the experience of this film), i.e. getting lost in deep woods, camping in deep woods at night and hearing eerie noises, thoughts and images about witches, you will scare yourself in a way you never thought possible. It was weeks before I could set foot in the woods again without being "creeped out". After viewing this film once, maybe twice, the scare factor is finished. The film doesn't hold up well as entertainment after the first or second viewing. Nevertheless, the intial scare is well worth it.

Two main reasons why people didn't like this film are: 1. They have NO imagination. 2. They believed and bought into the film's hype that this footage was real, sat cynically in the cinema surrounded by other people and distractions, etc. critiquing the film and taking out a white glove in their mind every time something questionable happened in the film in the hope of debunking this film as a hoax. Not a very open-minded way to watch a film.

If you haven't seen this film and you are a fan of old-fashioned horror, as opposed to big budget special effects and blatant gore films with annoying and cliched soundtrack scores, then I highly recommend buying it and watching it at home at night alone and with all the lights off. If you really want to scare yourself, listen to the film's audio on headphones whilst watching the film.