The Lord of The RIngs.... at last
Robert John Guttke
I'm not going to tke it apart...... I am simply going to continue my
praise for what is truly a magnificent motion picture unlike any seen
or attempted. I talked witha friend last night about said film and
told him him was exciting as all hell and beautiful and scary.
The music was ENORMOUS in this film!
And again, so many chills I felt, chills for hearing hearing dialogue
that has been with me for over 30 years, chills for the imaginations
that translated something so close to my own.
ANd I was SO very very happy that moments that were always favorites
of mine made it into the film. So much has to be left out, there
wasn't time, and I understand that, seeing that teh movie was wall to
wall story and always always always moving.
So magic, so much love, so much beauty & heartbreak. It is all there.
And the Balrog, Gandalf's last words, Galadriel's trial, and,
unexpectedly, sweet, destroyed Gollum... I didn't expect to see him so
early on.
I refuse to argue with those who did not enjoy it. No, it was not the
book verbatim...... it is a version of the book, and a truly AWESOME
one (Robert uses the word awesome for the first time and very very
accurately).
Robert John Guttke
Photography
www.guttke.com
Nick
So you liked it then. I was wondering if you would. Don't worry, I am
not staying here. I was just wondering what you thought of the movie
because as odd as it sounds are tastes are somewhat similar and I can
usually trust your judgement on such things as this.
Seeya,
Nickie-Nick
p.s. You folks take good care of BobbyJo
Jostein Hakestad
gut...@junoNOSPAM.com wrote on 20.12.01 17:45:
>
>
> I'm not going to tke it apart...... I am simply going to continue my
> praise for what is truly a magnificent motion picture unlike any seen
> or attempted. I talked witha friend last night about said film and
> told him him was exciting as all hell and beautiful and scary.
It's a unique film. I saw it again today, and once again, I'm left out of
words and out of breath. What - a - movie.
It's magic.
>
> The music was ENORMOUS in this film!
Yep, and I loved every second.
>
> And again, so many chills I felt, chills for hearing hearing dialogue
> that has been with me for over 30 years, chills for the imaginations
> that translated something so close to my own.
>
> ANd I was SO very very happy that moments that were always favorites
> of mine made it into the film. So much has to be left out, there
> wasn't time, and I understand that, seeing that teh movie was wall to
> wall story and always always always moving.
I agree.
And I didn't really miss the Bombadil chapter.
>
> So magic, so much love, so much beauty & heartbreak. It is all there.
>
> And the Balrog, Gandalf's last words, Galadriel's trial, and,
> unexpectedly, sweet, destroyed Gollum... I didn't expect to see him so
> early on.
The Balrog was SCARY.
And "fly, you fools" left me with shivers down my back and a big lump in my
throat. I almost cried.
I also cried when Bilbo started crying in Rivendell...because of his
obsession with the ring. It was heartbreaking.
Other favourite moments:
"What is this new devilry?"
The entire Mines of Moria sequence, including the Bridge of Khazad Dum
Any scene with Christopher Lee.
The Amon Hen sequence.
Sean Bean was AMAZING as Boromir. Next to Gandalf, he was the most
impressive.
Elijah Wood was also perfect.
>
> I refuse to argue with those who did not enjoy it. No, it was not the
> book verbatim...... it is a version of the book, and a truly AWESOME
> one (Robert uses the word awesome for the first time and very very
> accurately).
>
Awesome is accurate, but I wish there was a better word.
--
Jostein H
Agnar Kr. Thorsteinsson
Jostein Hakestad wrote:
Would divine work???
Jostein Hakestad
m...@vortex.is wrote on 21.12.01 00:30:
>
> Would divine work???
>
Yes, that's the word.
--
Jostein H
Robert John Guttke
>I also cried when Bilbo started crying in Rivendell...because of his
>obsession with the ring. It was heartbreaking.
>
Tolkein's hand........ that's when my first tears ran.....
And of course, when Gandalf said, "Flee you fools!" I felt like a
part of me died at that moment. Ian McKellan was superlative.
I wish this man, this wonderful actor, the best of health in his
present battle with cancer. He has given us a great gift, as did all
involved in this truly magnificent film story of a classic and
masterful set of novels.
DaveM3791
recognized what I was supposed to feel at certain points, but the film never
reached into my soul and extracted those emotions.
Dave
Robert John Guttke
Sorry to hear that, Dave. It most certainly must have been a
disappointment for you....... I wish it had been a more successful
viewing experience for you as it was for me..... well, that is the
vagries of life.
Tom Daish
I must admit to having felt the same way, although that happens to me
quite a lot these days. I'm not sure how it could have been made better
in any technical sense, the acting was excellent (I thought it might be
a little leaden based on the trailers and the fact that Sean Bean was in
it, but he was terrific) and the whole design and effects were great.
I do wonder whether Shore was so concerned with producing something that
was thrilling and operatic that at times he forgot to make it quite as
emotionally engaging in the softer spots. The Hobbit music at the
beginning was absolutely charming and worked just as I imagined it
would, but I did think that he could occasionally have pushed the
emotional buttons during the quieter scenes.
It's definitely a film to watch a second time and maybe I'd connect with
it a bit more. I've not read the book so outside of having seen the
animated version (which I thought was very good indeed) and reading the
Hobbit, I'm not all that au fait with the story and characters. Then
again, Jackson did a good job of making sure you knew who all the
characters were. Despite the comments that it was occasionally a bit
episodic and the journey aspect made a bit repetitive, I didn't honestly
feel that at all.
Definitely look forward to part two. Until then, I shall be picking up
the DVD of the animated version. For the record, I always loved Leonard
Rosenman's score to that one, vastly different to Shore's, although his
more frequent use of (fragments of) the jaunty main theme did perhaps
make it more emotionally satisfying.
--
Tom
Soundtrack Express, nice...
www.soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> >
> >I also cried when Bilbo started crying in Rivendell...because of his
> >obsession with the ring. It was heartbreaking.
> >
> When Bilbo showed Frodo his novel. I saw the maps.... the writing in
> Tolkein's hand........ that's when my first tears ran.....
That scene was wonderful, it put a smile in my heart.
>
> And of course, when Gandalf said, "Flee you fools!" I felt like a
> part of me died at that moment. Ian McKellan was superlative.
>
> I wish this man, this wonderful actor, the best of health in his
> present battle with cancer. He has given us a great gift,
Well, I paid $ 7.50 for my ticket.
> as did all
> involved in this truly magnificent film story of a classic and
> masterful set of novels.
Wonderful movie. Let those who care to nitpick nitpick, I won't cart to
do it (unless somebody gives me a big pay check, like Roger Ebert gets).
The movie was everything I hoped it would be, even more at times. If I
have one complaint at all about Jackson's movie, it would be that at 178
minutes, it is simply too short.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
"Quite frankly, I'd much rather be David Lee Roth with a blonde on his
arm than a damp and dumpy water fowl with a zit on his nose!! But then
that pretty much goes without saying."
(Opus)
Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> The bottom line -- for me -- is that the film did not engage me emotionally.
It's probably moot to argue about these things, because you either are
emotionally engaged, or you aren't. I felt the same way about THE
PHANTOM MENACE. I found nothing in the movie emotionally engaging at any
time or any point. Great special effects, zero character interest.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS, on the other hand, I found to be perhaps the most
emotionally engaging fantasy movie of it's type I have ever seen. It was
the most moving fantasy film I've ever seen. Ah well, the world is big
enough for all kinds of folks.
M.R.E.
<t...@soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I do wonder whether Shore was so concerned with producing something that
>was thrilling and operatic that at times he forgot to make it quite as
>emotionally engaging in the softer spots. The Hobbit music at the
>beginning was absolutely charming and worked just as I imagined it
>would, but I did think that he could occasionally have pushed the
>emotional buttons during the quieter scenes.
A question of perception, I guess, as I find the music most profoundly
moving.
> I'm not all that au fait with the story and characters.
(a quick nit-pick... "au fait" means "in fact"... what exactly were
you saying here?)
>Despite the comments that it was occasionally a bit
>episodic and the journey aspect made a bit repetitive, I didn't honestly
>feel that at all.
another nit-pick... this "episodic" comment has more to do with the
very nature of the book - every archetypal "quest" tale IS episodic in
nature.
>Definitely look forward to part two. Until then, I shall be picking up
>the DVD of the animated version. For the record, I always loved Leonard
>Rosenman's score to that one, vastly different to Shore's, although his
>more frequent use of (fragments of) the jaunty main theme did perhaps
>make it more emotionally satisfying.
see? and I find Rosenman's use of his "jaunty" theme annoying, like it
trivialized the story...
I DO find the way diifferent people react to different music
interesting... maybe I should do my Phd on that?
Michel
M.R.E.
<NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>The movie was everything I hoped it would be, even more at times. If I
>have one complaint at all about Jackson's movie, it would be that at 178
>minutes, it is simply too short.
Now THAT'S a complaint I love to hear!
I'm another one who loves long films.
Jason L Blalock
"Tom Daish" <t...@soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3C22EF18...@soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk...
> Definitely look forward to part two. Until then, I shall be picking up
> the DVD of the animated version.
Noooo! Save your money! Save yourself! It's not worth it!
--
Jay
Scoreland Soundtrack Reviews
http://www.crosswinds.net/~scoreland/
Tom Daish
>
> > I'm not all that au fait with the story and characters.
>
> (a quick nit-pick... "au fait" means "in fact"... what exactly were
> you saying here?)
I thought au fait meant 'knowledgeable about' or words to that effect.
Maybe I spelt it wrong, perhaps it's all one word, aufait? It's not the
kind of phrase I'd usually use written down, but I couldn't think of a
better way of saying it at the time.
> another nit-pick... this "episodic" comment has more to do with the
> very nature of the book - every archetypal "quest" tale IS episodic in
> nature.
I appreciate that this kind of story tends to be episodic, but I think a
lot people gave the impression that they felt it more in the film than
with the book, whereas I didn't feel it was episodic, at least not in a
bad way. It certainly wasn't episodic in the way that Harry Potter was,
but maybe that kind of story doesn't lend itself to being episodic which
is why I felt each episode more, whereas in LotR, it's almost expected.
> see? and I find Rosenman's use of his "jaunty" theme annoying, like it
> trivialized the story...
While I see your point and it's a fair comment, I suspect it was more to
represent the Hobbits who are generally fairly simple and cheery
creatures. It's their story and so he felt that they should be the
musical centre to the score, the Ring (as Roger Ebert says) is a
macguffin that inspires the quest, but the Hobbits are the eyes through
which the quest is told. If I want to be crass, it'd be like the way
Star Wars is - at least for much for much of the time - told through the
eyes of the droids. Of course it would have been inappropriate to use
the droid theme as the main theme for Star Wars, so maybe Shore having a
stoic fanfare for the ring was more appropriate than the jaunty tune
that Rosenman wrote.
> I DO find the way diifferent people react to different music
> interesting... maybe I should do my Phd on that?
Not a bad idea and film music is doubly interesting since people react
to it differently on disc to how they do with the film. On top of that,
it's whether people react to the music in the film in the way they were
supposed to or completely differently to the actual intention. I'm sure
plenty of scenes have been rendered unintentionally funny through the
wrong music, which the director and composer completely failed to
foresee when cutting the music to the film.
Tom Daish
>
> "Tom Daish" <t...@soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3C22EF18...@soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk...
> > Definitely look forward to part two. Until then, I shall be picking up
> > the DVD of the animated version.
>
> Noooo! Save your money! Save yourself! It's not worth it!
I know what I'm letting myself in for, but thanks for your dire
warnings. I remember enjoying it when I was younger, so hopefully will
still enjoy it. What exactly do you despise so much about it?
Nicolai P. Zwar
Monsieur Compositeur, let me buy you a drink! Somebody who doesn't get
scared when the attention span goes beyond MTV conditioned consumer
behavior deserves a glass of fine red wine now and then. But what the
hell are you doing snooping around in all the LORD OF THE RINGS threads?
Okay, I know, you stated that you work full time over the holidays
because you need money for school and that there's absolutely no way you
can get the 3 hours needed to see the film until 2nd week of January.
But what the hell are you doing then here reading all the threads about
LOTR? Avoid them! Heck, if I could do it, I'd even invite you to the
movie, alas obviously it's more for time reasons and not for money
reasons that you have to wait that long to see it. But now it's hush,
hush, back to work! No more LOTR thread reading for you. (Re-)Read the
THE HOBBIT instead, and later on the Ring. (Yes, I absolutely recommend
THE HOBBIT, I just started reading it again for the first time in a long
time. It's a wonderful book -- the prologue for THE LORD OF THE RING --
and the story of Bilbo Baggins of Bag End is today as charming and
wonderful as it ever was.) Time for that must be.
Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> > Noooo! Save your money! Save yourself! It's not worth it!
>
> I know what I'm letting myself in for, but thanks for your dire
> warnings. I remember enjoying it when I was younger, so hopefully will
> still enjoy it. What exactly do you despise so much about it?
Actually, the animated movie DOES have some fine points to it. The scene
when the Black Rider first encounters the hobbits, for example, or
Gollum (who was very well done), or some of the background paintings.
There's a lot of interesting stuff in the animated movie once you can
get past the thing that the movie as a whole, in and by itself, is a
terribly flawed and failed effort of a movie. In some ways Bakshi's
version is a disaster, though here and there it offers a glimpse of what
it could have been. Now that a "real" version of the novel is coming
along I'll probably be able to enjoy the animated version more.
M.R.E.
<t...@soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"M.R.E." wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not all that au fait with the story and characters.
>>
>> (a quick nit-pick... "au fait" means "in fact"... what exactly were
>> you saying here?)
>
>I thought au fait meant 'knowledgeable about' or words to that effect.
>Maybe I spelt it wrong, perhaps it's all one word, aufait? It's not the
>kind of phrase I'd usually use written down, but I couldn't think of a
>better way of saying it at the time.
well, sorry to say that no combination I can think of of those words
will give what you were trying to say...
:-)
DaveM3791
>disappointment for you....... I wish it had been a more successful
>viewing experience for you as it was for me..... well, that is the
>vagries of life.
Robert,
Yes, I was disappointed. As a child, I knew more about Middle-Earth's history
than America's. I have many different printings of the trilogy -- the
paperbacks from the early 70s with Tolkien's watercolors, the editions from the
early 80s with Darrel K. Sweet's cover art, and even the "outlawed,"
unauthorized, and unedited Ace editions that were pulled from bookstores in the
mid-60s.
I wish it had worked for me, too. C'est la vie, as you say.
Dave
DaveM3791
>very nature of the book - every archetypal "quest" tale IS episodic in
>nature.
Yes, but not all of them have you looking at your watch.
Dave
DaveM3791
>>
>> The bottom line -- for me -- is that the film did not engage me
>emotionally. I
>> recognized what I was supposed to feel at certain points, but the film
>never
>> reached into my soul and extracted those emotions.
>
>I must admit to having felt the same way, although that happens to me
>quite a lot these days.
Well, I'm glad I'm not alone.
Dave
DaveM3791
>scared when the attention span goes beyond MTV conditioned consumer
>behavior deserves a glass of fine red wine now and then.
Then you should check out Lynch's MULHOLLAND DRIVE. A filmmaker working at the
peak of his talents who continues his thematic rumination on the dark
underbelly of life. It's as psycologically mature as VERTIGO, but far more
abstract. The explanation lies in the film. It's not "out there" at all. The
first two hours of the film is the dream -- the last half hour is the hypnoid
state that precedes or follows sleep or perhaps death (when the conduit is open
between the conscious and unconscious mind). Elements in the dream state are
altered from the explanations displayed in the hypnoid state -- just as the
unconscious twists reality. Lynch serves up a crushing indictment of the
American dream. It's stunning, but definitely a downer.
Dave
Jason L Blalock
>
> I know what I'm letting myself in for, but thanks for your dire
> warnings. I remember enjoying it when I was younger, so hopefully will
> still enjoy it. What exactly do you despise so much about it?
Well, it starts off well enough, if you can disregard some of the strange
animation styles. But roundabout the 1-hour mark, they toss all semblance
of plot to the wind, and it turns into nothing but a series of one battle
scene after another. No plot, no character, just battle after battle with
absolutely nothing of Tolkien's original vision remaining.
The animation is also fairly bad. Not that it's under-animated, but the
animators were not actors themselves. The characters do not perform, except
in the most over-stated, theatrical sort of way. Always moving, waving
their hands, twitching... Nothing like real people.
The only one of the animated versions for which I have any remaining
respect is The Hobbit. Despite truncating the plot, it remains surprisingly
faithful to the book, and retains loads of Tolkien's language. And besides
that, I still think John Huston is the perfect voice for Gandalf. =->
JJ Hinrichs
I just read on Dark Horizons that the original cut was closer to 4 hours.
Four hours worked for Ben-Hur and Cleopatra. Why not LOTR?
JJ
chloe
wrote:
Hi, the expression you want is "au current" , which means "up to date
with, or something like that.
Marilyn
Hercule Platini
DaveM3791 <dave...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011222002012...@mb-cl.aol.com...
I saw MULHOLLAND DRIVE and I really didn't like it at all, mainly because I
didn't pick up on the idea of first two hours being a dream. (I don't plan
to see it again when it comes out in the UK to see how the last part of the
film refers back to the dream.) Reading the film like that, I still don't
like it, but for a different reason entirely - I don't like films where the
writer-director can pile illogic upon illogicality and excuse it all by
saying "it was all a dream, I don't have to provide explanations, so yah boo
to you". The point being, we could all go around writing stories unburdened
by the need to keep them coherent, plausible or comprehensible on the
grounds that they're hypnoid state fantasies, but that doesn't make 'em any
good....
--
Richard Street - stre...@btinternet.com
Current CD: THE TAILOR OF PANAMA (Shaun Davey)
Richard L. LENOIR
<t...@soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"M.R.E." wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not all that au fait with the story and characters.
>>
>> (a quick nit-pick... "au fait" means "in fact"... what exactly were
>> you saying here?)
>
>I thought au fait meant 'knowledgeable about' or words to that effect.
>Maybe I spelt it wrong, perhaps it's all one word, aufait?
It is exactly what it means and you spelt it right, two words.
Nicolai P. Zwar
The words "Director's Cut DVD" come to mind...
Nicolai P. Zwar
>
> >Monsieur Compositeur, let me buy you a drink! Somebody who doesn't get
> >scared when the attention span goes beyond MTV conditioned consumer
> >behavior deserves a glass of fine red wine now and then.
>
> Then you should check out Lynch's MULHOLLAND DRIVE.
Ah, yes, that's David Lynch's ex-TV project now turned into a feature
film. I think it opens here next week. Sounds like the kind of movie you
either love or hate. I'm looking forward to this one. Lynch is an
up-and-down director in my book, sometimes he wonderful, at other times
he's just a goner. But the way you describe the movie sure wets my
appetite.
> A filmmaker working at the
> peak of his talents who continues his thematic rumination on the dark
> underbelly of life. It's as psycologically mature as VERTIGO, but far more
> abstract. The explanation lies in the film. It's not "out there" at all. The
> first two hours of the film is the dream -- the last half hour is the hypnoid
> state that precedes or follows sleep or perhaps death (when the conduit is open
> between the conscious and unconscious mind). Elements in the dream state are
> altered from the explanations displayed in the hypnoid state -- just as the
> unconscious twists reality. Lynch serves up a crushing indictment of the
> American dream. It's stunning, but definitely a downer.
>
> Dave
Jason L Blalock
"Nicolai P. Zwar" <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3C24ABCF...@bigfoot.com...
>
> The words "Director's Cut DVD" come to mind...
>
That may happen. A long time ago, before he knew that New Line was going
to let him do ANYTHING he wanted, he was talking about intentionally
over-filming the movies with the goal of putting longer versions on DVD.
There're hints of that here and there in Fellowship, like having the scene
where Sam says goodbye to Bill, despite having no other mention of Bill
before that point. And there're a couple mid-scene dialogue edits that
jumped out at me. (like cutting out where Gandalf tells Frodo to go as 'Mr.
Underhill' but keeping the line about, "that name isn't safe outside the
Shire," thereby making it sound like he's talking about 'Baggins' the whole
time)
(Shaddup Robert)
While I can't see a four-hour version being released, it wouldn't surprise
me at all if the DVD had another 15-30 minutes of footage added back in. I
would most like to see more Gimli\Legolas character development, and more
about the politics of Gondor. As it stands, Boromir's dying speech really
makes no sense to anyone who hasn't read the books. I went last night with
a friend who never read them, and he didn't catch ANYTHING beyond the
absolute basics regarding Gondor. I had to explain the whole business with
the king and the steward before he really understood the significance of
Boromir calling Aragorn his king.
Robert John Guttke
Rats, Dave, rats. I wish it had as well.
DaveM3791
>didn't pick up on the idea of first two hours being a dream. (I don't plan
>to see it again when it comes out in the UK to see how the last part of the
>film refers back to the dream.)
Lynch used somewhat of the same approach in LOST HIGHWAY -- Bill Pullman,
"possessed" or spurned on by Robert Blake's "devil" characted, kills his wife
out of blind jealousy. In prison, he creates an unconscoius rationalization for
his actions where he's Balthazar Getty character.
> Reading the film like that, I still don't
>like it, but for a different reason entirely - I don't like films where the
>writer-director can pile illogic upon illogicality and excuse it all by
>saying "it was all a dream, I don't have to provide explanations, so yah boo
>to you".
I understand your point, but it was clear to me from the last half hour that
Lynch was providing an explanation for the previous two hours. I don't want to
give any spoilers here, but it is a cohesive film. True, some elements may seem
illogical -- but in a dream state, elements aren't represented exactly as they
are in the conscious world. They require interpretation based on contextual
evidence (again, provided by Lynch in the last half hour). In the prologue to
Orson Welles' THE TRIAL, his narrator states: "The logic of this film is the
logic of a dream." Whereas VANILLA SKY explained its dream a la Agatha
Christie, MULHOLLAND DRIVE lets you figure it out on your own.
Dave
Tom Daish
I have been getting M.R.E. au fait with the meaning via e-mail
privately. I checked the Oxford English Dictionary and was pleased to
discover that I had used it correctly and spelt it right! Glad to have
some other independent proof though! Just one of those strange English
turns of phrase I think.
Hercule Platini
[[[spoiler space]]]
DaveM3791 <dave...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011222142034...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> >I saw MULHOLLAND DRIVE and I really didn't like it at all, mainly because
I
> >didn't pick up on the idea of first two hours being a dream. (I don't
plan
> >to see it again when it comes out in the UK to see how the last part of
the
> >film refers back to the dream.)
>
> Lynch used somewhat of the same approach in LOST HIGHWAY -- Bill Pullman,
> "possessed" or spurned on by Robert Blake's "devil" characted, kills his
wife
> out of blind jealousy. In prison, he creates an unconscoius
rationalization for
> his actions where he's Balthazar Getty character.
Hmmm. It's been a while since I saw LOST HIGHWAY, but when that change
occurred, I was able to say "well, it's David Lynch" to cover it up.
Curiously, that didn't seem good enough with MULHOLLAND DRIVE. When the
tiny people crept under the door giggling and gesticulting I felt Lynch had
completely lost it.
> > Reading the film like that, I still don't
> >like it, but for a different reason entirely - I don't like films where
the
> >writer-director can pile illogic upon illogicality and excuse it all by
> >saying "it was all a dream, I don't have to provide explanations, so yah
boo
> >to you".
>
> I understand your point, but it was clear to me from the last half hour
that
> Lynch was providing an explanation for the previous two hours. I don't
want to
> give any spoilers here, but it is a cohesive film. True, some elements may
seem
> illogical -- but in a dream state, elements aren't represented exactly as
they
> are in the conscious world. They require interpretation based on
contextual
> evidence (again, provided by Lynch in the last half hour). In the prologue
to
> Orson Welles' THE TRIAL, his narrator states: "The logic of this film is
the
> logic of a dream." Whereas VANILLA SKY explained its dream a la Agatha
> Christie, MULHOLLAND DRIVE lets you figure it out on your own.
I haven't seen VANILLA SKY, as it doesn't open in the UK until February some
time; but I have seen OPEN YOUR EYES, Amenabar's original version. I'm not
sure how much difference there is between the denouements of the two films.
Maybe not liking MULHOLLAND DRIVE was partly my fault; maybe I wanted TWIN
PEAKS and LOST HIGHWAY over again, and got something radically different.
So I might have another look when it arrives in the UK.
M.R.E.
<t...@soundtrack-express.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I have been getting M.R.E. au fait with the meaning via e-mail
>privately. I checked the Oxford English Dictionary and was pleased to
>discover that I had used it correctly and spelt it right! Glad to have
>some other independent proof though! Just one of those strange English
>turns of phrase I think.
:-)
actually, it's one of those expressions I will probably never use...
for the simple reason that I try to avoid using words across language
gaps, especially when the "new" usage clashes with the original use.
In this case, I would feel strange saying words in english which have
a completely different meaning to me in french.
(if I were to use "au fait" in french it would be more in the sense
"in fact" or " as a matter of fact".. like at the beginning of the
sentence "in fact I just went shopping for that very item..."
or for the function "speaking of which"... as in "speaking of which,
how WAS Lord Of The Rings?" ("au fait, comment était Le Seigneur des
Anneaux?")
Robert John Guttke
wrote:
I don't know about the rest of ya, but "I faint" easily.........
Jostein Hakestad
qcco...@videotron.caSPAM wrote on 23.12.01 03:11:
> :-)
> actually, it's one of those expressions I will probably never use...
> for the simple reason that I try to avoid using words across language
> gaps, especially when the "new" usage clashes with the original use.
> In this case, I would feel strange saying words in english which have
> a completely different meaning to me in french.
> (if I were to use "au fait" in french it would be more in the sense
> "in fact" or " as a matter of fact".. like at the beginning of the
> sentence "in fact I just went shopping for that very item..."
>
> or for the function "speaking of which"... as in "speaking of which,
> how WAS Lord Of The Rings?" ("au fait, comment était Le Seigneur des
> Anneaux?")
The only french i know is "You mother was a hamster, and your father smelled
of eldeberries!!! Silly English knnnnnnnnniiiiigitt!
--
Jostein H
EBE
Tom Daish wrote:
> quite a lot these days. I'm not sure how it could have been made better
> in any technical sense, the acting was excellent (I thought it might be
> a little leaden based on the trailers and the fact that Sean Bean was in
> it, but he was terrific) and the whole design and effects were great.
I saw this yesterday and my overall impression was that it is a well-made,
well-acted and heartfelt movie, but it didn't really stir the emotions.
That said, I'd like to see the next one. I think you'd have to either be
a Tolkien purist or someone who absolutely hates the fantasy genre to
feel negative about this movie. The strong points for me were the
acting, most of the special effects (some seemed a bit cheesy, but not
often), the scenery and the overall production design -- and the opening
Prologue is a stunner...
...however, it kills me to say that I thought Howard Shore and/or Peter
Jackson didn't really "get it" with the scoring. The score works fine, but
by the end of the three hours I found myself really resenting the
rather Hollywoodish "emotional music that's trying hard not to be
memorable" that was playing over Sam's last scene with Frodo, a nice
bit of acting by Sean Astin that deserved some silence.
>
> I do wonder whether Shore was so concerned with producing something that
> was thrilling and operatic that at times he forgot to make it quite as
> emotionally engaging in the softer spots.
When I heard Shore was scoring the movie I thought he would make
a good fit for this project because I don't think of him as particularly
a "warm" composer. I wasn't expecting there to be much of any
warmth or humanity in the movie and I thought his score would
provide a really great edge. However, I know that Jackson was
trying to be all things to all people with this movie -- and he did a
pretty good job balancing the needs of the Tolkien purists and
the non-fans. So the humanity that was in the movie was very
welcome, but I just didn't find Shore's scoring of the more intimate
moments to be very memorable. A bit of a disappointment.
(I was also disappointed to get the CD and discover that the
love music for Arwen and Aragorn, which had such a great
effect in the theater, was written by Enya, not Shore.)