Rings I believe some film with Hobbits and stuff is opening tonight (oh who am I kidding it's the only film I've wanted to see all year). The critics have been universal in their praise (to be honest I've never seen anything like it). There is a single dissenting voice, one Victoria Alexander of FilmsInReview.com. For all I know the film could be "about real estate". When I was leaving 'Fellowship of the Ring' last year I overheard someone say to their friend, "Well that was crap, it had no ending ..." This is the review for them:
Sometimes directors have screen alter-egos and here director Peter Jackson obviously favors Gimli. He has more screen time and close-ups then The Ring, Frodo, and Aragorn combined. He's also the comic relief. My favorite character, Legolas, who I had hoped to see more of, just trails behind Aragorn on the long, forced march. Frodo spends a lot of time walking through the woods as a minor character. Sam gives a speech. Gandalf, a clever and formidable personality in FELLOWSHIP, is a secondary, one-dimensional character here. The charm of his scenes with Bilbo are gone as he becomes a white-robed, haloed wizard.
Almost as a disclaimer to try and explain why Miss Alexander is flying so deeply against critical opinion, the Rotten Tomatoes reproduction of the review adds, "ADVISORY: Victoria Alexander is not an LOTR historian..." Yeah, 'cause that's important when you're writing a film review. I'm planning on seeing the thing on my shopping trip to Manchester just after Christmas and I'll let you know what I think then ...

No comments: