weeolga

I saw this film by chance many years ago on daytime TV in Italy and I laughed from beginning to end. Thinking back on it, I realise that it was no more than a series of sketches, with surreal visual gags that may not even have been very original, but at the time it did crack me up. The Italian dialogue was done with various regional accents, which made it funnier and it was a nice and welcome difference from the non-existing, theatre-trained perfect Italian of dubbed Hollywood films. Unfortunately, after chancing upon this film so long ago, I've never come across it ever again and it's a shame. Maybe I wouldn't enjoy it now the way I did then, but for nostalgia's sake I would still love to see it again.

If your thing is the typical Hollywood fare (car chases, sex and violence) and you can't concentrate for longer than a music video, leave a film about fairy tales set in older times to a younger, less cynical audience than popcorn chewing, coca-cola guzzling teenagers.

All in all, I spent a pleasant couple of hours watching it, but the film is interesting mainly from a visual point of view. The film somehow lacked a real emotional centre and some acting was more pantomime than proper acting, especially Peter Stormare's. Matt Damon and Heath Ledger were terrific but I don't think they could be bad if they tried; Monica Bellucci didn't have much to do except look pretty or horrific; and the independent, strong-minded, fighting girl is there because it is now de rigueur to have an independent, strong-minded, fighting girl in any film, but why not Samantha Morton, Gilliam's first choice? Too expensive or not pretty enough for the Weinstein brothers? This film is nowhere near the brilliance of Brazil or Twelve Monkeys but Terry Gilliam is a visionary filmmaker and even his worst films are better than a lot of films out there, he couldn't be dull if he tried.

All right, how about a novel idea? Here's one moviegoer who HASN'T READ THE BOOKS!!! I was a bit disappointed with the Harry Potter film, because of the secondary characters not being as well-rounded in the film as they are on the page, that I decided to see Lord of the Rings, the movie, before reading the books. This way I'm basing my experiences entirely on the film. To this aim, I refused to read lengthy magazine articles, so I knew nothing of the story and very little about the characters. Now, my impressions of the film: (a) a bit simplistic in the division of good and evil, even the ambiguities were not played out in a subtle way but were spectacularised for maximum effect; (b) spectacular scenery, I'm sure the New Zealand Tourist Board will be very pleased; (c) overall breathtaking from a visual point of view. However: (a) most of the characters seemed a bit underdeveloped, which means I was intrigued by them, but didn't bond enough to really care what happened to them; (b) I am one who is embarrassed of going to the movies with friends as I often end up crying my eyes out, but I didn't shed a single tear for this one: there was no emotional depth, just stunning visuals; (c) the battle scenes, although spectacular, made the film drag along a little bit. There were moments when I thought all the film was about getting from A to B while fighting on the way. Even the romantic interlude seemed to be there mainly to please a rom-com audience. All I really found out about Arwen is that she is a brave elf and boy, can she ride, but I had to accept that she gave up her immortality for love without having really witnessed this great love. Everybody seems in a hurry to see the film again, to get the DVD with, hopefully, extra footage, to see the instalment 2 and 3. Personally, I'm not in a hurry for any of those things, although I am curious to find out what I REALLY missed, which means reading the book. I was expecting the kind of magic and poetry that catches the heart; instead, I got a lot of spectacular fighting. I got much more poetry from a film like American Beauty, for instance. All in all, this film satisfied mainly my visual senses, and although I don't have major gripes about the music, it sometimes felt like the soundtrack to a horror film, where they use deafening crescendo to give you the sensation of impending danger. Subtle, it was not. Maybe it's true that great books cannot be made into great films, because the two mediums are very different. This film, like Harry Potter, seems to be not much more than a pro-memoriam to the book, like an accompaniment piece that just gives a physical shape to the characters. But a film should be judged on its own merits, and I found this one spectacular but simplistic, and the ending was rather anti-climactic. I know the resolution to the whole story will only come with the last instalment, but it left me dissatisfied nonetheless. Is this film worth seeing? Sure, it is. More than once? Only if you are a die-hard fan of the story and love spectacular blockbusters. All in all, this film is mainly for very young men, of the kind who love Star Wars, with which I can see the similarities: spectacular but simplistic, children's films dressed up in loads of special effects for unimaginative young adults. Harry Potter at least has no qualms about being exactly what it is: a children's film. No, I wouldn't really consider LOTR a quality adult film. Of course everybody will go and see it, because of all the hype, but it's hype for the Star Wars, fan-boy kind of audience, of which I'm not a part. PS: I bought all the books but what do you know?! I never managed to read them. Harry Potter, on the other hand, I've devoured!! Maybe I'm the wrong sex and the wrong age.