PRSLRider
Iscritto in data ago 2002
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi2
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni2
Valutazione di PRSLRider
A classic can be defined as a work of art or literature that is viewed or read long after it was created. Different people have different ideas on what "long" means; some say 50 years, some say 100 years, and so on. However many years "long" means, Tolkien's writings about Middle-earth, particularly The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion are well on their way to becoming classics, if they are not already so.
Others have made film adaptations of The Hobbit and LOTR. Others will do so again. Perhaps somebody will make a movie or series of movies based on The Silmarillion. Some of these will stand the test of time and become classics, others will not. Of all the movies that do become classics, the three made by Peter Jackson based on LOTR are the first, in my opinion. I've only seen the first, like everybody else, but I believe that seeing all three in a single session would be like seeing a nine-hour movie with two intermissions.
It's true that the movie I've seen does not conform 100% to the text; no movie does, nor can it do so. But it's about as faithful to the text as is humanly possible. It's obvious that PJ, the cast, and the crew really cared about the story. They wanted to do the job and do it right. Did they succeed? The results speak for themselves.
Here we have three movies that you either love or hate, based on a book that you either love or hate. The intention is that, having seen the movies, those who hate the book will learn to tolerate it, and later love it, and those who love the book will love it more. I think it succeeds in its intention. Read the book, see the movies, and make up your own mind.
Others have made film adaptations of The Hobbit and LOTR. Others will do so again. Perhaps somebody will make a movie or series of movies based on The Silmarillion. Some of these will stand the test of time and become classics, others will not. Of all the movies that do become classics, the three made by Peter Jackson based on LOTR are the first, in my opinion. I've only seen the first, like everybody else, but I believe that seeing all three in a single session would be like seeing a nine-hour movie with two intermissions.
It's true that the movie I've seen does not conform 100% to the text; no movie does, nor can it do so. But it's about as faithful to the text as is humanly possible. It's obvious that PJ, the cast, and the crew really cared about the story. They wanted to do the job and do it right. Did they succeed? The results speak for themselves.
Here we have three movies that you either love or hate, based on a book that you either love or hate. The intention is that, having seen the movies, those who hate the book will learn to tolerate it, and later love it, and those who love the book will love it more. I think it succeeds in its intention. Read the book, see the movies, and make up your own mind.
In the early 1960s my mother used to take my younger sister and me to a nearby one-screen theater to see Saturday kiddie matinees. It was a great way to keep us entertained and out of her hair for a few hours, particularly after our baby sister was born.
One movie I saw during those matinees was the 1960 version of The Time Machine. It made such an impression on me that, for quite a while afterward, I would play Time Machine with my sister and cousin with me as the Time Traveler.
It wasn't until sometime in the 1990s that I was able to see it again when I got a VHS copy. It was very much the way I remembered it to be. I have since read the book and have found that the movie is quite faithful to the text, though some scenes involving two stops in the 1900s were added and a few bright spots appeared that weren't in the book, which is pretty dark.
The special effects look primitive by today's standards, but they did win the Academy Award for Special Effects in 1961, and rightfully so, though I have no idea what other films had been nominated.
This is still one of my top 10 movies and likely always will be. I haven't seen the 2002 version, which is probably just as well, since I'm happy with the 1960 version and don't want to ruin it.
One movie I saw during those matinees was the 1960 version of The Time Machine. It made such an impression on me that, for quite a while afterward, I would play Time Machine with my sister and cousin with me as the Time Traveler.
It wasn't until sometime in the 1990s that I was able to see it again when I got a VHS copy. It was very much the way I remembered it to be. I have since read the book and have found that the movie is quite faithful to the text, though some scenes involving two stops in the 1900s were added and a few bright spots appeared that weren't in the book, which is pretty dark.
The special effects look primitive by today's standards, but they did win the Academy Award for Special Effects in 1961, and rightfully so, though I have no idea what other films had been nominated.
This is still one of my top 10 movies and likely always will be. I haven't seen the 2002 version, which is probably just as well, since I'm happy with the 1960 version and don't want to ruin it.