The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
My parents get the Mail (yes, they're that type of people) and I really enjoy reading it. It's hilariously old fashioned, always posting opinion as fact and taking sides in pointless arugments. The last week or so have been almost ENTIRELY devoted to the Blair scandal (which I still don't understand, as I refuse to read about it)
Anyway, today... they said LOTR The Two Towers is one of the greatest films ever made... What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, they also said that about the first LOTR film... and we all know how bad that turned out
Stupid Daily Mail
Anyway, today... they said LOTR The Two Towers is one of the greatest films ever made... What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, they also said that about the first LOTR film... and we all know how bad that turned out
Stupid Daily Mail
Page:
Willow has aged excellently. Case closed
Oh, alright, I'll elaborate. Willow's effects still look pretty good considering it's about 12 years old (can't remember what year it was made) Some films which are only 6 years old look fake now (of course, LOTR looked fake from the very start, they deserved an Oscar like I deserve to be undisputed president of the universe)
When you think about it, Willow is basically a rip off of LOTR. Midgit is given something of importance, is helped by magic and a rebellious bloke with a sword, gets into some fights, gets somewhere, the end. Funny how the rip off is superior in everyway to the thing it stole everything from
Oh, alright, I'll elaborate. Willow's effects still look pretty good considering it's about 12 years old (can't remember what year it was made) Some films which are only 6 years old look fake now (of course, LOTR looked fake from the very start, they deserved an Oscar like I deserve to be undisputed president of the universe)
When you think about it, Willow is basically a rip off of LOTR. Midgit is given something of importance, is helped by magic and a rebellious bloke with a sword, gets into some fights, gets somewhere, the end. Funny how the rip off is superior in everyway to the thing it stole everything from
I watched Willow the other day, I remember seeing it when I was about 12 years old, and at the time I thought it was great. But when I saw it on ITV on Sunday, I just thought it was rubbish to be honest.
The story is unoriginal and dull, the special effects are non existent and the fight scenes where OK, but a bit stupid seeing as you could tell Val Kilmer wasn't actually running his sword through people.
It's simplistic nature means it great for a young audience, but Willow hasn't aged well for those who have grown up to expect more from films.
The story is unoriginal and dull, the special effects are non existent and the fight scenes where OK, but a bit stupid seeing as you could tell Val Kilmer wasn't actually running his sword through people.
It's simplistic nature means it great for a young audience, but Willow hasn't aged well for those who have grown up to expect more from films.
> But Saruman, Agent Smith, Aragorn and Short-axe-guy were cool, as was
> the brilliant opening sequence battle.
I love the way u don't use his character name or real name but instead opted for his matrix character name! HI-larious!
> the brilliant opening sequence battle.
I love the way u don't use his character name or real name but instead opted for his matrix character name! HI-larious!
LOTR is over-rated. I did try, I really did. The books I got bored with faster than I get bored with... boring fish. Really. The film:- I thouroughly enjoyed the first hour and 20 minutes, and then was thouroughly peed off at the rest. Almost as peed of as I was when a mate told me that Gandalf would come back from the dead (Oooops, didn't spoil it, did I?). I just didn't care what happened to any of the important characters in anyway, and thought it would be better if Christopher Lee, who was cool, would come and destroy everyone in the LOTR world. And from the trailer for TT, Gollum looks like an idiot.
But Saruman, Agent Smith, Aragorn and Short-axe-guy were cool, as was the brilliant opening sequence battle. I will see TT, just for the fights with swords n' stuff. FOTR wasn't that bad, but really really really really REALLY over-rated. Like... over-rated fish. Really.
But Saruman, Agent Smith, Aragorn and Short-axe-guy were cool, as was the brilliant opening sequence battle. I will see TT, just for the fights with swords n' stuff. FOTR wasn't that bad, but really really really really REALLY over-rated. Like... over-rated fish. Really.
BEARD
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Well, they also
> said that about the first LOTR film... and we all know how bad that
> turned out
--
Well, there's no-one I think thats more pretentious than you.
> Well, they also
> said that about the first LOTR film... and we all know how bad that
> turned out
--
Well, there's no-one I think thats more pretentious than you.
Anyone read the Suns review for TT?
10/10, 5 stars, A+ and all the other prefect scored it could receive.
10/10, 5 stars, A+ and all the other prefect scored it could receive.
But LOTR *was* all talking
They had a fight in the dungeon place, it was alright, nothing special. They had a fight on those hills, much better but still only mediocre... and that was it.
Everything else was them talking about the ring and walking in a straight line (I was about to strangle myself if Jackson had used that sequence of them walking with the camera swinging over them one more time)
They had a fight in the dungeon place, it was alright, nothing special. They had a fight on those hills, much better but still only mediocre... and that was it.
Everything else was them talking about the ring and walking in a straight line (I was about to strangle myself if Jackson had used that sequence of them walking with the camera swinging over them one more time)
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> So nowadays, long, boring films where NOTHING happens are classed as
> awsome?
>
> I miss the golden days of the '80s. Willow was much better than LOTR
Willow was unadulterated utter pure crap. Lord Of The Rings is the best story, ever, and the best film ever, and Two Towers looks to continue that. If, to you, Fellowship Of The Ring was maily talking then you must have decided to hate it before even seeing it. Shakespeare's plays are, strangely enough, almost entirely talking, it is what is talked about that matters, and FOTR has plenty to say, as well as to show.
~~Belldandy~~
> So nowadays, long, boring films where NOTHING happens are classed as
> awsome?
>
> I miss the golden days of the '80s. Willow was much better than LOTR
Willow was unadulterated utter pure crap. Lord Of The Rings is the best story, ever, and the best film ever, and Two Towers looks to continue that. If, to you, Fellowship Of The Ring was maily talking then you must have decided to hate it before even seeing it. Shakespeare's plays are, strangely enough, almost entirely talking, it is what is talked about that matters, and FOTR has plenty to say, as well as to show.
~~Belldandy~~
You fail to see the irony...
Page: