The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
at 12.15 today i left school got on the bus and wen straight to the nearest cinema to watch the greatest middle film of a trilogy. WAT A FILM!!!!!! It was much better than the first one and that takes some beating. Although Christopher Lee's not in a lot, great battle scenes and great effects. Totally brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there's no way u can miss this one it's superb!!!!!!! sorry that i haven't given more detail in this post but i didn't want to spoil the film.
Page:
MoJoJoJo wrote:
Just look at Gladiator, done by a small
> company. Looks terrible.
How meticulous are you? I'm sorry, but I've seen that film numerous times, and even though I'm not an 'expert', I can still tell that that film has billiant effects! It's hard to tell when it switches between computer generation and filming sometimes! What do you do, go over the frames with a microscope?
I can't comment on LOTR 2, but to be honest the trailers look damn impressive to me.
Just look at Gladiator, done by a small
> company. Looks terrible.
How meticulous are you? I'm sorry, but I've seen that film numerous times, and even though I'm not an 'expert', I can still tell that that film has billiant effects! It's hard to tell when it switches between computer generation and filming sometimes! What do you do, go over the frames with a microscope?
I can't comment on LOTR 2, but to be honest the trailers look damn impressive to me.
P@st@ wrote:
> The story was lost, and as usual, the film was no where near as good
> as the book.
Didn't really stand a chance though did it? Up against one of, I take no arguments, the most brilliant works of English literature ever, could it ever really have come close? Not worth taking a dig at it for that - at least it's trying to take the story to the masses and publicising it, even if just for a fat wad of cash.
> The story was lost, and as usual, the film was no where near as good
> as the book.
Didn't really stand a chance though did it? Up against one of, I take no arguments, the most brilliant works of English literature ever, could it ever really have come close? Not worth taking a dig at it for that - at least it's trying to take the story to the masses and publicising it, even if just for a fat wad of cash.
Well it didn't stop them last time.
Not if it's 3 hours long!
I can't wait for the French and Saunders version of the film, that will definetly be funny.
An entertaining film but I preferred the first film due to the novelty factor of seeing LOTR on the big screne.
There were far too many silly jokes (Gimli has become a Dwarf clown) and some really dumb moments (Legolas surfing on a shield) but Gollum, the Ents and the Nazgul made up for this. The Wargs were cool too.
The best bit for me was when the two Trolls opened the black gate, don't know why this is so but that's fantasy beardness for you.
Due to the story, Gandalf wasn't in it enough and this is a shame as he is the major attraction in the first.
Look forward to seeing the inevitable director's cut, that should fill in more detail in Fagorn and more of Frodo, Gollum and Sam.
There were far too many silly jokes (Gimli has become a Dwarf clown) and some really dumb moments (Legolas surfing on a shield) but Gollum, the Ents and the Nazgul made up for this. The Wargs were cool too.
The best bit for me was when the two Trolls opened the black gate, don't know why this is so but that's fantasy beardness for you.
Due to the story, Gandalf wasn't in it enough and this is a shame as he is the major attraction in the first.
Look forward to seeing the inevitable director's cut, that should fill in more detail in Fagorn and more of Frodo, Gollum and Sam.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> ½pint wrote:
> Great film, dire effects. I've seen better from films in the 80's.
> I
> wouldn't mind them usually, but the Ents just looked so f'ing poor.
> I
> mean, the blue screen was so obvious! I was very annoyed at this.
>
> --------
>
> Finally, someone sees sense!
>
> "You know nothing MoJoJoJo - the whole orc army was created by
> computer and it looks very real i think"
>
> Um, I know a lot about optical effects and the way they, and films,
> are made. As for the character (forget his name) no, I don't think
> they should've used a guy in a suit. They should've used CGI... but
> done it WELL! I love CGI, it allows film creators to do almost
> anything (try making The Matrix back in the '80s) But only when it's
> done RIGHT. The only company I've seen that nearly always does an
> excellent job is ILM, but cheaper (and inferior) companies offer to do
> it for a lot less money, and in turn, the effects aren't of the same
> quality. Simple as that. Just look at Gladiator, done by a small
> company. Looks terrible.
Your a complete bender
> ½pint wrote:
> Great film, dire effects. I've seen better from films in the 80's.
> I
> wouldn't mind them usually, but the Ents just looked so f'ing poor.
> I
> mean, the blue screen was so obvious! I was very annoyed at this.
>
> --------
>
> Finally, someone sees sense!
>
> "You know nothing MoJoJoJo - the whole orc army was created by
> computer and it looks very real i think"
>
> Um, I know a lot about optical effects and the way they, and films,
> are made. As for the character (forget his name) no, I don't think
> they should've used a guy in a suit. They should've used CGI... but
> done it WELL! I love CGI, it allows film creators to do almost
> anything (try making The Matrix back in the '80s) But only when it's
> done RIGHT. The only company I've seen that nearly always does an
> excellent job is ILM, but cheaper (and inferior) companies offer to do
> it for a lot less money, and in turn, the effects aren't of the same
> quality. Simple as that. Just look at Gladiator, done by a small
> company. Looks terrible.
Your a complete bender
P@st@ wrote:
> The Ents didn't attack Isengaurd on there own, as far as I remeber,
> the battle was known as the one of the five armies, and the falcons
> helped, along with humans, hobbits (2 of) and elves.
Actaully the Ents did attack Orthanc but you are mixed up with the battle at either Helm's Deep or the battle at Theoden's town.
> The Ents didn't attack Isengaurd on there own, as far as I remeber,
> the battle was known as the one of the five armies, and the falcons
> helped, along with humans, hobbits (2 of) and elves.
Actaully the Ents did attack Orthanc but you are mixed up with the battle at either Helm's Deep or the battle at Theoden's town.
True, it was better than the first one. But that doesn't make it good. Even though the fights at the end were good. And they ruined Agent Smith and Aragorn this time.
½pint wrote:
> Great film, dire effects. I've seen better from films in the 80's. I
> wouldn't mind them usually, but the Ents just looked so f'ing poor. I
> mean, the blue screen was so obvious! I was very annoyed at this.
--------
Finally, someone sees sense!
"You know nothing MoJoJoJo - the whole orc army was created by computer and it looks very real i think"
Um, I know a lot about optical effects and the way they, and films, are made. As for the character (forget his name) no, I don't think they should've used a guy in a suit. They should've used CGI... but done it WELL! I love CGI, it allows film creators to do almost anything (try making The Matrix back in the '80s) But only when it's done RIGHT. The only company I've seen that nearly always does an excellent job is ILM, but cheaper (and inferior) companies offer to do it for a lot less money, and in turn, the effects aren't of the same quality. Simple as that. Just look at Gladiator, done by a small company. Looks terrible.
> Great film, dire effects. I've seen better from films in the 80's. I
> wouldn't mind them usually, but the Ents just looked so f'ing poor. I
> mean, the blue screen was so obvious! I was very annoyed at this.
--------
Finally, someone sees sense!
"You know nothing MoJoJoJo - the whole orc army was created by computer and it looks very real i think"
Um, I know a lot about optical effects and the way they, and films, are made. As for the character (forget his name) no, I don't think they should've used a guy in a suit. They should've used CGI... but done it WELL! I love CGI, it allows film creators to do almost anything (try making The Matrix back in the '80s) But only when it's done RIGHT. The only company I've seen that nearly always does an excellent job is ILM, but cheaper (and inferior) companies offer to do it for a lot less money, and in turn, the effects aren't of the same quality. Simple as that. Just look at Gladiator, done by a small company. Looks terrible.
Page: