MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
I re-read not too long ago, and for me, it does hold up. Especially the final portion, which to my knowledge no film seems to have depicted—that terminal beach thousands of years after the time of the Eloi & Morlocks, all desolate wasteland by a dark sea, with flakes of snow falling from a black sky of perpetual night—still powerful!
The Morlocks looked fine. Anyway, special effects should be judged by the time in which the film was made. Did the filmmakers do the best they could with what was available then, and what the budget allowed? If the answer is yes, then we should enjoy & appreciate what they gave us on its own terms.
It has heart & it has charm, and that counts for a lot, I'd say. Still one of my childhood favorites.
Both <i>Seconds</i> and <i>Save the Tiger</i> also deal with middle-aged men facing inner emptiness & loss of meaning in their lives.
"I love films I know are bad, and don't love films I know are good! Love is purely subjective and emotional."
Couldn't agree more!
That's a fair response. I'm someone who's loved the film since it first came out, and never tires of returning to it every couple of years. But no one should be pilloried for disliking a film others love, or vice versa. As you say, a film either works for you, or it doesn't.
Because audiences then preferred actors who looked like real people, rather than looking like polished-to-a-chrome-finish supermodels.
Well said!
You're right about that. The episode isn't making a joke out of the neighbor's propensities, which he recognizes & is actively trying to change. Rob's recoiling & locking the door, is clearly how the viewer, who at that time had seen plenty of "funny abusive husband" stories, is supposed to feel as well. It's indeed social commentary about something that was seldom discussed seriously in entertainment at that time.
For some modern viewers who think that older movies were simplistic & unsophisticated, the points you make are proof of just how wrong they are. There are complex motivations, genuinely adult situations, and moral grey areas to be seen & explored in older films.
I think it does give us what we need to know about her influence, not by telling but by showing. The woman herself, as embodied superbly by Redgrave, radiates her incandescent spirit to the viewer. And the film was made at a time when filmmakers trusted the audience to understand & respond to that spirit, which was ultimately far more important in understanding Isadora & her impact than a mere recitation of facts.
It's a sign the first Christians shared to identify one another in Roman times. McGoohan, raised as a devout Catholic & well-read besides, knew this & incorporated it into his series.
The Timothy Hutton-Natalie Portman part of Beautiful Girls.
Alan Lee has been an excellent illustrator for Tolkien. I was never enamored of the Brothers Hildebrandt, who to my eye just made everyone look like stiff waxworks. But I also very much like Pauline Baynes' B&W illustrations for some of Tolkien's other work, e.g., The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Farmer Giles of Ham, Smith of Wooten Major—that semi-Medieval but also hauntingly otherworldly style of linework.
For all my niggling over some of Jackson's choices—a pastime all of us fans probably indulge in, to be fair—I can only imagine how easily so many other directors could & would have made a Godawful mess of LotR.
That's a really good idea, and I wish the show had done something like that.
He's on the jazz, he's on the jazz!
Agree with you there! As I say, when Jackson was on form, as he was for the most part, he does justice to Tolkien admirably.
There's one of the problems the film had to deal with, which I can understand. The fans of the books, while certainly numerous, would not provide enough audience to let the films make back their cost. They needed to attract a much larger audience, so they had to keep in mind that a larger percentage of people would be coming to this story cold. It's a delicate balancing act, one that Jackson handled better than many might have. Like you, I can forgive occasional flaws & missteps because of that necessity.
I'm rather curious as to what such newcomers thought if they went to the books after seeing the films. Personally, I'm so very glad to have read & loved them long before the films were made, so that my own inner images of the characters & landscapes are still what I see when returning to the books. :)
I'm progressive, I applaud diversity in films & TV series when it's organic to the story ... and I also agree that such changes made to Tolkien's work is wrong. It completely disregard's Tolkien's vision, which was a deeply personal one, a myth of meaning so powerful that he devoted his whole life to shaping it. He drew on his own lifelong love story with his wife, so much so that their gravestones bear the names Beren & Luthien. He drew on his devout Catholicism, as well as his depth of knowledge & scholarship, to imbue his work with its spiritual heart & soul. And like all such life-spanning artistic creations, it's very much an autobiographical one, expressing the whole being of its creator.
There are plenty of fine fantasy novels today that do have diverse characters & approaches, and I'd love to see some of them filmed. But just as I'd want their vision to be respected & treated thoughtfully, I want Tolkien's vision to be equally respected & treated thoughtfully. Sadly, I don't expect to see that in this upcoming series.
I think you're right. If those previous (not quite) endings had been shot a little differently, presented more as milestones on the way to the real ending, then there wouldn't be the sense of dragging that many viewers feel.