The following is in response to my review of The Lord of the Rings

Hi;
Not going to lambaste you here-I respect your opinion, but I think you'll find yourself in the minority. Most folks that I spoke to think the three hours went by awfully quickly, myself included. In fact, I hope the DVD includes many of the scenes that I know were cut to get it down to only three hours.

Six minutes later, the same person followed up with:

You gave gone in sixty seconds a better rating than LOTR? On second thought, I don't respect your opinion.

I've addressed the whole "how could you give my favorite movie of all time a B- when you gave that other piece of crap a B+?" before in this section. I think all movies should be rated independently based on how successful they are at the type of movie they're trying to be. This will inevitably result in some small-scale or unambitious films being graded higher than some of the mega-budget blockbusters. I'm NOT saying I hold smaller films to lower standards - I'm saying I rate each movie on its value as entertainment, while recognizing that "entertainment" can encompass comedies, dramas, tragedies, etc. So yes, it's possible to be more entertained by an action film about car thieves than by an epic fantasy based on books widely regarded as classics.

If all movies were graded in strict relation to one another, the system would be even more unfair. Because first, you'd have to decide what type of film was the epitome of a great film. I suppose we could follow the lead of the Academy of Motion Pictures, and rate historical dramas above all else, but then that gives short shrift to all the great comedy, science fiction, fantasy, suspense, and action movies that have been made. Which is one of the reasons I often have a problem with the "Best Picture" Oscar. The film which wins often isn't the best; it's the one which the Academy views as the most prestigious. Somehow, the question of how I could rate The Lord of the Rings lower than Gone in 60 Seconds smacks of that same sort of pretension.

-- N-M

you are a crack-up!

See? For all you doubters out there, there is one person who thinks I'm funny.

Thanks, Mom.

-- N-M

More on Lord of the Rings:

It's obvious from the slightly sarcastic tone of the opening paragraph that *you didn't believe it was real.* Hey, it's just make-believe. Some adults have that reaction to fantasy and I'm not sure anything can be done about it.

If you don't believe it's real, you don't identify with the characters. But you have to understand that the problem isn't the movie -- it's you. As a reviewer, telling other people whether they'll like the movie, it's important to know what your biases are.

(Yes, BTW, if you'd never seen The Wizard of Oz as a kid, didn't know the story, and saw it today, you'd have a very similar reaction. If you don't *really believe* that Dorothy may not get back to Kansas -- if you keep that knowing adult distance -- it's a B- movie).

The audience I saw it with Friday night could be heard gasping in sympathetic pain every time the orc leader shot Boromir, and broke into spontaneous cheering and applause when Aragorn finally beheaded him. I'm not sure if I've ever heard an audience react that way. (And it wasn't the Tolkien fans -- we all knew this was coming from the moment he first shows up).

As for the length -- the two Tolkien virgins I took with me were both in disbelief that three hours had passed so quickly.

Eric V.

I often poke fun at the movies I'm reviewing; it's not a sign that I feel a particular genre is beneath me. Actually, I'm a fan of fantasy and science fiction, although more so in movies than in books. Whenever I go to see a movie, it's because I think there's a good chance I'll enjoy it. You may or may not have noticed that films such as Runaway Bride and Freddy Got Fingered are conspicuously absent from this site.

I didn't have a problem with identifying with the characters or suspending my disbelief. My main problem was that the film wanders aimlessly in the last hour. The scenes with Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett were meaningless in the context of the rest of the film. And the other Hobbits professing their love for Frodo seemed very artificial. The problem is not with the fantasy elements of the story, it's that even within this framework the characters' actions ring false.

I disagree with you about The Wizard of Oz. I think if I were to see that movie for the first time today, I would still leave the theater feeling I'd witnessed something special. True, sometimes it takes a day of mulling a movie over to place it into perspective in terms of its significance, but a truly great movie stands out in terms of its script, and the feeling that all its elements are working in unison. Sorry, but LOTR was rather ordinary.

So the individual shooting the arrows was an "orc leader"? That's good to know - now I can stop referring to him as "the guy with the face like a pig."

Tolkien virgins? Wait a minute - this could explain a lot about the movie's appeal. Where do I find these Tolkien virgins? Are they blonde? And how come you get two of them when some of us didn't get any?

-- N-M