LOTR-Ebert's review and my take

[ftah3]

hella_42 wrote:
> "The Fellowship of the Ring" looks lavish but never wasteful, 
> miraculous given the way everything in Hollywood these days costs 
big 
> money, and yet nothing looks like it. (Compared with "Fellowship," 
> the gaudy and lifeless "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" 
looks 
> like a play mounted at a school for rich kids, where no expense was 
> spared in the attempt to cover up clumsy amateurishness.) 

Well, then the trailers for LOTR used *only* the lavish shots, and 
not the un-wasteful ones, because everything I've seen so far 
advertising LOTR makes it look like tacky Baroque compared the HP's 
classy chic look.  ("Gaudy and lifeless"?  Was that a quote from the 
article you reference?  In case it isn't, I won't state exactly what 
I think of that comment.)

I personally am immensely unimpressed with the Blockbuster Special 
Effects Events which have come in vogue in the Hollywood film 
industry.  They become more and more tasteless with every 
installment, and imho LOTR looks like "The Mummy Returns" except with 
the benefit of a half-way decent story.  Honestly, I thinks it's 
laughable that LOTR is getting nominated for big awards; but then I 
also think institutions like the Golden Globes and the Oscars are 
laughable, and tasteless, and kowtow to shallow things like bankable 
fluff rather than good film-making, as well.  (By the way, it will do 
little good to tell me to withhold judgement until I see the film, 
because I heard plenty of abject effusion about LOTR before it was 
released based on the previews.  In which case, I feel perfectly 
justified in expressing my own disdain simply based on the previews, 
also.)

Mahoney
shutting up, shipping off, sayonara