The virtues of this film almost all come from the adoration of the scenes of Middle Earth. Images of the Shire, Rivendell, the Mines of Moria, Lothlóien must be viewed to be appreciated. If you wanted to describe them you would be just as well using Tolkien's original text. Jackson's camera in these scenes is top notch. It is a joy to watch it sweep across the Misty Mountains and circle the Fellowship on their trek. This was, of course, one of the main reasons I wanted to see this film, and for that reason, the film is worth seeing.
Many of my problems could be nitpicky, uberfan things like the absence of "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall you shall have neither the Ring nor me", or replacing Glorfindel with Arwen, or minor "factual" errors, but there were many other, more unforgivable problems. First and probably most importantly, the story is told in a linear fashion. It begins with an explanation of the One Ring as told in the chapter 'The Council of Elrond'. It then cuts between the events of Gandalf, Saruman, the Hobbits, ect. To me this was a grave mistake. The direction in some of the fighting scenes is almost as confused and incomprehensible as the opening to 'Gladiator'. While minor things like the absence of Bill the Pony can slip by other important things, such as where Gandalf was during the Hobbits journey to Rivendell and how Merry and Pippin joined Frodo and Sam on their voyage could not. Under par also was the music, it was completely forgettable, nothing more than intrusive underscoring. The dialogue as well occasionally slips into action movie cliché.
Overall I would give it a 6/10. It is worth seeing if you want the visual thrill of Middle Earth, but if you want the story of Frodo and the Ring, open a book.
Since these people are cultish and do not listen to reasonable argument, I will waste so much time as to actually give the entire argument against this film, as I see it.
I think Fincher actually had a message, however he has no control over his own abilities. I think using logic his film is about the value of the individual. This is extremely ironic, since his film has inspired homogenous worshipers. The first third of the film is a damnation of the working environment. The last third is, I'm guessing, supposed to be a damnation of the second third. The second third is the escape from the working class through a violent cult. This is only the most logical explanation, for me anyway. I think many people fail to see the last third as a damnation of the second third because Fincher creates it as such a paradise juxtaposed next to the working week. Fincher is too seduced by his own tricks that he can't convey his own message, and we as viewers are left with the remnants of a very negative film with no purpose for it's violent, destructive nature and no redeeming values at all. So maybe it isn't what the film is about. Most of it's fans would gladly join up with the cult and follow Tyler into chaos. The message of the film is really quite hollow. And the way it is done is just silly. 3/10
It is the story of an artist. The photographer Thomas, who has lost all feeling of passion for his work. He hangs around London taking fashion photographs. He is cruel to his models and other women in his life. He seems interested in other's art but cannot be roused to create any of his own. He will soon be releasing a book of photographs, all of which are uninspired photos of the poor, sick and dying. While in the park he takes a series of shots he hopes will be a nice epilogue to his collection. They are of a couple playing in the park. These pictures, however, are not what they seem.
Antonioni makes great use of insinuation. He tantalizes us with the possibility of what could have been. In us he insights the same passion that is in Thomas. In the end, I don't think he disappears so much as he returns. He does not return as the same person, though. He is changed by the passion for his art and the challenge of reality. He is no longer playing the game of catch the murderer, or faking the motions of being a photographer, or posing as a deep artist by taking sad pictures. He is now truly inspired.
Today many people hate Thomas. And with good reason. He is definitely not a nice person, but he is one of my favorite anti-heroes. There is a scene many people may miss. It is short. He is driving in his car, I think after speeding off from some want to be models, he turns on the radio, and starts bobbing his head and making funny faces to the music. This is the scene that redeems his early self to me. When he is alone, we see he still has an innocent streak despite his cruelty.
All that being said, I only recommend this to the more serious moviegoer. 10/10
For the entire 84 minutes of it's running time I am transported out of my life and set in this wonderfully ideal world of Rockaway. This movie also contains two of what I would call Woody's best shots. One the scene of the street and the ocean as Woody gives his "Forgive me if I tend to romanticize the past...." dialogue. The other is a pan across a dinner table to some beautiful music, I forget what song. This shot is so perfect, and I instantly care about these characters from those few seconds more than I can care about most characters from spending the whole movie with them. 10/10