Merman
Joined May 2003
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews3
Merman's rating
`[Gandalf] raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.' There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's feet. 'Go!' said Gandalf. With a cry Saruman fell back and crawled away. At that moment a heavy shining thing came hurtling down from above. It glanced off the iron rail, even as Saruman left it, and passing close to Gandalf's head, it smote the stair on which he stood. The rail rang and snapped. The stair cracked and splintered in glittering sparks. But the ball was unharmed: it rolled on down the steps, a globe of crystal, dark, but glowing with a heart of fire. As it bounded away towards a pool Pippin ran after it and picked it up' from: J. R. R. Tolkien, 'The Lord of the Rings', 'The Two Towers', 'The Voice of Saruman'
Nope, it's not in The Return of the King this beautiful crucial scene in which Saruman's power is overthrown by Gandalf and the palantír is falling down on the steps of Orthanc, tower of Isengard. In fact: there is no Saruman (or Christopher Lee) at all in the movie version of The Return of the King. When I was reading the book this scene had a deep impact on me and I still cannot believe Peter Jackson decided it should not be in the movie. But.
To be quite honest: despite this flaw there is still but one movie we have all been waiting for this year. And, last night Peter Jackson's closing piece of what some people call a trilogy hit my retina. The Return of the King has the advantage of hardly having to introduce new characters (the ones who already have seen the extended version of The Two Towers are already acquainted with Denethor, Steward of Gondor), and it is the only instalment of the three movies which has a real ending and no gnawing climax that asks you to wait another year to see how things end.
All loose ends are tied up in The Return of the King: Frodo and Sam continue their ordeal to destroy the infamous Ring of Power, with the treacherous once-hobbit-now-schizophrenic Gollum as their guide. Gandalf, Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn and the hobbits Merry and Pippin are reunited and travel to Gondor to the city of Minas Tirtith, on the border of the malignant kingdom of Mordor. All hopes rest upon Minas Tirith being the last bulwark of resistance against the evil forces of Sauron. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas split up to take the Paths of the Dead in order to find an army to fight Sauron. And Gandalf takes Pippin to Gondor in order to protect him because Sauron believes Pippin has the Ring of Power.
But let's get to the core. How is the movie? It is absolutely breathtaking. I went seeing it some hours ago thinking: 'please don't let me be disappointed.' That was how high my expectations were. Well, I can tell you: these expectations were exceeded. The Return of the King is definitely the best of the three movies. Everything is so much in balance. It is not just blunt fighting (that was one of the few weak elements of The Two Towers), the movie has real genuine emotion. I don't recall having seen a movie at which people started crying. At The Return of the King people did.
The special effects are also amazing. If you were impressed by the armies at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers you haven't seen anything yet. The armies and battles in this movie make Helm's Deep look like a little fight at the local schoolyard. I was really impressed by the miniatures used for Minas Tirith and Minas Morgul. Sean Astin as Sam is the actor that takes the dialogues and acting performances to its extremes. Even though the movie is 'Saruman-less' it still has so much to offer. Everything is in its right place and it also has one of the most powerful opening scenes of all three flicks when we see how Sméagol finds the ring and slowly evolves into Gollum. All special effects - as amazing as they are - are used to support the story rather than to just impress. It is all so jaw-dropping that I cannot believe The Return of the King will be passed at the next Oscar ceremony.
I am going to give The Return of the King more stars than I am allowed to: 6 out of 5. It is unlike anything I have ever seen and the only thing I can think of right now is that I want to see it again because I must have missed so many good details. Hail to The King!
Copyright 2003 by Arjan Welles @
Nope, it's not in The Return of the King this beautiful crucial scene in which Saruman's power is overthrown by Gandalf and the palantír is falling down on the steps of Orthanc, tower of Isengard. In fact: there is no Saruman (or Christopher Lee) at all in the movie version of The Return of the King. When I was reading the book this scene had a deep impact on me and I still cannot believe Peter Jackson decided it should not be in the movie. But.
To be quite honest: despite this flaw there is still but one movie we have all been waiting for this year. And, last night Peter Jackson's closing piece of what some people call a trilogy hit my retina. The Return of the King has the advantage of hardly having to introduce new characters (the ones who already have seen the extended version of The Two Towers are already acquainted with Denethor, Steward of Gondor), and it is the only instalment of the three movies which has a real ending and no gnawing climax that asks you to wait another year to see how things end.
All loose ends are tied up in The Return of the King: Frodo and Sam continue their ordeal to destroy the infamous Ring of Power, with the treacherous once-hobbit-now-schizophrenic Gollum as their guide. Gandalf, Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn and the hobbits Merry and Pippin are reunited and travel to Gondor to the city of Minas Tirtith, on the border of the malignant kingdom of Mordor. All hopes rest upon Minas Tirith being the last bulwark of resistance against the evil forces of Sauron. Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas split up to take the Paths of the Dead in order to find an army to fight Sauron. And Gandalf takes Pippin to Gondor in order to protect him because Sauron believes Pippin has the Ring of Power.
But let's get to the core. How is the movie? It is absolutely breathtaking. I went seeing it some hours ago thinking: 'please don't let me be disappointed.' That was how high my expectations were. Well, I can tell you: these expectations were exceeded. The Return of the King is definitely the best of the three movies. Everything is so much in balance. It is not just blunt fighting (that was one of the few weak elements of The Two Towers), the movie has real genuine emotion. I don't recall having seen a movie at which people started crying. At The Return of the King people did.
The special effects are also amazing. If you were impressed by the armies at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers you haven't seen anything yet. The armies and battles in this movie make Helm's Deep look like a little fight at the local schoolyard. I was really impressed by the miniatures used for Minas Tirith and Minas Morgul. Sean Astin as Sam is the actor that takes the dialogues and acting performances to its extremes. Even though the movie is 'Saruman-less' it still has so much to offer. Everything is in its right place and it also has one of the most powerful opening scenes of all three flicks when we see how Sméagol finds the ring and slowly evolves into Gollum. All special effects - as amazing as they are - are used to support the story rather than to just impress. It is all so jaw-dropping that I cannot believe The Return of the King will be passed at the next Oscar ceremony.
I am going to give The Return of the King more stars than I am allowed to: 6 out of 5. It is unlike anything I have ever seen and the only thing I can think of right now is that I want to see it again because I must have missed so many good details. Hail to The King!
Copyright 2003 by Arjan Welles @
Sex sells. That is something Dutch author Ronald Giphart is very well aware of. This was evident in the first filmed novel by the author: 'Ik Ook Van Jou' but even more in 'Phileine Zegt Sorry' (Phileine Says Sorry).
The original novel is hilarious, quick, witty, from a female perspective, but written by a heterosexual male author. The novel is full of quick one-liners and so is this move ('I believe in sex at first sight' and 'We don't care you have a low self-esteem, just don't bother us with it').
The thing is a quite weak story as 'Phileine' demands a quick witty approach, which Robert-Jan Westdijk (the director) seems to be perfectly able at. He seems to have understood what the story is all about: Phileine, a super-bitch, follows her boyfriend Max to New York, where she finds out about the rather exclusive approach he's giving to Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet'.
Although the movie is quick it has quite some flaws. Westdijk doesn't take enough time to finish off some crucial scenes. The final scene has been handled off quite fast and almost messy and the movie really lacks emotion at times. Westdijk doesn't seem to wanna fall in the pit called 'false sentiment' but in stead of carefully avoiding it he doesn't seem to use any of it in 'Phileine'. To be perfectly honest one wouldn't care less whether or not Phileine regains the love of Max or how she handles it. She's a bitch, so she'll survive and go on with her live.
Kim van Kooten however is perfectly cast and throws in the one-liners one at a time from scratch. Michiel Huisman may be nice to look at (all pumped up) but is rather disappointing as the flat character of Max. This is also due to his rather poor acting qualities. Roeland Fernhout's part as the androgynous Jules is unforgettable and could have used deserved more screen time.
The novel already makes use of too many character with their individual story-lines that push away the main story-line: the one between Phileine and Max, but in the movie this gets annoying at points.
Fortunately Westdijk's quick approach makes up for a lot but not for everything. 'Sometimes the movie is just better than the movie', says author Giphart in a cameo (please no more cameos in any of his movies!). I am afraid I have to disagree with him. But then again: is the movie ever better than the novel?
Still 'Phileine Zegt Sorry' speeds up hope for the Dutch movie industry (especially now that governmental finance has been abolished) and especially for Dutch rom-coms.
The original novel is hilarious, quick, witty, from a female perspective, but written by a heterosexual male author. The novel is full of quick one-liners and so is this move ('I believe in sex at first sight' and 'We don't care you have a low self-esteem, just don't bother us with it').
The thing is a quite weak story as 'Phileine' demands a quick witty approach, which Robert-Jan Westdijk (the director) seems to be perfectly able at. He seems to have understood what the story is all about: Phileine, a super-bitch, follows her boyfriend Max to New York, where she finds out about the rather exclusive approach he's giving to Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet'.
Although the movie is quick it has quite some flaws. Westdijk doesn't take enough time to finish off some crucial scenes. The final scene has been handled off quite fast and almost messy and the movie really lacks emotion at times. Westdijk doesn't seem to wanna fall in the pit called 'false sentiment' but in stead of carefully avoiding it he doesn't seem to use any of it in 'Phileine'. To be perfectly honest one wouldn't care less whether or not Phileine regains the love of Max or how she handles it. She's a bitch, so she'll survive and go on with her live.
Kim van Kooten however is perfectly cast and throws in the one-liners one at a time from scratch. Michiel Huisman may be nice to look at (all pumped up) but is rather disappointing as the flat character of Max. This is also due to his rather poor acting qualities. Roeland Fernhout's part as the androgynous Jules is unforgettable and could have used deserved more screen time.
The novel already makes use of too many character with their individual story-lines that push away the main story-line: the one between Phileine and Max, but in the movie this gets annoying at points.
Fortunately Westdijk's quick approach makes up for a lot but not for everything. 'Sometimes the movie is just better than the movie', says author Giphart in a cameo (please no more cameos in any of his movies!). I am afraid I have to disagree with him. But then again: is the movie ever better than the novel?
Still 'Phileine Zegt Sorry' speeds up hope for the Dutch movie industry (especially now that governmental finance has been abolished) and especially for Dutch rom-coms.