Gandalf-2
Joined Oct 2000
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.
Ratings137
Gandalf-2's rating
Reviews27
Gandalf-2's rating
To be honest: I really wanted to like "Troy", its epic story is really known to everybody, names like Achilles, Paris or Agamemnon are everyday lingo as is the Trojan Horse, now even more than before the internet. It was just a question of time until someone made this into a big movie.
But Mr. Petersen has underestimated the responsibility that goes with it. Troy is not a bad film, it has all the elements, but it is way too short. Everybody has his own agenda, and there are so many heroes of the past meeting in just under 3 hours, that the normal moviegoer just can't take it all in. Since we all know how things end before they do in the film, the makers should keep the audience at bay in awe, but they just can't. It's just like "Apollo 13", which was a fine film but kind of boring if you know the story. Now I don't know the (hi)story of Troy in great detail, but enough to see that the film condenses 10 years of siege into some weeks as well as some other details.
Had this story been told in 3 parts, everybody would have loved it. But this is like squeezing the Second World War into 180 Minutes. History is too big to be squeezed into bite-sized movies, the same goes for all the legends.
Apart from that, don't let me take your motivation! Troy is a mighty big epic, told very well, nevertheless quite gripping. It is like always: The more ignorant the viewer is, the bigger the enjoyment of the film...
But Mr. Petersen has underestimated the responsibility that goes with it. Troy is not a bad film, it has all the elements, but it is way too short. Everybody has his own agenda, and there are so many heroes of the past meeting in just under 3 hours, that the normal moviegoer just can't take it all in. Since we all know how things end before they do in the film, the makers should keep the audience at bay in awe, but they just can't. It's just like "Apollo 13", which was a fine film but kind of boring if you know the story. Now I don't know the (hi)story of Troy in great detail, but enough to see that the film condenses 10 years of siege into some weeks as well as some other details.
Had this story been told in 3 parts, everybody would have loved it. But this is like squeezing the Second World War into 180 Minutes. History is too big to be squeezed into bite-sized movies, the same goes for all the legends.
Apart from that, don't let me take your motivation! Troy is a mighty big epic, told very well, nevertheless quite gripping. It is like always: The more ignorant the viewer is, the bigger the enjoyment of the film...
A sweet little film, no question. The message "Help others for a change" becomes quite clear pretty early on.
But what I really liked about it was the story behind it: All of the cast and crew were on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and cut their spare time short to make this idea of Sean Astin possible. That amazes me, but it also shows that the togetherness of the Lord of the Rings crew was really there big time and is not, like so often, empty sales-babble and evasive interview answers. I am absolutely sure that this film is a small gem for those crew members who were concerned with it and that it conveys very intense emotions and memories from the time the Lord of the Rings was shot. The film is dedicated to the late Brian Bansgrove, who inspired it, as Sean Astin says on the Two Towers DVD, and I think that he can be very proud of being remembered in such a sweet way.
From the technical point of view, criticism can be given in some areas (for example there's nobody to sell the fruit or the whole no-lines-attitude might be interpreted as film school sneer), but who am I to criticise such efforts? The circumstances under which The Long and Short of It was made clearly leave not much space for improvements, and the director's performance in the Lord of the Rings shows his talent. So my point is clear: A precious little side dish, small nut nonetheless delicioius, a must have seen for PJ Fans, a should have seen for many. And its message is one that should be heard more often these days.
But what I really liked about it was the story behind it: All of the cast and crew were on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and cut their spare time short to make this idea of Sean Astin possible. That amazes me, but it also shows that the togetherness of the Lord of the Rings crew was really there big time and is not, like so often, empty sales-babble and evasive interview answers. I am absolutely sure that this film is a small gem for those crew members who were concerned with it and that it conveys very intense emotions and memories from the time the Lord of the Rings was shot. The film is dedicated to the late Brian Bansgrove, who inspired it, as Sean Astin says on the Two Towers DVD, and I think that he can be very proud of being remembered in such a sweet way.
From the technical point of view, criticism can be given in some areas (for example there's nobody to sell the fruit or the whole no-lines-attitude might be interpreted as film school sneer), but who am I to criticise such efforts? The circumstances under which The Long and Short of It was made clearly leave not much space for improvements, and the director's performance in the Lord of the Rings shows his talent. So my point is clear: A precious little side dish, small nut nonetheless delicioius, a must have seen for PJ Fans, a should have seen for many. And its message is one that should be heard more often these days.
When I went to a screening of this movie, I asked myself why there's a need to re-shoot a short film that was already well done as a feature-length movie. Well, I was wrong. Not only did director Peter Thorwarth manage to keep up a continuous flow of interesting events, he also blew up the film on its triple length (or even more) without recognizable thinning of the plot. In addition, new events were added that enriched the whole experience.
I'm writing this so exuberant, because this way of working is not common usage in Germany. Usually, feature films lack a certain amount of content, and they could in most cases easily be told in 30 minutes. Peter Thorwarth has shown that he is more than capable in handling more than one strang of plot.
This movie is - in its own way - hilarious to watch. In its own way, because in Germany, many different definitions of humor exist. The Ruhrpott (where this film takes place) is completely different in their understanding of what's funny than for example Bavaria, Berlin, Hamburg or even neighboring nations like Austria, Switzerland or France. This is the reason why there can't be a "German comedy". You'd have to reduce all jokes and events onto a level that is the least common denominator, and that reduces the effort to something most intelligent people won't enjoy. Peter Thorwarth managed the dangerous tightrope walk between "funny for all of us" and "only funny for people from the area" and managed to produce a good, enjoyable movie. It won't be a milestone of European Entertainment, but it is a good finger exercise for future projects. I, for my part, wish good luck to Peter Thorwarth and his promising talent.
I'm writing this so exuberant, because this way of working is not common usage in Germany. Usually, feature films lack a certain amount of content, and they could in most cases easily be told in 30 minutes. Peter Thorwarth has shown that he is more than capable in handling more than one strang of plot.
This movie is - in its own way - hilarious to watch. In its own way, because in Germany, many different definitions of humor exist. The Ruhrpott (where this film takes place) is completely different in their understanding of what's funny than for example Bavaria, Berlin, Hamburg or even neighboring nations like Austria, Switzerland or France. This is the reason why there can't be a "German comedy". You'd have to reduce all jokes and events onto a level that is the least common denominator, and that reduces the effort to something most intelligent people won't enjoy. Peter Thorwarth managed the dangerous tightrope walk between "funny for all of us" and "only funny for people from the area" and managed to produce a good, enjoyable movie. It won't be a milestone of European Entertainment, but it is a good finger exercise for future projects. I, for my part, wish good luck to Peter Thorwarth and his promising talent.