Is just my opinion but I found this movie more interesting than LOTR, the trilogy made me exhausted, long long movies. TRON was superb for me, it had everything I was looking for in a epic mvie. Great for producer, director and cast,I liked it a lot.
Hmmm... I have to say that Ring of the Nibelungs was WAY better than everybody gave it credit for. I believe I gave it a 9, which is pretty darn good for me. I have only ever given out ten "10s" though, and guess what three of those tens are? Yep, all three of the LOTR movies. So I partly agree with you, in that TRON was excellent, but I still gotta go with LOTR. Both were great movies in their own right.
shareThe movie definitely had it's redeeming points. The battle scenes weren't long and drawn out, the nudity/love scenes weren't gratuitous, and it kept a good pace. But I thought the acting was poor (with the exception of the actress who played Brunhild. She was quite good IMHO), and the plot itself was definitely less than stellar. I prefer LOTR.
Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards. ~Lois Bujold
I don´t know what their budget was, but I was extremely surprised of how good the effects were, usually it´s really crappy effects in TV-movies. I would guess it didn´t even have 1/10 of the budget of one of the LOTR movies.
I too believe this film belongs up there near LOTR, surprisingly good movie, and that Kristanna Loken could act so good I had no idea... And the hero that first looked like the typical B-movie hero turned out to be a very interesting character. And Max von Sydow was a joy to watch as always, but then I´m swedish so I guess I´m biased.
Also the ending was great, not like all of those Hollywood-endings I get so tired of...
You're all completely insane.
shareHi
TRON was superb for meYes TRON was cool, but what's an 80's movie about computer games got to do with this?
I'm sorry, TRON !?!?!?!
Was TRON possibly the worst movie ever filmed? It does not belong in the same conversation as LOTR.
Hehe! They meant TRON as short for "The Ring Of the Nibelungs" which is the real name of the main saga used in this film. It has NOTHING to do with "Tron" the film, hehe!
Also, the original saga is where Tolkien (obviously) got some of his ideas for LOTR, but the original saga is actually more complex and interesting imho. Theres just SO much to draw from, that I really think that if "The Ring of the Nibelungs" was made with the production budget & support LOTR had, then "TRON" could be infinitely better. Theres just SO much going on in the original sagas, it could be amazing! I did enjoy this version though, despite its low budget I felt they really did a great job--unfortunately most people are only getting to see the "trimmed down" version thats almost an hour shorter. Theres alot missing in the Region1 version that helps this film in so many ways. I cant for the life of me understand why certain things were cut out at all to make it shorter, since even the 3 hour version leaves out MUCH of the intrigue from the (multiple) sagas they combined for this film.
"Why does the Earth have colors?" - "The New World"
I agree that LOTR is way too long and exhausting. I also think that LOTR trilogy is overrated. I'm not saying that LOTR trilogy is bad, as a matter of fact is ok but not as good as some people say.
And, Ring of the Nibelungs is underrated. This movie is very good and Kristanna surprised me. I thought that she was good in Terminator 3 but in Ring of the Nibelungs she was way better.
It's much, much better than LOTR, glad to know I'm not the only one.
shareI agree absolutely.
Uli Edel did perfect job.
Sure are a lot of Lord of the Ring haters on these boards. Which is funny considering that Ring of Nibelungs is said to be what inspired LOTR.
Judging this film as it was, I couldn't shake the feeling that, ironically, I was watching a poor man's Lord of the Rings. Even the lead actor looks like a poor man's Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn).
lol i keep reading everywhere that JRR tolkien denied that LOTR was inspired by rings of nibelungs.
also, lotr is better than this. saying that if this had lotr's budget it would be better is a lame idea. just lame. i guess posting on an old thread is lame too but yeah. yayuh.. WHAT OHKAY!.
Bigger budget would kill the soul of this wonderful movie.
LOTR had bigger budget but CoftR has better story,and Benno's performance was much stronger then Vigo's.Not to mention that Kristana is much hotter then Liv.
your opinion is so biased it makes me laugh.
there's just no way to convince anyone in their right mind of what you are saying.
liv is perfect for the role, viggo owns benno so badly, and benno was just painful in general. he was soooooo cheesey. he always had a dumbass grin in his facial features (in his eyes, and upper face etc) whenever he was trying to be serious.
If you've ever been in front of a camera you know that this is a nervous response you get. That's why bad, low budget and therefore cheesey shows are hard to take seriously because no one in the movie looks like they are serious themselves.
the story is so girly. "oo i need love" "oo im immortal cause im in blood"
im pretty sure a dark force that controls hordes of evil creatures and needs only a ring for ultimate power, but is them thwarted right under his nose by the smallest most insignificant creatures! and thats just the basic story. lotr is so much better its not even funny.
by - Kalpurnia on Sun Aug 19 2007 14:16:04
Is just my opinion but I found this movie more interesting than LOTR, the trilogy made me exhausted, long long movies. TRON was superb for me, it had everything I was looking for in a epic mvie. Great for producer, director and cast,I liked it a lot.