The Shrine

<div style='font: 10pt "arial narrow"; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>Anyway, it was quite good, but I felt it did drag on a bit. The battle scenes were probably the best thing about it. I'd like to see more of that in the sequel.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS"; text-align: left; '>You will. Oh my...you will! Yes, it was wordy at times, that's Tolkien for ya. And Tolkien fans wouldn't have it any other way.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>NOt the best movie ever, but might be the best adaptation of a novel ever. You'd be hard-pressed to find a movie that fit in as much as LotR:FotR did in 3 hours, particularly considering how descriptive Tolkien was. And it definetely was much better if you read the books</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS"; text-align: left; '>Gone with the Wind. And that was over 60 years ago. This is one movie very few will say "Oh the book was better". Duh...but in this case, it's debatable.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt Arial; text-align: left; '>I only read about half of the first book myself, but I was still quite pleased with the movie. I mean, the story's already good, and kick ass battle scenes can only make it better.

There were only two things that bugged me. I KNOW I've seen Bruce Hopkins(Gamling) somewhere before. But when I checked IMDB, I found that I've never even heard of any of his movies. Where the hell did I see him...

And Sarumon...man, put Christopher Lee in a beard and he looks like an aged Frank Zappa, at least in my opinion. Couldn't shake that feeling throughout the whole film.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Haven't read the book nor seen the movie, so I can't comment :-)</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Contact, Jurrasic Park, Shawshank Redemption.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS"; text-align: left; '>Jurassic Park : the movie had about 30% of what was in the book. FotR had at least 90% from the book.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>Some of the people were whining that the movie didn't end the way that wanted it. Duh, people! It's a fucking trilogy!</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>Contact? Ha! There was not just one person in the teleporter module, but four.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>See above.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>In fact, I found it to be a very moving movie. It really gave me a sense of awe. The book did neither, emotion did not play as nearly a large part in the book.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS"; text-align: left; '>The movie was vastly different from the book that the author had to re-write an entire script. In the book, the scientists stayed on the island and the boy was the hero, not the girl.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Jurrasic Park? No chance in hell. The movie was very good, but it wasn't even the same scope as the book. The book had a LOT more to it and was far more interesting, IMO.

Shawshank I could agree on. I read about half the story and the movie seems to have all the book did (even a lot of the same dialogue, kinda like Contact and The Princess Bride) but it also achieved a lot on the visual level, with the settings, the slight body language, and the facial expressions. I really think it's one of the best movies I've seen and even though the story was great, the movie probably is better.

Of course, no one mentioned Forrest Gump. The novel was atrocious but the movie was great</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Kinda like Forrest Gump for me</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I disagree, this is the BEST MOVIE EVER, and if you disagree with me, you're biased!</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>That's wierd logic. The movie had much more emotion. As interesting as the book was (particulary, the industries that developed due to the construction of the pod), it lacked a sense of wonder and amazement.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>So? I already said I wasn't talking about accuracy.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I haven't read the book, and I know that in several places it diverges from the book, but again, that's not what I'm after. I think it's particularly telling that the author, Chuck Palahniuk said: "The film is great. ... Norton and Pitt are their characters incarnate. Bonham-Carter broke my heart. Everybody involved brought so much more to the story, I felt a little ashamed of the book."

I think the last bit is modesty on his part (truthful, not false), but when the author of the book has such high praise, it is in the very least in the spirit of the author's original intention.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS"; text-align: left; '>Best adoptation to screen : the movie was true to the nearly all chapters in Fellowship. I don't think Jurassic came close.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>The quality of an adaptation is not always related to its faithfulness to the original material. What works on the written page does not always translate well to the movie screen.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS"; text-align: left; '>True. That's exactly why Jurassic Park was a bad screen adoptation. It never quite caught the essence of the book.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "Times New Roman"; text-align: left; '>Or not a moron, if you'd prefer.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Well put.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Not that weird. All I'm saying is I thought the book had everything the movie had and more. I didn't think the performances of the actors enhanced it much, unlike Shawshank</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Very true, which is why you have to look at each separately then compare then on the basis of whether or not they achieved what each set out to do on its own. They might be related but can be completely different (Forrest Gump)</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Lord of the Rings is one of the few novels you CAN translate directly, it just works as a film. Lots of others can't. If you tried to put in all of the background scientific stuff from Contact, 4/5th of the people would be confused</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I get ya. I felt Jodie Foster and Mathew McConahoweveryouspellhisname added a lot to it, and I've already mentioned other stuff.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>It's tangential to the main point of the movie, and unlike books, movies can't really go on long tangents. They are much more limited as far as length is concerned.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>They'll dabble in it, but that's about it. That's the curse of mass-market. You think Memento would have jumped around so much if it had, say, Brad Pitt as the lead actor? They probably would have cut down the amount of jumping back and forth (chronologically) big time if that was the case. It's simply a case of big-budget formula. Personally, I would have liked to see more science and politics and less love story and wasted scenes (there was a lot of time spent on just watching Jodi Foster and Matthew McHOnaoajdflkajdhasdkjf just interact as well as a lot of time with just Jodi Foster pondering, which I thought decreased the effect of the story; and this coming from a guy who prefers movies over books).

People who like deep films will watch cookie-cutter ones but not vice versa, so the chances of getting a cool-ass big-budget flik (like Matrix) is about as good as the chances of winning the lottery. Although the odds of that happening seem to be increasing a little bit......</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I'm not surprised by this comment, afterall our tastes in movies are very different, I like action and comedy, you like gay porn</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Out of all movies I've seen, I felt Contact had the best mix of humanity and science. I left that movie with a very distinct feeling of how infinitesimal we are in the enormity of the Universe - something the book did not do.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Ha, gay porn is funny. "I'm your general soldier and when I say pull down your pants and present your gun I mean it!"</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS"; text-align: left; '>I'll give you $2 to say that LOTR is the best.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "Times New Roman"; text-align: left; '>Hellaciously hilarious, Andrew Dice Gay. I liked to movie. I was making the comment about your ceaseless blithering antics.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Baskerville; text-align: left; '>Yeah, got a lot of that when I saw it..."It can't end like that" "What the hell, that's it?" Bwah ha ha...I got a major kick out of it...peoples is stoopid sometimes...not like they didn't advertise the hell out if this thing..</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>No, millitary porn is funny. I saw a heterosexual version of the same thing, and it was just as amusing in the dialogue.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Well, first, stick to the subject; second, I could care less how much you love the movie Andrew Dice Gay; and using words like "blithering antics", since when is Cape Breton part of Newfoundland? And WHAT'S UP with you people calling Lunch Dinner?</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "comic sans MS"; text-align: left; '>You saw an heterosexual version of the same thing? You mean you actually saw gay porn to make the comparison? BWAH!</div>

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Agreed. Not the best movie ever IMO (though I could see how some could call it that), but still good. It was a tad on the long side, but I don't mind. When I saw it again, I was very happy that it was the length that it was....</div>

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>Nah...I was just comparing to his description. Make fun of him if you want to, for watching gay porn.</div>