We saw Return of The King today. (A sold-out 10:15am showing!) It's simply an outstanding movie.

It is as true to the original story as is possible for a film to be. The original was never intended to serve as a screenplay; Tolkien himself doubted that it could be adapted. But Peter Jackson and his crew did the impossible. They took a great story and put into a filmable form without losing the charm of the original work.

Testing... Testing... 1,2,3...

OK... Whatever bug there was seems to have been stomped.

Can you tell yet that I'm looking forward to seeing Return of The King?

I was reading an account on the NY Times site of last night's early showing of the movie. The Times has an entire page dedicated to the Lord of The Rings. A review of the new movie is there as well as of the two preious movies. But I scrolled down the page and found that they have re-posted their book reviews for the novels starting with Anne T. Eaton's 1938 review of The Hobbit.

The Motley Fool has a less than kind take on the Microsoft re-org:Microsoft Circles the Wagons.

Here is another review of Return of The King by Jeffrey Overstreet. And like the "Disembodied Brain" site I mentioned the other day, this is also someone who obviously enjoys, or at least appeciates the genre. In fact, part of his review addresses other critics who obviously dislike the genre and, perhaps, have no business offering reviews...

After the press screening, I overheard several critics complaining about “the Neverending Movie” and “the Movie with Seven Endings.” (They’ll probably hate this “neverending review” as well.) There seems to be an inexplicable disconnect between some people and Tolkien’s style of tale-weaving. (One woman complained that she still couldn’t tell the difference between “Merry and Trippy.” Go figure.) I have no explanation, just sadness that their skepticism stands between them and so many rewarding metaphors and characters. Did they at some point outgrow fairy tales, deciding that they are valuable only as charming flights of fancy for the naïve?

Off on a tangent, I suppose that what makes blogs so interesting is that they generally are written about subjects that the bloggers appreciate. No blogger feels as though he or she was dragged off to a "neverending story".

Overstreet gives ROTK an A+.  He too laments the loss of such story elements as The Scouring of The Shire, but he also points out that much of the Lord of The Rings doesn't translate well to film. In addition, Overstreet notes that Tolkien had his doubts about the success of a screenplay adaptation of LOTR.

...and if they were smoking while having sex, it would be obscene!!

OK... So I was just now looking at the latest posts page on FreeRepublic. You know some spin is going on when these two threads have replies on the list back-to-back...

Bush Says He Could Support Ban On Gay Marriage
			Posted by 11th Earl of Mar to Akira On 12/16/2003 5:26:11 PM PST #10 of 10
Bush Appears to Open Door to Same - Sex Unions
			Posted by KantianBurke to goldstategop On 12/16/2003 5:26:08 PM PST #5 of 5

Is there more than one George W. Bush?

Window dressing?

Jay Wrolstad at Newsfactor.com writes that Microsoft is reorganizing key Windows groups. Specifically, various engineering groups are being united under a single VP to advance the next version of Windows, codenamed "Longhorn". Longhorn is scheduled for release in late '05 or early '06. Analyst Laura DiDio of the Yankee Group is quoted as saying "The message from Microsoft is, 'We will do what we have to do to blunt the spread of Linux' ". However, one cannot help but wonder if MSFT will actually try to engineer a solution to the Linux problem (i.e. build a better product), or if they'll simply try to engineer better FUD.