Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
I nodded off in the second one !!! Maybe I'll manage to stay awake in the finale 
?
?
Posted: 15:17 Dec 17 2003
18 Replies and 9339 Views in Total.
Posted: 15:17 Dec 17 2003 
Oh... My... God...
Words cannot do it justice, so I'm not even gonna try...
Words cannot do it justice, so I'm not even gonna try...
Posted: 16:31 Dec 17 2003 
IÂ’m often told that my writing is very succinct. I struggle to reach word limits. ItÂ’s gotten me into trouble with some lecturers, while others value it as a skill. Now IÂ’m going to write a Return of the King review in thirteen wordsÂ…
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is a fantastic film. Period.
Succinct eh?
No, IÂ’m just kidding about the review. IÂ’m not, however, kidding about the film. It really is an excellent film. Why? I hear you cry. I think, first and foremost, Return of the King (and by virtue, the other films) are so good simply because of the unadulterated passion that was poured into them. It is quite evident that Peter Jackson loves the source material and that he assembled a crew that either loved it just as much, or are consummate professionals and did the best they could.
Speaking of the crew, they did a great job. The cinematography in this film is just breathtaking, literally sometimes. When the signal fires were lit to tell Rohan that Gondor needed aid, the mountains looked simply amazing. Everything from the sets, the costumes and the makeup to the acting and the special effects in this film crafts a world that is fantastical in one moment and totally believable in the next. It draws you in and doesnÂ’t let you go until the credits roll.
The special effects themselves are very good. What makes them better than the special effects in Star Wars and The Matrix though, is not that they look better, but that they donÂ’t overwhelm the scenes they are in, or the film as a whole. This is one of Peter JacksonÂ’s crowning achievements and I hope he can do it again with King Kong, his next film.
I would like to talk about the cast, but if I did I’d just end up with a list of names and lots of different words that mean ‘good’. In summary, every actor in this film is fantastic. I’d give special props to Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, Andy Serkis and Liv Tyler, who while not having a big part, or even many lines, seemed to capture my attention, probably because she’s gorgeous. The others are all good too.
The directing is, and IÂ’m going to say it again now, fantastic. Peter Jackson crafts moments in this film like heÂ’s been doing it all his life. Maybe he has, I donÂ’t know. Return of the King goes from blood letting action sequence to heart aching emotion with a grace that not many Hollywood directors can manage. Spielberg should be eating his heart out.
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is a very, very well crafted fantasy epic. It was filled with scenes and bits that I canÂ’t wait to watch again on dvd. If any fantasy film can break through the Oscar barrier it will be this one. IÂ’ve not really said a bad word against it, and thatÂ’s because despite the fact that itÂ’s not godly, itÂ’s good enough that I canÂ’t think of anything bad to say about it.
Go see it. Now.
(Edited by Maffrew 17/12/2003 21:09)
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is a fantastic film. Period.
Succinct eh?
No, IÂ’m just kidding about the review. IÂ’m not, however, kidding about the film. It really is an excellent film. Why? I hear you cry. I think, first and foremost, Return of the King (and by virtue, the other films) are so good simply because of the unadulterated passion that was poured into them. It is quite evident that Peter Jackson loves the source material and that he assembled a crew that either loved it just as much, or are consummate professionals and did the best they could.
Speaking of the crew, they did a great job. The cinematography in this film is just breathtaking, literally sometimes. When the signal fires were lit to tell Rohan that Gondor needed aid, the mountains looked simply amazing. Everything from the sets, the costumes and the makeup to the acting and the special effects in this film crafts a world that is fantastical in one moment and totally believable in the next. It draws you in and doesnÂ’t let you go until the credits roll.
The special effects themselves are very good. What makes them better than the special effects in Star Wars and The Matrix though, is not that they look better, but that they donÂ’t overwhelm the scenes they are in, or the film as a whole. This is one of Peter JacksonÂ’s crowning achievements and I hope he can do it again with King Kong, his next film.
I would like to talk about the cast, but if I did I’d just end up with a list of names and lots of different words that mean ‘good’. In summary, every actor in this film is fantastic. I’d give special props to Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, Andy Serkis and Liv Tyler, who while not having a big part, or even many lines, seemed to capture my attention, probably because she’s gorgeous. The others are all good too.
The directing is, and IÂ’m going to say it again now, fantastic. Peter Jackson crafts moments in this film like heÂ’s been doing it all his life. Maybe he has, I donÂ’t know. Return of the King goes from blood letting action sequence to heart aching emotion with a grace that not many Hollywood directors can manage. Spielberg should be eating his heart out.
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is a very, very well crafted fantasy epic. It was filled with scenes and bits that I canÂ’t wait to watch again on dvd. If any fantasy film can break through the Oscar barrier it will be this one. IÂ’ve not really said a bad word against it, and thatÂ’s because despite the fact that itÂ’s not godly, itÂ’s good enough that I canÂ’t think of anything bad to say about it.
Go see it. Now.
(Edited by Maffrew 17/12/2003 21:09)
Posted: 20:44 Dec 17 2003 
Having seen it this morning I can only say
"Go. See. Now"
Or
"What Maff Said"
"Go. See. Now"
Or
"What Maff Said"
Posted: 21:28 Dec 17 2003 
Return of the King is hit and miss, but the hits were plentiful and thrilling.
Let's fell those misses first. Why do I say hit and miss? Because it felt like I was watching two films, both struggling for screen time. From what I know, I think this was unavoidable given the nature of the source. But there were other problems: for one it was just too damn long. Not in terms of minutes, the Extended Editions have a longer running time, but due to scenes that were alowed to run on far past their natural conclusion. These included the major battle, and much of the buildup to it. It was crying out for the judicious use of an edit suite.
And the multiple finales: know when to call it a day already! Each time the next false end kicked in, the cinema resounded with a collective groan. (Admittedly said cinema was ratboy Golgotha, but they had a point.) The film's "peak" came in mount doom; the momentum just drained away from then on, taking the audience's patience with it.
Right, glad the carping is dusted, now the good stuff, and there was plenty of it. The battle scenes were on the whole a triumph of cinematography and creative scope, and all the scenes in Gondor were gripping. Some great palace politics at work, albeit a plot that won't make the blindest bit of sense if you haven't seen the extended Two Towers. Bernard Hill played Theodon with an Arthurian grandeur, and Viggo Mortensen portrays apotheosised knight errant Aragorn as adeptly as ever. Orlando Bloom and the splendid John Rhys-Davies keep the films' real double-act on top form (and we're spared further talk of dwarf tossing!).
The denouement in mount doom was everything it needed to be, pulse-racing, brutal, an appropriately epic confrontation. Sadly Elija Wood can do little more than portray the slings and arrows of constipation, but his wide-eyed gaze actually fitted with the final scene, which was a huge relief. Sean Astin is, thankfully, a star turn, and held up this side of the plot just about single-handed. (Golum was good, but was only really the catalyst for the Hobbits in this film.)
So is it an appropriate end to the trilogy? For all its flaws, yes, I think it is. The whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, but some of those parts are so good it remains a great bit of cinema. It's not a cohesive film, it's not a classic film, but it's a ripping yarn, and I'm always up for one of those.
(Edited by Byron 25/04/2006 22:01)
Let's fell those misses first. Why do I say hit and miss? Because it felt like I was watching two films, both struggling for screen time. From what I know, I think this was unavoidable given the nature of the source. But there were other problems: for one it was just too damn long. Not in terms of minutes, the Extended Editions have a longer running time, but due to scenes that were alowed to run on far past their natural conclusion. These included the major battle, and much of the buildup to it. It was crying out for the judicious use of an edit suite.
And the multiple finales: know when to call it a day already! Each time the next false end kicked in, the cinema resounded with a collective groan. (Admittedly said cinema was ratboy Golgotha, but they had a point.) The film's "peak" came in mount doom; the momentum just drained away from then on, taking the audience's patience with it.
Right, glad the carping is dusted, now the good stuff, and there was plenty of it. The battle scenes were on the whole a triumph of cinematography and creative scope, and all the scenes in Gondor were gripping. Some great palace politics at work, albeit a plot that won't make the blindest bit of sense if you haven't seen the extended Two Towers. Bernard Hill played Theodon with an Arthurian grandeur, and Viggo Mortensen portrays apotheosised knight errant Aragorn as adeptly as ever. Orlando Bloom and the splendid John Rhys-Davies keep the films' real double-act on top form (and we're spared further talk of dwarf tossing!).
The denouement in mount doom was everything it needed to be, pulse-racing, brutal, an appropriately epic confrontation. Sadly Elija Wood can do little more than portray the slings and arrows of constipation, but his wide-eyed gaze actually fitted with the final scene, which was a huge relief. Sean Astin is, thankfully, a star turn, and held up this side of the plot just about single-handed. (Golum was good, but was only really the catalyst for the Hobbits in this film.)
So is it an appropriate end to the trilogy? For all its flaws, yes, I think it is. The whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, but some of those parts are so good it remains a great bit of cinema. It's not a cohesive film, it's not a classic film, but it's a ripping yarn, and I'm always up for one of those.
(Edited by Byron 25/04/2006 22:01)
Posted: 20:13 Dec 19 2003
I thought it was okay, but nothing to get worked up about. It was way way way too long and it was definitely dragging on. I also kinda felt that everything before the Intermission was completely pointless, 'cause all that happened was a load of talking. I also found myself laughing at how stupid some of the scenes were, I know it is only doing what the book said or whatever, but hehe.
Uh huh except in the cinema I was in, loads of people started clapping, EVERY single time. It was like God's sake shut up already.
by Byron
And the multiple finales: know when to call it a day already! Each time the next false end kicked in, the cinema resounded with a collective groan.
Why was he crying?
by KaTiEStar
The film was so good even my dad was crying!
Posted: 16:45 Dec 20 2003 Films with talking in?!
by Acker
I also kinda felt that everything before the Intermission was completely pointless, 'cause all that happened was a load of talking.
Heaven forbid!!! Bring back silent movies that's what I say! 
You don't think that all that dialogue was essential to the story then? Or do you think of LotR as an action movie and that the story merely got in the way of some damn good fight scenes?
Posted: 15:22 Dec 22 2003 I'm not sure about that, but when the 'Intermission' sign came up, it felt like nothing had even happened yet. Sorry, I am not really a big lotr fan, I realise that on here I will probably get lynched for my opinions but oh well I'll just shut up now.
by PictureOfFlowers
You don't think that all that dialogue was essential to the story then?
Posted: 18:06 Dec 22 2003
No slash-juncture here either. But unlike the steady trickle (ho ho) back and forth to the foyer, I a) went beforehand and b) didn't order a coke the size of an industrial cement mixer. And anyway, if you can sit through Lawrence of Arabia and Once Upon a Time in the West, Return of the King is seriously no biggie!
I agree about the waffle. It's nothing to do with all dialogue is bad (two of my favourite films, All the President's Men and Conspiracy, are nothing but!), but dialogue should be taut and have a point, and if not, ala Pulp Fiction, be so entertaining it doesn't matter. This was neither, and at times all the "stone of ugthone by the light of zenta" codswallop was a gasp away from D&D. Thankfully there wasn't that much of it, and it died away after a while.
I agree about the waffle. It's nothing to do with all dialogue is bad (two of my favourite films, All the President's Men and Conspiracy, are nothing but!), but dialogue should be taut and have a point, and if not, ala Pulp Fiction, be so entertaining it doesn't matter. This was neither, and at times all the "stone of ugthone by the light of zenta" codswallop was a gasp away from D&D. Thankfully there wasn't that much of it, and it died away after a while.
Posted: 18:43 Dec 22 2003 Exactly what I was trying to say!
by Byron
I agree about the waffle. It's nothing to do with all dialogue is bad (two of my favourite films, All the President's Men and Conspiracy, are nothing but!), but dialogue should be taut and have a point, and if not, ala Pulp Fiction, be so entertaining it doesn't matter. This was neither, and at times all the "stone of ugthone by the light of zenta" codswallop was a gasp away from D&D. Thankfully there wasn't that much of it, and it died away after a while.
Posted: 19:38 Dec 22 2003
Fan Bloody tastic! I dissagree with what people are saying about the ending, i guess maybe it was sorta long but i didn't want it to be the end when it seemed like it was going to be. I only felt it should have been the end when they sailed away. I think the only scene that could have been cut was the very last one. I also dissagree about too much waffle, the ecenes with lots of talknig in were still bloody great! The film is great. I can't really say its the best of the 3 though, in fact i don't think I could place any of them being better than the other as they are sorta the same film. But go see this if you havn't, can't wait for the DVD.
(Edited by SPIKE 23/12/2003 23:47)
(Edited by SPIKE 23/12/2003 23:47)
Posted: 23:45 Dec 23 2003 
I've just seen this this afternoon and oh my God. Absolutely fantastic. I thought the Battle of Helms Deep was brilliant in TT, that was nothing compared to the epic battle in ROTK.
I didn't find it too long but then again i was so completely lost in the film that i didn't notice, but the multiple endings was a little annoying but it did tie up loose ends nicely.
If you haven't seen this film, go and see it. NOW!
I didn't find it too long but then again i was so completely lost in the film that i didn't notice, but the multiple endings was a little annoying but it did tie up loose ends nicely.
If you haven't seen this film, go and see it. NOW!
Posted: 20:25 Dec 28 2003
I do think it was really good and I did enjoy it a lot, but it just wouldn't end! The last few scenes were absolute torture, even if they were in the book, I think they ruined the rest of the film by dragging it out far too long and being really cheesy and frustrating (I wouldn't know if they were in the book, only got halfway through the Two Towers before I realised if I kept going I would die from boredom). Spent of a lot of the time laughing uncontrollably at some of the scenes, especially near the end when I should have been either crying or on the edge my seat. Oh, and If its possible, Orlando Bloom's acting got even worse - Legolas is mighty fine but he has about 2 expressions (bored and that little smile, shake of head thing he keeps doing). Having said that, he wasn't in it enough for droolage
So... I've just gone and listed a bunch of complaints, but really, I've loved the whole trilogy and it's quite possible this one was my favourite. It's definately worth seeing, but if you haven't already, you might want to leave 25 minutes early to save you from the torture that is the end.
So... I've just gone and listed a bunch of complaints, but really, I've loved the whole trilogy and it's quite possible this one was my favourite. It's definately worth seeing, but if you haven't already, you might want to leave 25 minutes early to save you from the torture that is the end.
Posted: 14:32 Dec 29 2003 
Great movie, but I agree about the multiple false endings - that was just annoying.
Who'da thunk it...Tolkien writing about Post-Traumatic stress disorder decades before it became fashionable...
Who'da thunk it...Tolkien writing about Post-Traumatic stress disorder decades before it became fashionable...
Posted: 13:39 Jan 19 2004
Given that Tolkien served in the First World War, at the Somme, he probably discovered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder about the same time as everyone else, and LOTR was published around 1954, by which time PTSD was very much in vogue...
Well, I saw TROTK last Saturday, and it was great. Particularly liked the elephants on steroids, although I would have thought they could have improvised a strategy, on the hoof as it were, a little sooner (it's called flanking, guys).
I am surprised, however, that no-one has mentioned the complete absence of Christopher Lee. I knew his scenes had been cut, but I didn't think that meant zero Saruman. Presumably Jackson had his reasons, but the confrontation between Saruman, Theoden and Gandalf at Isengard, where the rogue wizard almost talks his way out of defeat, is strongly allegorical, considering the way the spokesmen of the 'Coalition' never cease trying to justify an increasingly threadbare case for war in Iraq. And anyone who tired of the false endings should probably thank their stars that Saruman wasn't seen taking over the Shire, if he even did.
Compared to Lee's absense, changing the location of the Shadow Host's engagement with the enemy, for dramatic effect, is a minor matter.
Best quote was "That still only counts as one!!"
Well, I saw TROTK last Saturday, and it was great. Particularly liked the elephants on steroids, although I would have thought they could have improvised a strategy, on the hoof as it were, a little sooner (it's called flanking, guys).
I am surprised, however, that no-one has mentioned the complete absence of Christopher Lee. I knew his scenes had been cut, but I didn't think that meant zero Saruman. Presumably Jackson had his reasons, but the confrontation between Saruman, Theoden and Gandalf at Isengard, where the rogue wizard almost talks his way out of defeat, is strongly allegorical, considering the way the spokesmen of the 'Coalition' never cease trying to justify an increasingly threadbare case for war in Iraq. And anyone who tired of the false endings should probably thank their stars that Saruman wasn't seen taking over the Shire, if he even did.
Compared to Lee's absense, changing the location of the Shadow Host's engagement with the enemy, for dramatic effect, is a minor matter.
Best quote was "That still only counts as one!!"
Posted: 13:57 Jan 20 2004
IT used to be called Shell Shock and sufferers were often penalised rather than treated.
The Yanks renamed it PTSD and made it fashionable in the 70's after Vietnam.
Found out about Tolkien from a mate who's a huge fan of the man, and knows Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About J.R.R. Tolkien, And More.
The Yanks renamed it PTSD and made it fashionable in the 70's after Vietnam.
Found out about Tolkien from a mate who's a huge fan of the man, and knows Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About J.R.R. Tolkien, And More.
Posted: 14:14 Jan 20 2004