LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:04 AM

I ALREAD POSTED MANY REVIEWS AT THE LOTR FORUM, BUT I WILL COPY HERE THE MOST IMPORTANT REVIEWS FROM ESTABLISHED CRITICS:

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

By TODD MCCARTHY of VARIETY

A "King" that earns its crown, Peter Jackson's final installment in his monumental "The Lord of the Rings" represents that filmmaking rarity -- a third part of a trilogy that is decisively the best of the lot. With epic conflict, staggering battles, striking landscapes and effects, and resolved character arcs all leading to a dramatic conclusion to more than nine hours of masterful storytelling, "The Return of the King" is an urgently paced 200-minute film without an ounce of fat -- until unfortunate multiple endings that go on and on, as if Jackson couldn't bear to let go. Again unlike other trilogy finales, this one will rank with its predecessors at the box office, where the first two entries have generated $1.786 billion internationally. Ancillary benefits from various versions and packaging will issue forth close to forever.
In the rarified world of large-scaled cinematic triptychs, three in the modern era quickly come to mind that, initially at least, combined striking cinematic prowess with enormous public enthusiasm: "The Godfather," "Star Wars" and "The Matrix." In the first two instances, the second film was by general consensus the best and most adventurous, while the third was by far the weakest across the boards.

What Jackson and New Line so boldly did right was to shoot all three in one continuous stretch rather than start from scratch each time.

Of all the wonders associated with this trio of films -- the literate, generally well structured overall script, the perfection of the New Zealand locations, the visionary scenic designs, the exceptional visual effects, the costumes, hair and armor, and the excellent cast -- perhaps the most impressive feat of all has been Jackson's ability to keep it all in his head through the years and deliver a cohesive work with a proper sense of balance and proportion.

Unlike his predecessors in the trilogy business, of course, Jackson had a ready-made three-part text to work from, one constructed to pay off in the climactic installment. And pay off it does, in ways guaranteed to satisfy the multitudes around the world who embraced the first two films, and even to impress non-card-carrying members of the massive Tolkien-Jackson cult.

Still, anyone who hasn't seen the first two pics won't have a clue what's going on at the outset of "The Return of the King." With much struggle behind him but the worst yet to come, Frodo (Elijah Wood) is increasingly feeling the weight of being the Ringbearer as he and his faithful friend Sam (Sean Astin) make their way toward Mount Doom, the place where the Ring was made and the only place it can be destroyed, thus thwarting Sauron's attempt to destroy humankind.

"The days are growing darker," Frodo observes amid distant volcanic eruptions, as he and Sam continue to be guided by the fretful Gollum (Andy Serkis), the deformed former Ringbearer whose intended treachery is superbly revealed in a schizophrenic soliloquy delivered to his reflection in the water.

Meanwhile, in Rohan, the flush of victory over Saruman's forces in the Battle of Helm's Deep at the end of "The Two Towers" doesn't last long (defeated and trapped in the last film, Christopher Lee's wonderfully realized character unfortunately doesn't even appear here).

A faux pas by Pippin (Billy Boyd) provokes Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to remove him to Minas Tirith, the magnificent White City and capital of Gondor built on a soaring outcropping of rock. There, they find a kingdom in decline under a steward, Denethor (John Noble), so distraught over the death of his elder son that his rash decisions are not to be trusted.

Concluding that, "We come to it at last -- the great battle of our time," Gandalf can see that, "The board is set and the pieces are moving." Indeed, it is clear that, to fight the renewed and gathering forces of monstrous Orcs heading toward Minas Tirith, all the representatives of Middle-earth will have to come together for humanity to have a chance.

To this end, King Theoden of Rohan (Bernard Hill) summons all the men he can to march to Minas Tirith, joined by warriors Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), and followed eventually by his feisty niece Eowyn (Miranda Otto) and Pippin's inseparable friend Merry (Dominic Monaghan). In Rivendell, Elf Arwen (Liv Tyler), refuses immortality to remain alive for the sake of her great love, Aragorn, although her father Elron (Hugo Weaving) despairs of her surviving long enough to justify the decision.

In a way new to the trilogy, the emotional momentum surges along with the physical action. After early ambivalence over his responsibility for the Ring, Frodo grows into the job; after long dodging his royal inheritance, Aragorn finally rises to the occasion; Sam, especially, emerges as a three-dimensional character of intense devotion to Frodo even after he has been tricked by the Iago-like Gollum and exiled by his closest friend; and the ineffectual Hobbits Pippin and Merry take on some size, figuratively if not literally.

The building sense of dread is palpable. With the belching Mount Doom and its all-powerful hovering Eye in the distance, humankind and Orcs alike traverse an already stark landscape that will shortly become scorched. Dreadful giant screeching dragons, called Fell Beasts, flap down out the sky to pluck hapless soldiers off their feet and horses. And the Orcs are assisted by yet more monsters, including Hulk-like Trolls and towering, long-tusked mastodons known as Mumakil, that strike terror and make resistance seem futile.

With these forces massing to decide the fate of civilization, Gandalf tries to buy time for Frodo to plunge the Ring into the lava at Mount Doom. To greater effect than he has at any point in the three films, Jackson cuts among different sets of activity, the most spectacular being the battle and the most emotionally intense being Frodo's painful, inch-by-inch journey.

The trip, which requires perilous climbing up slippery twisting stairs, is marked by the Gollum's frequent attempts to make off with the Ring and by the most frightening episode in the entire trilogy -- Frodo's and, subsequently, Sam's face-offs with an enormous Spider named Shelob. The incredibly detailed and life-like arachnid succeeds in stinging Frodo, and rapidly wraps him like a mummy. Sword-in-hand, Sam then engages the beast, and the angles at which the struggle is shot are enormously impactful and unusual for shots involving so many digital and special effects. Few will watch this scene without drawing back in the theater seat.

Frodo's eventual arrival at the bowels of Mount Doom is charged not only with physical but a sort of spiritual agony that triggers hesitation of nearly fateful consequences.

The siege of Minas Tirith may well be the mother of all cinematic battles; certainly no pre-CGI war film ever featured a scene involving upwards of 200,000 soldiers. But that's how many Orcs maraud the city, and the details are extraordinary: the huge stones catapulted at the fortifications from mobile towers; the fire-breathing dragon battering ram that crashes through the main gates; the earth-shaking Mumakil that raze all before them with scythe-like tusks and carry dozens of men; the gradual movement of the battle from the ground to the upper levels of the exquisitely designed citadel. All of "The Lord of the Rings" has been building to this, and it delivers entirely.

There are a few nits to be picked. With the forces of humankind vastly outnumbered, Aragorn is forced to seek the help of innumerable "dead" but still loyal soldiers to help out against the Orcs. Even in a work of fantasy and myth, this device just doesn't wash, a circumstance not helped by the fact that the unconvincing effects used to represent them on the battlefield make them look like a bunch of green ghosts dashing across the field.

The Arwen/Elron side has never seemed well integrated into the rest of the action, and still doesn't. But more egregious is the succession of endings, a couple of which seem so ideal that people will no doubt be rising from their seats to leave, only to be plunked back for more rounding out of the fates of yet more characters. Better that some of these had been saved for the inevitable Expanded Edition DVD of "The Return of the King," rather than dissipating the power of the trilogy in its waning moments.

All the outstanding technical and craft achievements that have been duly honored in the previous installments are at least equaled and sometimes trumped here, especially in regard to how involved the creatures are this time. There has been no let-up in creativity, only intensification.

Similarly, certain members of the cast take advantage of the fresh dramatic opportunities to deepen their characterizations. This is certainly true of Wood, who makes Frodo's new levels of terror, responsibility and pain keenly felt. (At certain feminized moments and from particular angles, he oddly resembles a diminutive Uma Thurman.) Often seeming a bumbling tag-along up until now, Astin comes into his own as Sam here in a big way, investing the young man with mature emotions and an unbreakable bond with friends. Serkis gets to expand the remarkable Gollum with unexpected complexity. And Hill verges on magnificence, as he transforms his initially depressed King of Rohan into a character of nearly Shakespearean stature.

So Jackson has done it. After seven years of work, the young New Zealander has pulled off one of the most ambitious and phenomenally successful dream projects of all time, a complete visual rendering of a 1,000-page literary classic beloved by countless readers internationally, a set of films that satisfies the Tolkien purists and, when all is said and done, will generate well upwards of $3 billion in all markets.

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Tuukka
INTERNET MOVIE DATABASE - REVIEWS FROM ORDINARY PEOPLE:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/

ROTTENTOMATOES - REVIEWS FROM THE TOP CRITICS IN NORTH AMERICA:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/preview.php

Ps. Lynn, I think you could put these links to your opening post. I can delete these away after that.

No problem, Tuuka! HUGE thanks!

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:14 AM

HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

By David Hunter

Bottom line: Well, Frodo is back in theaters and so will be a multitude of moviegoers.

Opens Wed., Dec. 17

NEW YORK -- An epic success and a history-making production that finishes with a masterfully entertaining final installment, New Line Cinema's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" is a soaring legend in its own day and destined to be cherished for many ages to come. "The Return of the King" is the longest and most complicated of the three "Rings" films and probably fated to be the biggest moneymaker. Sure to be an Oscar contender in many categories and a breathtaking argument for director Peter Jackson winning every award there is to give, "King" has none of the usual deficiencies that frequently scuttle third films.

Opening unexpectedly with a flashback to the day when the twisted Gollum was a healthy Hobbit-like fisherman named Smeagol (Andy Serkis), who commits murder to possess the powerful One Ring, "King" deftly resumes the story after the events of "The Two Towers." After a brief encounter with the talking lord of the forest Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies), Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Theoden (Bernard Hill) and other survivors of the Battle of Helm's Deep go to ravished Isengard. Within minutes, we're reintroduced to the many characters, including Hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), Rohan fighters Eomer (Karl Urban) and Eowyn (Miranda Otto), Faramir (David Wenham) of Gondor and the one new human character, Denethor (John Noble), the Steward of Minas Tirith, site of the next great showdown between the mighty forces of evil Sauron and the free peoples of Middle Earth.

Frodo and Sam (Elijah Wood and Sean Astin), guided by the vengeful Gollum (again a wondrous combination of special effects and Serkis' inspired performance), finally enter Mordor, but the divisive influence of the Ring almost ends the fellowship of the two heroic Hobbits. When the three infiltrators pass by Minas Morgul (the dead city where the Nazgul reside), they watch another army of Sauron march to battle under the command of the Witch-king.

Eventually, this Black Captain of the Nazgul, who rides one of the dragonlike beasts first seen in "Towers," has a fight with Eowyn and Merry in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, outside the walls of Minas Tirith, that readers have been waiting decades to see. It's a gloriously crowd-pleasing moment, while overall the lengthy siege is tremendously exciting and visually unparalleled.

Huge elephantlike Mumakil and trolls pushing the giant battering ram known as Grond join hordes of Orcs in a gargantuan assault on Minas Tirith, a fight which faithless Denethor turns away from when he gives into fear and fatherly pride by sending Faramir to certain death. It's the leadership-tested Gandalf (Ian McKellen) who commands the defense of the city. Although Denethor comes off too as enigmatic compared to the original material, he sure has a spectacular final scene.

Jackson and co-writers Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh make noteworthy departures from Tolkien, including such crucial moments as what happens when Frodo is finally standing on a ledge over the Crack of Doom inside the volcano where the ring must be destroyed, and how Aragorn makes use of the Army of the Dead that only he can command. Whole swaths of the book have been condensed and eliminated, but Jackson and company usually realize splendidly whatever they take on.

There are only brief moments with the saga's Elvish beauties: Arwen (Liv Tyler) refuses to abandon Aragorn. Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) makes a crucial connection with Frodo near the story's climax. Dwarf fighter Gimli (Rhys-Davies) provides much-appreciated humor with his sarcastic remarks. Fearless Elf bowman Legolas (Orlando Bloom) delivers the best battlefield action, while wise Elrond (Hugo Weaving) provides Aragorn with the restored sword that defeated Sauron long ago.

The thunderous conclusion to the story of the Ring that includes the end of Frodo's journey and the battle outside the Black Gate winds down to a sublime denouement, leaving only 20 minutes to wrap up when Tolkien took a hundred pages. The extended DVD should bind "King" and the other two films into one awesome movie deserving of regular revivals in theaters. But who can resist right now a classic fantasy adventure that never drags and is simply ravishing to look at thanks to the thousands of craftsmen, performers, animals and postproduction refiners?

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 01:17 AM

Mmm...The great part of that review is that it's from The Hollywood Reporter, a very well trusted source. Also, Variety liked this film and our own Mike Sampson liked it, not loved it (Big news since he walked out of TTT, which he apparently was not a fan of). Currently it's positive all around.

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:18 AM

HERE Boston:

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

by David Foucher
HERE Arts & Entertainment Editor

The star of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy is, of course, not a band of gold, nor a hobbit – but rather its hobbit-sized director. Passionate about J.R.R. Tolkien’s genre-defining novels to the degree that he (and many of his army of cast and crew) have dedicated half a decade of their lives to the films, Peter Jackson deserves a tremendous amount of respect from a film establishment – even a society – that has relegated the entire universe of fantasy fiction to the very worst of its preconceptions. Disregarded as the thematically shallow purview of the lonely pre-pubescent who long for medieval-style acceptance based on human characteristics no longer highly valued – valor, courage and honor replaced by beauty, wealth and popularity – the fantasy species long ago achieved B-class status in the Hollywood apparatus, and never recovered.

Until, that is, Jackson and New Line took the largest gamble in moviemaking history by committing hundred of millions of dollars to an audacious production schedule that would spin forth the longest running three-part film ever created. They could not have guess that hobbit-fever would grip the planet three years in a row, or that one man’s creative vision could redefine and re-energize an industry.

Sounds a little like J.R.R. Tolkien’s life story, doesn’t it?

In fact, there are parallels not only to be drawn between the author of the books and the auteur of the film trilogy, but also between the central theme of both – that courage and determination can help even the smallest of us to reshape the world – and the creative process itself. It’s a peculiar magic wielded by the storytellers of each age, the mythology of human experience more powerful than politics, stock markets and death. It’s a little bit of immortality we see on the screen once we hand over our $10 and grab some popcorn – and this film, like its predecessors, will go down as one of the most rewarding three hours you can spend watching such dreams unfold.

You don’t need a plot synopsis – you already know that little Frodo has to throw that heavy band of gold into the volcano and then run for it. And you don’t need to know if the performances are superior, since they are continuous from the first two films. It’s a joy watching Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin (whose character truly comes into his own in this final film), Orlando Bloom, Viggo Mortensen and the rest play out the cataclysmic plot.

What you really want to know is this: have we placed our faith in a man who has the ability to see through, and hopefully surpass, the first two films into the climactic third chapter? The answer, delightfully, is a resounding yes. “The Return of the King” is every bit the fabulous conclusion we’ve waited for, spun out in glorious fashion over an exhausting three hours.

And the question naturally follows: Will Peter Jackson be finally recognized for this achievement? Is there an Academy Award in store for the man?

Humm. I regret to say probably not. Judged on its own merits, this trilogy has at least marginally failed in one important regard: its strict adherence to Tolkien’s novels to the disregard of the medium of film. The finest example occurs in “The Return of the King,” when Jackson plods through twenty minutes of concluding material AFTER the big battles have passed. It’s an old film adage: once the action has finished, roll the credits. Purists will appreciate the film’s faithful rendition, even as they scold Jackson for taking out the wizard Solomon’s death scene, which having seen the film I admit is confusing. Mythologically speaking, it’s far more important to see the bad guy meet his fate than to watch the protracted ending – not to mention the first would have been far more interesting to watch.

There are minor flaws as well – this is the first chapter in which some of the metaphorical special effects strings can be seen as they’re pulled. But they are minor, and even the ending has appeal in its emotional impact. It’s not a perfect film, but that is of such little consequence. “The Return of the King” is daring, wonderful, and ultimately one of the most satisfying films of the year.

GRADE: A

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:20 AM

ED GONZALES, SLANT MAGAZINE

It is with great sadness that Peter Jackson’s mega-production of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy comes to an end. Tolkien’s weakest text isn’t exactly Jackson’s strongest, but despite its little imperfections, The Return of the King brings together some of the best parts of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. More goose-pimply epic swirl and top-notch Uruk-hai smackdowns, but there’s also more of the dreamy Christian allegory that highlighted the first film. Just as Fellowship of the Ring envisioned a mythic fairyland at peace, the grease-and-elbow of Two Towers put us knee-deep in its imminent destruction. Not surprisingly, Return of the King is a ravishing work of mythic restoration.

Frodo (Elijah Wood) is a complete and utter mess, making his way slowly to Mount Doom with Hobbit best-pal Sam (Sean Astin) and bi-polar freakazoid Gollum (Andy Serkis) in tow. The film begins with a sinister backstory that sets up the allure of the forbidden fruit that now hangs from Frodo’s neck: Serkis, as Smeagol, kills for his “precious” and slowly wigs out over time. Many years later, he’s every bit as calculating, cooking up a deadly encounter with you-know-“her” but not before plotting an elaborate mix-up between Frodo and Sam using breadcrumbs (“Give us this daily bread,” so to speak). Gollum’s last-ditch attempt to reclaim his old drug is the Christ-like Frodo’s only chance to destroy his oft-mentioned “burden.” But this is just one of many jittery interplays in the film.

While Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) wake the dead, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) prepares to fight the Witch King over at jaw-dropping Minis Tirith, where the white wizard must navigate Denethor and Boromir’s fiery father-son disconnect. Behold the lighting of pyres on mountainsides, an awe-inspiring evocation of primal communication. This is how tightly the inhabitants of Middle Earth are connected. In Return of the King, the magic is in the details, and Jackson works overtime to get everyone in on the action: Pippin sings a song (ostensibly for Denethor’s pleasure, it’s also a dreamy musical backdrop for one of many battles in the film), and it’s a nosy Merry’s vision of a lonely tree in a garden that brings the fellowship to Minis Tirith.

Because the film is so loyal to Tolkien’s original text, I can’t imagine purists really complaining. Much of the film’s problems are, of course, relative (Uruk-hai leaders shouldn’t be allowed to talk!). Fans of Christopher Lee’s hot air will probably miss Saruman the most. (Jackson wisely understood the character’s potential to distract, so it’s assumed that the dark wizard fell along with his kingdom at the end of Two Towers.) Jackson puts the cock-tease into the film’s sweltering, geometric cross-cutting, but the film’s 200 minutes still feel overstuffed. The dead army doesn’t bring the film to a screeching halt in the same way Treebeard did Two Towers, but there’s now a hurried, going-through-the-motions quality to these and many other scenes. Treebeard and Galadriel’s cameos are small, but the characters could have been easily excised without being missed. (Cate Blanchett’s catwalk strut from the first film was endearing, but her breathy delivery is cloying when her dress isn’t flowing sensually behind her.)

Because Jackson spends considerable time fulfilling quotas, crucial melodramas are undervalued. Jackson is ill-prepared to handle the Aragorn-Arwen-Eowyn love triangle. Jackson knows this, which might explain why he avoids the shot of Eowyn’s face when Aragorn returns and snags the eternally lovelorn Arwen (Liv Tyler, more asthmatic than Blanchett). The nondescript Eowyn’s curious empowerment ritual is seemingly informed by a broken heart first, political-correctness second, and Jackson does a poor job evoking the woman’s genuinely breathtaking success in battle as a personal mission. Womanhood seems almost beside the point, when it really should be the true impetus. The Eowyn-Merry tagteam outside Minis Tirith is essentially Jackson’s promise to Tolkein’s female and outré fans. Of course, it all successfully points to the inclusiveness of the author’s world. The Lord of the Rings trilogy has appealed to girls, boys, straights, and queers alike, and there’s plenty of worship in Jackson’s film for everyone who’s good--regardless of sex, size or how long Sam stares into Frodo’s eyes.

Jackson’s majestic longshots and extreme close-ups will make you swoon. Wind and fire are their own characters, and there’s a primordial wistfulness to many of the film’s power shots (namely the sight of a defeated Frodo and Sam at Mount Doom while fireballs whisk by their heads). Because of their elegiac stillness, it’s as if we’re watching daguerreotypes from an audacious, ridiculously dramatic neverland. The film’s best (often simplest) fantastical flights of fancy (an impromptu beam of light from Gandalf’s staff, the flight of savior eagles) are those that smooth out the roughest battle scars and evoke losses being rewarded from cosmic beyonds. We permit the CGI madness because there’s an unmistakable transcendental quality to the film’s images, and Jackson respects and authenticates Tolkein’s core principles of sacrifice and spiritual ascendance.

3 1/2 out of 4

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:21 AM

VARIAGALLERY

"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"

The followers of this epic tale who enjoy producer-director Peter Jackson's film adaptation of it will similarly appreciate this final installment except, perhaps, for the fact that we don't see the evil wizard Saruman (Christoper Lee) in it at all. Not when he unleashes his forces against the kingdoms of men nor when his power is ultimately... well, you know the way the story melts... uh, that is, ends.

The story picks up where it left off, with the tree men guarding the tower and Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) being led by Gollum (Andy Serkis) across the wilderness to Mount Doom, ring on neck. The three movies could be seen together as a continuous storyline without skipping a beat or disturbing the flow.

Jackson does a good job of keeping all combatants engaged and alive in this many-charactered struggle. He starts off, in the opening sequence, with a clever bit of serendipity leading to the creation of DGI character, Gollum out of the two unworthies, Deagol (Thomas Robins) and Smeagol (Andy Serkis).

As Sauron seeks to vanquish the human kingdom, the size of the battles can be visualized in terms of the armies. Helms Deep is 10,000 strong and impressive. So what's to be made of Minas Tirith, which starts out with 250,000? The odds, ugliness and sheer power make Sauron's legions seem unbeatable as valiant Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and brave Elf and archer Legolas (Orlando Bloom) lead the army of the nobles against them. The foreboding sense of ultimate failure and the defeat of men pervades the dramatic landscape as they fight on.

That defeat seems imminent as the invaders, with the help of the "special forces" of giant Orcs, line up their huge sling shots to break down the defenses of the fortress.

Mystifying his army, Aragorn leaves his men as the Orcs' final assault seems imminent. He goes to enlist the aid of the terrible mountain men, the ephemeral, green-hued army of the Dead to whom the promise of release from their curse is the only thing that can arouse them to remanifest themselves to join the struggle.

All the while the battles are being staged, Frodo and Sam are being led by the deceptive Gollum whose overriding interest is in obtaining the ring from around Frodo's neck. En route, he actually succeeds in convincing Frodo of Sam's disloyalty, all the better to destroy Frodo.

Amidst the epic battles is the comforting presence of Gandalf The White (Ian McCellan) influencing the strategies, bolstering the good kingdoms of men, pulling out a special power when it's needed, like his eagles to combat Sauron's pterodactyl destroyers.

Those who anticipate this final episode as one that will outdo what came before might be disappointed in some things, but satisfied in most areas. The fields are stages for some fiercely original designs to convey power, with all the magic of CGI and aural accompaniment to render them awesome. Some of the outstanding moments are when Eowyn (Miranda Otto) faces the Fell beast, a seemingly invincible monster, with nothing but a sword; The charge of the mumakil elephants is a frightening concept when such mighty beasts come against you., This threat provides a delicious opportunity to exploit Elf Legolas' unique combat skills. This is a rowdily menacing sequence that again presents what seems like insurmountable odds on the battlefield, prolonguing hopelessness and despair.

Cate Blanchett is her loveliest and most enchanting as Gladriel whose role in the drama seems more comprehensible than in previous installments. Liv Tyler's role is the same as she, in her new and susceptible mortality and Elvin leader Elrond (Hugo Weaving) exert their influences on the outcome of the combat. It's disconcerting seeing Weaving in this context after his multiple appearances as the arch villain in that other event series, "The Matrix."

"The Return of the King" is the best in the series and not so much because of the knock down action and original creations. It's more because of better clarity in the story progression, aided by effective intercutting against the hobbit's impeded progess on their comparatively modestly scaled mission that could reap the conclusive victory.

The final coda of the story is indulgently extended and added a bit of agony to the realization that you've been in your theatre seat for well over 3 hours. I expect "Ring" fans and fanatics will love every second of it; others might wish Peter Jackson had been just a mite less saga minded and over-enchanted by every detail of the Tolkien mythology. Oftimes, less is more, but I wouldn't have missed it for a thing.

4.8/5

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:23 AM

David Ansen from NEWSWEEK

The pleasures of “The Return of the King” are too numerous to recount in brief. Now that the trilogy is complete, we can take the full measure of Peter Jackson’s extraordinary accomplishment. “The Lord of the Rings” stands as a model of epic storytelling. The final installment runs well over three hours, but Jackson’s modulations of tone, space, scale and intensity are so expertly gauged you never feel pummeled or bored. Just gripped from start to finish.

“The Return of the King” interweaves two strands, one vast, one intimate. In the former, all the kingdoms of Middle-earth unite in an attempt to stave off Sauron’s armies of darkness, and to restore Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) to the throne. This is the cast-of-thousands part, full of swirling camera work, can-you-top-this stunts and magnificent besieged cities. In the latter is the increasingly tortured, weary figure of Frodo (Elijah Wood) as he enters the terrifying realm of Mordor, where he must return the ring to the fire. On his hobbit’s back rests the fate of mankind. We’ve known that from the beginning. In the third and final film, we feel it.

The second installment was better than the first, and this one is best of all. It has spectacular action scenes and imaginary creatures, and it’s by far the most moving chapter. The performances have deepened. These characters don’t pop back up like cartoon figures, unscraped by experience. They’ve been altered by their quest, and the hurt gives flavor to the glory. If there’s a flaw in this jewel it’s a generous one: Jackson gives us too many endings. Understandably, he wants to be faithful to Tolkien. Or maybe, like us, he just couldn’t tear himself away.

BRISBANE COURIER MAIL:

"HE DREW a deep breath.
"Well, I'm back," he said.

But wait, you have 3 hours 22 minutes of producer-director Peter Jackson's The Return of the King, the final instalment of his history-making "simulsequeling" of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books to get to Tolkien's famous conclusion.

"Simulsequeling"? That's the term being applied to Jackson's technique of making a nine-hour plus treatment of Tolkien's cult books during a 16-month continous shoot in New Zealand, before releasing three separate event movies 12 months apart.

There was The Fellowship of the Ring on Boxing Day, 2001; The Two Towers kept us enthralled last Boxing Day, and now the final movie of the three is almost upon us, also releasing throughout Australia this Boxing Day.

Roadshow Distributors report that the first film took $45 million across Australia, with Two Towers eclipsing that performance with $47 million passed across ticket boxes.

They're tipping a $50 million result for the final chapter, and who's to doubt their prediction?

This is the movie every Lord of the Rings fan, or moviegoer who has been converted to the fellowship by the first two films, has been waiting for, and, happily, it won't disappoint.

Tolkien's themes of courage and loyalty (and hope for the survival of the human race after global war, which initially inspired the author) are to the fore in a thoroughly satisfying movie, presuming you've kept up so far and seen the earlier instalments that set the ground for what happens here.

As with the earlier films, don't be deterred by the simple statistic of its length. Once again Jackson and his team absolutely transport you beyond concerns about its pacing, and you don't notice the hours, let alone the minutes, ticking by.

Jackson, who has emerged from relative obscurity as a Kiwi filmmaker with a weird sense of humour to strut the international stage as one of the most respected directors of our time, understands film.

He has a big story to wrap up, the characters are by now all familiar, so no wasted time with exposition on getting to know you, and he never for a moment lets the movie slow down. It unfolds with the majesty and power of all great movie experiences.

The result is we have an epic that sets a new benchmark for battle sequences – and these battle sequences set such a standard the producers of forthcoming historical epics such as Troy and Alexander the Great must be wondering how they're going to top them.

It's not only the battle sequences that make this film stand out. The final hour of The Return of the King is an emotional roller-coaster (as devoted readers of the books will know).

There's a big emotional scene, and if you believe that's the end of the journey, think again. This happens not once, but three or four times (and I can't really recall because I was drying my eyes much of the time).

Many tears are going to be shed before audiences hear Annie Lennox's haunting theme, Into the West that supports the hobbits' farewells – and the end of this remarkable series of films as a significant character sails into the west.

Despite the number of key characters involved in the final chapters of the saga, Jackson manages to provide time for all.

There is a notable part of the books relating to the Shire missing from the conclusion, but these and other missing elements that cult devotees may feel disappointed about are to be included in the extended DVD version (which will add an hour or more to the film's length).

Rather than simply carry on from where The Two Towers ended, Jackson and the writers (his partner, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) spring a surprise at the beginning.

They return to Smeagol/Gollum (Andy Serkis) for a tranquil introduction, a fishing moment, that speedily turns dramatic.

The mission by the barefoot hobbit, Frodo (Elijah Wood) to dispose of the ring in the Dark Lord Sauron's fiery cauldron on Mt Doom in Mordor with help from the gardener Sam (Sean Astin, who gets much more of the limelight in this instalment) is full of incident.

Much of the tension involves the CGI (computer generated imagery) wizardry that has made Gollum, constantly desiring his "precious", such a remarkable feature of the series.

As forces rally across the wide screen to stave off Sauron's bid to wipe out the human kingdom in the Battle of Pelennor Fields, Jackson offers more than a war story spectacularly staged, although many of the speeches surely will remind audiences of Shakespeare's Henry V.

While the sequences involving hordes of digitally created ghostly figures as well as more recognisable human forms are spectacular (look out for the elephant-like mumakils, and an elephant-man giant), the action is balanced by the emotion necessary to understand what the fighting is about.

A haunting hobbit song (performed by Billy Boyd as Pippin) is cut into contrasting action sequences to great effect.

In this film, a couple of Australian talents are given opportunities to come to the fore.

David Wenham (Faramir) spends a lot of time unconscious, but Miranda Otto as the Joan of Arc-like Eowyn, trying to protect her uncle King Theoden (Bernard Hill), does womanhood proud as she takes on the despised Witch King, with hobbit Merry (Dominic Monaghan) a surprising companion.

Adelaide-based John Noble (the demented Steward of Gondor Denethor) draws on his years of stagecraft honed with the South Australian Theatre Company (he's a former director of the company) and should be hired immediately to play King Lear (a role that so far has eluded him).

As well as the mumakils providing Legolas (heart-throb Orlando Bloom) with opportunities for a bit of Indiana Jones action that allows him to draw on his archery skills, even more fantastic are the creations of Shelob the spider (held out of the second film) and the ferocious Fell beasts.

The realistic though giant-sized tunnel-web Shelob should ensure that arachnophobes don't enjoy the film experience, as the hungry spider does its best to devour the hapless Frodo, who really doesn't have a pleasant time at all on this excursion.

For love interest, there's the classic romance between the action-man Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and the softly spoken elf princess Arwen (Liv Tyler), and Ian McKellen is majestic himself as the all-wise Gandalf.

She's only there fleetingly, but Cate Blanchett's Galadriel is as enchanting as ever, and Hugo Weaving (safely out of the boring Matrix mishmash) is stately as the elvin leader Elrond.

When it comes to funny lines, and dwarf jokes, you can as always rely on Gimli (John Rhys-Davies).

But the real stars of this sweeping finale are Jackson and his team of movie craftspeople from WETA digital effects in Wellington (such as the effects Oscar-winner Richard Taylor) whose vision has contributed a remarkable trio of films.

Howard Shore (who gained an Oscar for The Fellowship of the Ring score) again provides an eloquent score to complement the visual elements and enhance the screen experience.

I wouldn't have missed a second of this. Just find the biggest screen you can, and don't wait for the DVD.

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:23 AM

NZ HERALD

The Return of the King: Jackson's crowning glory

With its sense of spectacle and its dramatic depth, 'The Return of the King' confirms Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of the Rings' as the greatest movie trilogy of all time, writes RUSSELL BAILLIE.

(Herald rating: * * * * * )

We come to it at last, the great film of our time. The film which makes the heart leap, the tears flow, the adrenaline race like never before.

The film which makes you laugh out loud, cower in fear, feel dizzy with vertigo, and at the end - and be warned, it sure does takes its time to finish - feel exhausted, dazed and slightly thankful it's all over. At least, until those compulsory further viewings.

It's the one that makes you wonder: how did we get so hooked up in this imaginary world with its labyrinthine legends and its allusions to everything from The Bible to British history, its creatures great and small, its grand scheme of things.

Well, if memory serves, there were two films before this - in my book, one brilliant, one not quite so, in that order - and a certain hefty work of fiction before that.

So far as his history-making adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's book goes, Peter Jackson and his crew have saved the best and the boldest for last. And that's despite the final third of Tolkien's original work being where his story unravels.

Performance-wise, many of Jackson's cast - some of whom were previously sideline characters - shine like never before.

Among them Sean Astin as Frodo's companion Sam, whose character becomes something much more than the loyal simpleton of earlier episodes.

Likewise, Billy Boyd as Pippin gains in stature and sings a couple of songs while he's at it. Also outstanding is Bernard Hill as King Theoden, whose character has transformed from a wizened Lear to a heroic Henry V. He also delivers one of the great speeches to the troops ever committed to celluloid.

Some characters do fall by the wayside: Liv Tyler's Arwen becomes a passive near-sleeping beauty, while Eowyn (Miranda Otto), her rival for Aragorn's affections, gets to swing a very big sword.

There are more deeper, darker Shakespearean overtones to this, as Middle-earth politics, loyalties and blood ties become more complex.

That resonates especially in the sub-plot involving the Steward of Gondor, Denethor (John Noble) and Faramir (David Wenham), the son he wished were dead rather than his slain brother Boromir.

The Return of the King may be following several strands of story - part of the slight undoing of the previous film, The Two Towers - but here it interweaves them with deft precision, using what it needs from the previous books and pacing most of its long running time in exact swings of tension and release.

That's right from the opening sequence, in which we meet Smeagol in his pre-Gollum days and are reminded of the devastating power of the ring, as well as seeing a little more of where actor Andy Serkis ends and the magic of Weta Digital begins.

We are every stumbling step of the way with Frodo, Sam and Gollum as they head towards Mt Doom. We're also there, with the rest of the scattered fellowship, preparing for the showdown against the mounting might of Sauron.

"We come to it at last, the great battle of our time," says McKellen's Gandalf as he sees the forces mount on the vertiginous city of Minas Tirith. It is a great battle. It makes The Return of the King a great war movie - the thrill of the horse charge of the Rohan warriors, the chill caused by the devastating stomp of the elephant-like Mumakils as they counter-attack.

It takes a certain matinee idol elf to bring one down in an eye-popping action sequence. It's topped off with a priceless one-liner by his short mate Gimli.

The Battle of Pelennor fields also comes with troll-powered catapults, and pterodactyl-like beasts piloted by Nazgul led by the Witch-king Angmar, the baddest of the Lord of the Rings baddies yet, though he has some competition from Orc captain Gothmog whose visage seems a tribute to the Elephant Man.

Both are played by Lawrence Makoare who played orc Lurtz in the first film. If there's a prize for most makeup-tolerant actor, he deserves it.

If it's a great war movie, it's quite a horror film, too. First there's the Army of the Dead who are summoned by the man who would be king, Aragorn, for the final showdown. Some business to do with an old curse apparently, but they are a visually arresting bunch whose special effects hark back to Jackson's The Frighteners.

Then there's Shelob, the giant spider into whose lair Frodo is led by the treacherous Gollum. It could have gone all very B-movie at this point, but with the combination of creature and choreography, it's something more akin to Alien.

But there are visual moments that are arresting for their simple beauty, such as the lighting of the beacons - mountain-top bonfires which presumably used the Southern Alps as their backdrop and on screen look like a high-concept art piece.

As in the book, it does take a while to find its ending, even without including episodes such as the scouring of the Shire, which were discarded by Jackson and his co-writers.

If it takes a while to wrap up, then again it is the ending to what is effectively one very big movie. It should be allowed a few curtain calls.

If it takes its time to roll the end credits, for much of the film it is beyond exhilarating and certainly the best of the three, effectively elevating the series into the greatest trilogy in cinema history.

Peter Jackson started off filming a legend. Now he is one

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:24 AM

TIME:

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING

Well, it's back. The film event of the millennium — three superb films re-creating J.R.R. Tolkien's epic series of novels — reaches its climax with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. For the third December in a row, the year is capped with a robust cinematic retelling of the war of Middle-earth, as the hobbit Frodo (Wood) and his fellowship of humans, elves, dwarfs and the wizard Gandalf (McKellen) surge into battle against the dark power of Mordor's Lord Sauron.

The king in the story is the hunky human warrior Aragorn (Mortensen). But Jackson is the true lord of these Rings. The New Zealand auteur spent seven years on the trilogy, collaborating on the scripts with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. He chose and directed this perfect cast, orchestrated the smashing visual effects — Tolkien's bestiary on the march in fantastical realms. In Return, the giant trolls, four-tusked elephants and flying, screeching serpents of Mordor will amaze adults and may startle small children. The spider monster Shelob, creeping up on Frodo and mummifying him in a silken straitjacket, offers a delicious horror-movie frisson.

Viewers don't play this movie like a video game. They are seduced to live inside it. In one brilliant visualization, the hobbit Pippin (Billy Boyd) manages to light a bonfire at the top of Gondor to alert his distant comrades to a military victory. On a far hill, a second fire is lit, its flame echoed on farther mountaintops, on and on into the dawn. At last, it's wartime.

The Ring films, like Master and Commander, celebrate old-fashioned martial virtues: honor, duty, comradeship, sacrifice — soldiering on, under an immense, sapping burden. Though the trilogy percolates with bracing adventure, it is a testament to the long slog of any war. Pain streaks the faces of the film's stalwart warriors. They know the enormity of their foe and know that the child hobbit who bears the Ring is far from them — surely in peril, perhaps lost forever. At one point Aragorn asks Gandalf, "What does your heart tell you?" and in a little movie epiphany, the wizard's face briefly warms, brightens, and he says, "That Frodo is alive."

The boldly choreographed battles are really a diversion from the story's great drama: three little people — Frodo, his companion Sam (Sean Astin) and the ex-hobbit Gollum (Andy Serkis and a lot of CGI geniuses) on their way to Mount Doom with a mission to destroy the Ring. Cringing and crafty, Gollum is the rebellious servant, subverting Sam's selfless impulses, trying to twist allegiance of the pallid, ailing Frodo away from his friend. (So poignant are Gollum's turbid emotions, and so persuasively is this computer critter integrated with the live performers, that he deserves a special acting Oscar for Best ... Thing.) The devotion of Sam is inspiring. His plea to Frodo--"Don't go where I can't follow!"--makes him the film's real hero.

At 3 hr. 20 min., The Return of the King occasionally slows to a trot. There's a long middle passage where half a dozen characters in turn muse and fret at length. After the climax there's a plethora of meetings and farewells, most of them extended versions of the goodbyes in The Wizard of Oz. But Jackson is entitled. He surely felt that he and his companions of the Ring had waged their own hard, heroic battle and that sentimental adieus were earned.

They are, too. The second half of the film elevates all the story elements to Beethovenian crescendo. Here is an epic with literature's depth and opera's splendor — and one that could be achieved only in movies. What could be more terrific?

FILM DE CULTE:

LE RETOUR DU ROI (ENGLISH VERSION)

HAIL TO THE VICTORIOUS DEADS

The King is back. Aragorn is standing above the battlefield. With his loud, clear voice, he enthrals the few ones who were crazy enough to follow him. The long road that started in the comfort of the Shire has led to this turning point, where the world is about to be torn in two, leaving only one group to see a new age of the world. This simple dramatic canvas is used by Peter Jackson at its best. All the fat is gone away, and this Homeric struggles survives on screen in a way which is both pure and simple, and yet staggeringly complex. Jackson wanted only one thing with The Return of the King: to make the best of the three movies, the apotheosis of all the tears and swords. The long ending is where the most powerful moments appear. The Return of the King has its feet in the mud but its head in the stars.

SAURON STRIKES BACK

Though there’re a few slow patches in the beginning that boast sub-par special effects, Jackson gets his boat sailing and never lets go after that. After seven years of work, probably hours and hours of doubt, Jackson has achieved the best part of the trilogy. The balance is perfect between numerous and well fleshed-out characters, and moments of jaw-dropping visual imagination. The scene of the Paths of the Dead is probably one of the strangest of the trilogy. From Star Wars to Evil Dead, without forgetting Indiana Jones, the movie is full of smart cinematic winks to his colleagues. And he often goes beyond that to create his own icons to adorn the pantheon of epic movie-making. After the editing problems that The Two Towers suffered from, Jackson managed to get his back-and-forth rhythm just right between the different storylines. Everything that’s at play is perfectly clear and blends together into one goal: to destroy the One Ring and ensure survival of the free peoples of Middle-Earth.

BLUE HARVESTER

Always wanting to breathe life into Tolkien’s work, Jackson doesn’t hesitate to change things. Not go against them, but instead light them sideways. Tolkien for example stayed rather distant from his female characters, but Jackson ensures Eowyn is not left out and gives her one of the most striking scenes of the movie when she confronts the Witch-King. Peter Jackson knows that Middle-Earth is our Earth and goes a long way to try and show the horrors of war (which he already hinted at in The Two Towers). This first-degree look at things, this faith in Tolkien’s creation is wonderful and serves the movie in every scene with the authenticity it tries to bring to this fantasy world. Every single element has a reason of being there, be it an elvish tattoo or a Gondorian piece of steel. Many people compared Jackson to a Hobbit because of his curves, but Gandalf or Aragorn would be more proper comparisons. Like them, he’s galvanised hundreds of artists into working on one of the most gigantic projects you could imagine.

THE LORD OF THE RHYMES

At a time when the lights of movies are going out, we need to look back on Jackson’s achievement. Contrary to the ill-fated Matrix franchise, The Lord of the Rings seems to be the work of a modest and intelligent crew. We shouldn’t forget the contributions of Jackson’s wife, Fran Walsh, and their writing partner, Philippa Boyens. They’ve put together three movies that ooze with love of movies and of simple yet effective tricks. Their wonderful actors and intelligent work of adaptation were used to the best to write a new page of movie history, probably without even knowing it. Peter Jackson can now close his own Red Book of Westmarch. And we’re now forced to leave the shores of Middle-Earth, orphaned movie-lovers who were well taken care of.

6/6

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:25 AM

STUFF:

Return of the King a spectacular triumph
08 December 2003

The Lord Of The Rings trilogy of films is brought to a rousing end with The Return Of The King.

To quote Gandalf, after The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers the board is set and the pieces in motion. In just over three hours New Zealand director Peter Jackson ties up the loose ends of J R R Tolkien's fantasy classic in a sweeping, epic movie.

Where Return Of the King succeeds is by following in Tolkien's footsteps and telling the story of huge events through the perspective of the smallest participants - in this case, hobbits.

In the astonishing battle scene at the heart of the film Jackson frequently swerves from the grand view to that of Merry (Dominic Monaghan) or Pippin (Billy Boyd), hence heightening the effect of the crowd shots.

The first hour of Return Of The King sets the scene for the battle of Pelennor Fields.

Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen) and Pippin arrive at Minas Tirith - a towering city, much of which was actually built for the film, with the remainder being filmed using a 1/72nd scale model - to witness the slow mental disintegration of its guardian Denethor, played with relish by Australian theatre veteran David Noble.

Gandalf is forced to take command of the city, a situation which allows McKellen the chance to bring a new dimension to a character he has played wonderfully well in each of the three films.

Meanwhile, the forces of Rohan are gathering to ride to Gondor's aid. However, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) chooses to find Gondor aid in a different direction, trekking the Paths of the Dead to raise a ghostly force reminiscent of some of the effects in Jackson's previous film, The Frighteners.

When the three forces collide with the armies of Mordor, the tour de force of the three films is played out.

The Battle of Pelennor Fields completely dwarfs in scale and ambition the other major battles in The Lord Of The Rings, and like Saving Private Ryan before it will set a standard for conflict on celluloid few movies will match.

The initial siege of Minas Tirith is exciting enough, with huge boulders raining down on the city and smashing masonry and citizenry. However, once the cavalry of Rohan arrives the battle is turned.

The massed charge of the horse soldiers has almost as big an impact on the audience as it does on the orcs, with it feeling as if the onrushing army will burst out of the screen and into the audience.

Mordor has cavalry of its own though, and the arrival of its war elephants is a marvellous digital effect which - like much of the computer-generated trickery in the three films fits seamlessly alongside live action.

Gondor's triumph is much against the odds, which the film makes abundantly clear. It also doesn't shirk away from the terrors of war - which is where the hobbits' perspective of the battle is so effective.

While Pippin and Merry are coping with their fears, their fellow Shire-folk Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) are marching into Mordor with only the tricky Gollum (Andy Serkis) for company.

Their story poses Jackson the same trouble as it posed Tolkien - how to weave it into events happening on the other side of Ephel Duath. An additional problem Jackson has is that much of Frodo and Sam's journey involved painful tramping, which doesn't make for gripping cinema.

While their journey to Mount Doom may feel truncated, Astin and Wood make up for it with outstanding performances which readily translate the agony of the march to Mordor. They are particularly outstanding during their duel with the giant spider Shelob - a truly terrifying creation set to become one of the classic movie monsters.

The final moments on the slopes of Mount Doom are well played out, bringing the trilogy to a suitably emotional finish.

As with the first two films, there will be moments Tolkien devotees will earnestly debate, with some sections of the books omitted or altered.

Many will regret Jackson's decision to omit the scouring of the Shire from the Return Of The King – although including it would have made for a film much longer than studio executives would have permitted.

The demise of Saruman (Christopher Lee) was also allegedly cut due to time constraints, but having been a central figure in the first two films it is unfortunate he shuffles off-stage unseen.

However, for having tackled the allegedly impossible task of bringing Middle Earth's many fantastic sights and citizens to life so successfully, most will forgive Jackson such decisions. It is now possible to view the three films as one movie, and the three combined are a spectacular triumph.

The devotion of cast and crew to Tolkien's work shines through, and through their dedication movie history has been made.

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:28 AM

THE AUSTRALIAN:

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (review)
By Claire Harvey
December 08, 2003

After seven years of speculation, the final secrets of the film version of Lord of the Rings can today be revealed.

The strict embargo signed in hobbit's blood by all journalists who have seen The Return of the King lifts this morning, ending the agony for fantasy nuts who have been digging for the details of director Peter Jackson's trilogy since he began work in 1996.

The good news is that this film, the third instalment in the trilogy, is staggeringly impressive. It does everything bigger, and most things better, than the first two movies.

It's worth seeing even if you hate fantasy-fiction, even if you got stuck on page five of The Hobbit, even if you thought Bilbo was an endangered chocolate marsupial.

The battles roar from the cinema speakers, medieval in their bloodlust, tightly paced and choreographed.

One thrilling war scene, where the Rohan cavalry gallops across Middle Earth, swords and shields glinting in the sunlight, is simply beautiful.

New Zealand's stunning mountain tops glow above the clouds in another scene, as a string of flaming beacons is lit across Middle Earth to call the forces of good to battle.

The performances of actors such as Sean Astin, playing the hobbit Samwise Gamgee, are so touching that even a cinema of hardened hacks was snuffling before the 200 minutes were up.

Australian stars shine in this film, including David Wenham as the ranger Faramir, and Miranda Otto, whose character Eowyn becomes an Orc-slaying action heroine.

The Australian contingent is led by veteran Adelaide theatre actor and producer John Noble, who hopes audiences do not simply loathe his character, the tortured villain Denethor, twisted by desire for the enchanted Ring.

"I worked my arse off to make him a real person," Noble said. "On screen (he) appears to be a fairly vile man, but I understand him totally. I felt every pain that that man felt."

There is romance, too; the bond between Liv Tyler's elf princess Arwen and the warrior Aragorn, played by Viggo Mortensen, develops to make this film far more complete than the first two pictures.

Special effects creator Richard Taylor has crafted a world that looks astonishingly real.

One of the film's best shots is wizard Gandalf, played by Ian McKellen, charging on horseback through the steep, narrow, cobbled streets of the fortified city Minas Tirith.

"He's been to the osteopath," Sir Ian said of Gandalf, who takes on the fight against evil with new energy.

On screen it looks like the producers must have actually constructed a city with the proportions of Dubrovnik, but in fact, when The Australian visited the Rings set in June, Minas Tirith was a polystyrene miniature about 3m high, being painted by two tousle-haired Kiwis in jeans.

It is cinematic alchemy; as if the film-makers have taken a few paddle-pop sticks and a disposable Esky and created the Death Star.

Of course there are flaws; some appallingly corny dialogue and the odd silly stunt.

But this movie is satisfying and great fun, and among the occasionally cheesy dialogue are some memorable lines.

"A day may come when the courage of men fails," warrior-king Aragorn tells his massed army as it prepares for an attack that seems impossible. "It is not this day. This day, we fight."

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 01:30 AM

It's also #1 of the Seven Holiday films to see according to Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031215-557084,00.html

It's Rolling Stone's #2 film of the year, practically tied with #1 (Mystic River).

It's #2 to Newsweek (American Splendor claimed #1)

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:30 AM

ARIZONA REPORTER:

Grade: B+

Where did you spend your time away from home during the past few years? Visiting your in-laws in Ohio? Tough luck. Europe? Not bad. On safari in Kenya? Even better. There's one destination that could blow the others out of the water. New Zealand. Right. New Zealand, not its bigger, more famous brother one thousand miles away. If you were there at the same time as Peter Jackson, you could have watched elephants roaring down the plain, crushing armed fighters right, left and in front. You could have seen flying dragons swooping up brave warriors only to throw them over the cliff, at least until the cavalry of eagles was alerted to take them on. You might have seen people who not even their mothers could love, making elephant man and the phantom of the opera without his mask look like Mel Gibson in comparison. You'd have a new regard for the elderly, noting how a man with a long, flowing white beard charged ahead with his mount to disrupt the plans of those awful-looking fellas who were out to conquer the human race. "This is no place for a Hobbit to be," intones one of the warriors on the side of the good guys. The theater showing "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," however, is probably just the place you want to be. Think of the money you save, the mileage you avoid, by sitting in your easy chair, popcorn in the left hand and a Coke in the right, taking in the gorgeous New Zealand views without having to pay the fancy price of getting there.

Then again, maybe you wouldn't have seen some of the above, because given the modern miracle of CGI, or computer generated imagery, it just might be that the flying dragons, the off-putting Orcs (especially their lieutenant), even a spider so big and scary that Little Miss Muffet would scarcely hang around with her curds and whey to see if the multi-legged creature would sit quietly beside her, were all figments of the computer programmers' imaginations. Hard to tell given the realistic look of the entire project.

We're in the hands of Peter Jackson now, watching the final in the trilogy known as "Lord of the Rings," this episode taken from J.R.R. Tolkien's, "Return of the King." The Hobbits once again take a back seat to the big guys as we become dismayed by the depression faced by the once king and cheer for the return of the future king, the latter played by Viggo Mortenson (Aragorn) who, along with Ian McKellen as Gandalf and hundreds, maybe thousands of spear-carriers, saves Middle Earth for people and allows the little Hobbits like Sam (Sean Astin) to return to his Shire and for the corruptible Hobbit Frodo to take leave of his best pal and head off to his own adventure far away.

While Aragorn, Gandalf and their allies must save Middle Earth for human beings, their more earthbound task is to find and free Hobbits Frodo and Sam, who are incommunicado, lost and possibly dead, yet bearing the adrelanin that will help them overcome a huge spider named Shelob and the wily ways of the schizophrenic and hellish-looking Gollum (Andy Serkis in the trilogy's most inventive computer-simulated appearance). The film in effect takes on two stories woven together at the inevitably conclusion: the odyssey of Frodo and Sam, the former becoming increasingly corrupted by the ring he refuses to destroy, leading him to sever his friendship with the trusting Sam; and the series of battles between the forces under the king-elect Aragorn, whose men gain strength when hundreds of dead people elect to join; and the battalions of Orcs with their allies, the flying dragons.

Some vocabulary is in order. According to the massive production notes (which lists the largest number of crew people I've seen by any movie), the main characters are: Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), a Hobbit, intent on destroying the One Ring, but who falls under its evil influence to the regret of his best friend Sam; Gandalf, a wizard, is intent on defeating the Orcs, after which he is free to crown a new king to replace the effete monarch who has lost the spirit to fight; Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), is a human warrior who joins the Fellowship; Sam is an ordinary Hobbit, the most loyal of Frodo's pals; Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) is the red-headed, red-bearded dwarf thrown into the story for comic relief, who fights with Aragorn because of his sense of justice; King Theoden of Rohan (Bernard Hill) has been awakened from wicked Saruman's Spell and is set to oppose Saruon's forces; Gollum, or Smeagol (Andy Serkis) is a Stoor, formerly a Hobbit-like creature, who has been changed into a grotesque being by proximity to the Ring.

There is little question that this finale of the trilogy, the longest (but because of its commitment to action and variety of scenes appears to go by the fastest), will cop the academy awards for cinematography, effects and sound. Some members of critics' groups, leaving the theater at an advance screening, appear ready to vote "Return of the King" the year's best picture, which indeed the film may take within some such organizations but which cannot, in my view, compare in its narrative depth, with small-studio offerings such as my own favorites so far this year, "American Splendor," "Lost in Translation," "21 Grams" and a documentary featuring whose flights of fancy are even more dramatic than those in LOTR, "Winged Migration." "Return of the King" has been rated PG-13 for "intense epic battle sequences and frightening images." In my view, the images the flying dragons, fights with the eagles, huge spider, ugly Orcs, the incredible Evil Eye and other envelope-pushing special effects take a back seat to the human human (or should we say Hobbit-like) adventure of Frodo and Sam. The sooner the batty Gollum got his comeuppance, the better, in my view, focusing attention more on the vagaries of an intense friendship gone awry. "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," is a fitting conclusion to the much anticipated series, its final scene of the peaceful and verdant Shire a welcome contrast to the dark, gray mise-en-scene of the picture's bellicose episodes.

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:31 AM

DOMINION POST:

"Here, is the end of all things," cries an exhausted Sam Gamgee, his arms arms struggling to hold the egually shattered Frodo as the ROTK hurtles toward its climax in Mordor. And it's also the end for PJ and his audience.

The most common question about ROTK isn't if it is any good, but is it as good as FOTR and the even more popular TTT. The answer is a resolute yes.

Audiences, who preferred the second to the first film because of the speedier story and Helm's deep, may find it a liitle bogged down with the perfunctory romance and side plots of the first. But two clashses in the film do make Helm's Deep look like a minor skirmish. It's not a case of piling up more corpses, but a combination of flawless special effects and brilliantly executed tension. Jackson brings to life the cliche that audiences will be on the edge of their seats.

A phalanx of giant Oliphaunts pound the ground like an earthquake; the dragon-like Fell beasts don't just knock off a few people with their talons, they deliberately drop them from a great height. Hordes of cave trolls covered in armour wipe soldiers of Gondor and Rohan out of their way as if they were bowling pins.
Everythin is heightened, everything is bigger and louder, though Jackson is still careful to know what to show or not to show for effect.

The computer generated giant spider, Shelob, which moves at frightening speed, injects as much fear from anticipating her appearance as seeing her trapping Frodo in a web.
It's the same when Faramir leads a suicide mission. We aren't shown what happens, but we can imagine just how bad it's going to get. More minor characters are brought to life, including orc commander Gothmog.

Some small scale scenes are just riveting. We see a young Smeagol discover the ring and quickly morph into Gollum. It reinforces the feeling of dread throughout as he confronts and manipulates Sam and Frodo.

The best drama, and in Astin's case the best acting, are whenever it cuts to their journey, including the WK's lair or orcs in Minas Morgul.

Viggo an Ian continue solid performances, even if tying up parallel stories- Denethors reluctance to relinquish his throne, the old Aragorn, Arwen and Eowyn romantic triangle and a few others felt like speed bumps in the story. It was also hard to suspend disbelief when Aragorn recruits ghost soldiers in the POTD.

The effects are convincing and it follows JRR tolkien's story, but the arrival of a supernatural army doesn't sit well after we've seen so much real blood, sweat and tears on the battlefield.
However, they are trivial annoyances.

Instead of collapsing under its own weight, ROTK's sheer scale reinforces the fact that this is a a battle for survival. It also acknowledges Jackson and co-writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens' achievement over three films to reduce Tolkien's story without losing its heart.

If you haven't read the book, it won't matter. For the millions who have, the much publicised Saruman and Scouring deletions along with a few other episodes will annoy only the most diehard and pernickety fans. The film would double its length if they were added.

Jackson, Walsh and Boyens resolution is the right one for the film to work. They also add more.

Just when you thought there would be no other way to stretch out the tension and drama at the classic scene when the ring is destroyed, Jackson does it. It was one of the last shots he filmed last month, and proof that his attempts to perfect as much as he could till the last minute before delivering the film to his bosses has paid off.

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:31 AM

XTRAMSN review

by Matt Bostwick

If Best Picture Oscars were awarded purely for the battle scenes, Peter Jackson's final instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Return of the King, would be a shoe-in

But the fact that Oscar gongs are awarded on a slightly broader range of cinematic competencies than battle scene depiction shouldn't worry Jackson and his backers at New Line Cinema.

If ever a movie deserved to have members of the Academy break the mould (no fantasy film has ever been awarded Best Picture), this is it.

Regardless of what happens at the Oscars (although all agree it would be nice to see Jackson take home Best Director or Best Picture) this film will be remembered as one of the best ever, for so many reasons.

Firstly, it is quite possibly the most visually stunning piece of celluloid to ever hit a cinema screen. The Battle of Pelennor fields will simply dumbfound you. No kidding

Imagine thousands of Rohan horsemen galloping at pace into hordes of waiting Orcs. Imaging that you can see, hear and feel every bone-crushing moment of impact from a vantage point somewhere plum in the middle of it. Then imagine that it's just the beginning.

The giant elephant-like Mumakil, sweeping aside everything in their path with mammoth forklift tusks and crushing any leftovers with their enormous kauri trunk legs, are an absolute piece of Weta Digital genius. So too is the scene where Legolas attempts to bring one down, single-handed.

As amazing as the battle scenes are in Return of the King, it's the sheer depth of thoughtful film artistry that makes this movie so good. One question asked of all the actors at the pre-premiere media day was how Jackson manages to get such good performances from his cast.

Most agreed it's because he's simply one of the finest directors around. He quietly expects and gets the most out of everyone he works with, and gives them the opportunity to extend themselves. One great example is the stirring pre-battle gee-up King Theoden of Rohan (Bernard Hill) gives the troops before the Battle of Pelennor fields. With lances outstretched, the king rides down the line of Rohan horsemen, sword held high, touching every spear as he gallops along.

Sounds simple, but it's one of the most memorable moments in the film, the last touching scene before the battle cry is sounded. And it was something Bernard Hill himself came up with, after seeing the spears lined up in a storage room at Weta and idly running his hand along them as he walked past. He mentioned using it to Jackson as a device to convey the king's connection with his warriors. Jackson promptly added it in.

Another triumph of Return of the King is the development of Gollum (Andy Serkis). The opening sequence, where we get a glimpse of Smeagol's transformation into the creature Gollum, is brilliant. Apparently a scene Jackson considered using in the second film, it works brilliantly to remind us of the power of the ring - and where the journey all started.

Jackson's directorial prowess is also evident in the way the many stories are laced together. As good as the battle scenes are, Jackson knows there's only so long a battle can hold an audience's attention. To keep us locked in, Jackson switches the action deftly between the battles and, for example, to see how Gollum, Frodo and Sam are faring (and fearing) on their weary trek to Mt Doom. It's this clever pacing between the awe-inspiring battle scenes and moments like the touching intimacy between the two Hobbits that will keep viewers glued, hour after hour.

Sir Ian McKellen has said he felt the actors' performances were slightly overlooked in appraisals of first two films in the trilogy. With many of the cast emerging from their shells for this one, that shouldn't be an issue now.

Amongst the characters who shine are Sam (Sean Astin), the loyal companion to Elijah Wood's Frodo. The relationship, which many suggest is based on Tolkien's experiences of the comradeship between British soldiers in WWI, is beautifully conveyed. The depth of feeling between the two is easy to see, thanks to the bucket-loads of Hobbit tears and misty eyes.

Gollum, as mentioned, continues to engross, and is now probably the best known CGI character in moviedom. That status is in no small way due to the sheer brilliance of actor Andy Serkis, who played Gollum for real in filming and was then used as the basis for the computer creation we see on screen.

Other stunning scenes to look for include the lighting of the beacons. Like a Middle Earth version of modern day broadcast transmission towers, the beacons come alight across an incredible landscape (our own Southern Alps) calling the fellowship to war.

All in all, Return of the King is nothing short of a masterpiece. If the end is long in the coming, it's because it's wrapping up three films, not one.

Together the three epics add up to the most amazing cinema adventure ever. Roll on Oscar night.

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:32 AM

DECENT FILMS:

Review by Steven D. Greydanus

It’s hard to overstate the soaring achievement of Peter Jackson and company in The Return of the King, the third and final chapter of their historic adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. To call it the grandest spectacle ever filmed is no exaggeration; it may also be the most satisfying third act of any film trilogy, completing what can now be regarded as possibly the best realized cinematic trilogy of all time.

In fact, The Return of the King has replaced The Fellowship of the Ring as my favorite in the series. Certainly it’s the most ambitious; it may also be the most emotionally affecting, and perhaps the most flawless.

Its faults, such as they are, are generally of omission, not commission. Compared with the first two theatrical releases, no characterization or locale in The Return of the King is as troubling to me as, for example, Galadriel and Lothlórien in Fellowship, or Faramir and Théoden in The Two Towers.

That’s not to say it isn’t Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings as much as it is Tolkien’s. The director’s fingerprints are everywhere, notably in his flair for the hyperdramatic. One particular bit of creative license at an extremely crucial moment is bound to be controversial among purists. Essentially, the twist reflects Jackson’s preference for the hyperdramatic; fortunately, what matters about the scene as Tolkien wrote it holds true in Jackson’s version.

Certainly the films will never replace the books. But the films also are irreplaceable. More than merely honoring their source material, their glorious imagery and fine performances have for me forever enriched the experience of reading the books. For Tolkien fans, this film, and this trilogy, is a gift to be treasured.

A+

SCREEN DAILY:

The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King

Mike Goodridge in Los Angeles 08 December 2003 04:30

The grand finale of Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings trilogy meets the high expectations set up by its two predecessors. A magnificent movie which brings the odyssey of the ring to a suitably nail-biting conclusion, it will unquestionably be the box office champion of the season. The question is: Can it secure the ultimate mark of Hollywood’s respect, the best picture Oscar, or perhaps more significantly, can Jackson, who wasn’t nominated for The Two Towers, win the best director award?

In its favour is the grandeur of the story’s conclusion, the stunning battle sequences and the intriguing evolution in the drama between Frodo, Sam and Gollum. Furthermore, when the battle is finally won and the ring dispatched, The Return Of The King becomes a tear-jerker of the most moving variety. When the hobbits are given their due mark of respect by the human world, there will not be a dry eye in the house.

Working against it, however, and already stirring up discussion in early screenings are the final 20 minutes of this extremely long endeavour. By insisting on remaining faithful to the letter of the source material, Jackson continues the story of Frodo on beyond the resolution of the ring saga and stretches out to 20 minutes what could have been said as an epilogue in five. Audiences, and voters, who have reached a peak of extreme satisfaction after three hours, will become irritated with the slew of further endings. It is a miscalculation on Jackson’s part which could cost him the ultimate prize.

In fact, of the three films, The Return Of The King is the least disciplined in editing terms, with noticeable repetition of some motifs and dialogue slowing down the pace. The central battle for Minas Tirith which occupies much of the running time is relentless, while the hobbits’ final passage into Mordor to destroy the ring on Mount Doom seems painfully protracted.

In box office terms, these are minor quibbles. The Fellowship Of The Ring took $860m in the global theatrical market, The Two Towers took $920m and The Return Of The King will near the $1bn mark, especially as new moviegoers opt to watch all three films together. DVD and video returns will continue for years to come for New Line and its international partners in various special edition configurations. A supremely successful achievement, then, and. as the ugly Matrix sequels proved, it takes a master like Peter Jackson to make a trilogy of this magnitude work.

The film starts as it left off in The Two Towers. Frodo (Wood) and Sam (Astin) and their schizophrenic guide Gollum (Serkis, whose CGI-enhanced performance here is even more delicious than in The Two Towers) are entering Mordor where Gollum plans to sabotage them and steal the ring.

Meanwhile Gandalf is spurring on the forces of Gondor to unite with those of Theoden against the ultimate attack of the armies of Sauron. While Gandalf (McKellen) and Faramir (Wenham) lead the Gondor forces against the immediate attack on the walled city of Minas Tirith, Aragorn (Mortensen) rallies the Theoden army and drives it there, along the way answering the call from his lost love Arwen to take up his destiny as the true king.

The complex multiple narratives weave in and out of each other until the final showdown where the armies of Gondor and Theoden stand at the walls of Mordor just a few miles away from Mount Doom where Frodo faces his own battle with Gollum and himself to destroy the ring.

The spectacle on show in the battle for Minas Tirith is staggering, and the effects work here – which also encompasses a giant spider and an army of ghosts – is seamless and unprecedented in its scale.

Of the actors, Sean Astin comes to the fore as Sam. As Frodo starts to lose strength, Sam takes over and comes into his own; likewise Astin steps up to meet the challenges of a far more demanding role than has been required of him in the first two films when he was merely the loyal sidekick.

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 01:33 AM

Decent Films' review is a good one, mainly because of its A+ rating :cool:

ilovemovies

12-09-2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
It's also #1 of the Seven Holiday films to see according to Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031215-557084,00.html

It's Rolling Stone's #2 film of the year, practically tied with #1 (Mystic River).

It's #2 to Newsweek (American Splendor claimed #1)

Do you have a link to Rolling Stones top 10? I've been trying to look for it on the internet but can't find it.

I would also love the link to Newsweek's top 10 as well. That would most appreciated.

Anyway just a little more than a week away. I'm so excited especially with some of these reviews I've been reading!

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 01:38 AM

Ok... That should be all the official reviews so far.

If someone is too lazy to read them all, the general verdict is this:

The film is having better reviews than FOTR or TTT. However just about every review finds some flaws in the film. The most common complaint is that after the climax the film goes on for too long and has "multiple" endings.

Technical aspects and acting are praised even a bit more than in previous films. The action sequences are supposedly stunning, much bigger in scale than in previous films.

Also emotional content has been said to be stronger than in previous films.

I think the average grade is roughly A, or 9/10.

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Do you have a link to Rolling Stones top 10? I've been trying to look for it on the internet but can't find it.

I would also love the link to Newsweek's top 10 as well. That would most appreciated.

Anyway just a little more than a week away. I'm so excited especially with some of these reviews I've been reading!

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=2476

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001355.asp

I assume you can figure out which is which :)

Also, for some GREAT fun, try searching for the Fellowship of the Ring thread in current...A lot of the posts are quite funny knowing what we know now.

This week will have several schmoes see the film early. Killer.

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 01:50 AM

Something really maddening: A local magazine is giving away two passes to see RotK this week, except that the contest ends Noon today and they tell the winners before 5 PM today. So there's a five hour period to pick the winners and call them. I'll be hoping.

ilovemovies

12-09-2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=2476

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001355.asp

Thanks. Cool to see Return of the King on both lists. Infact it's #2 on both, wierd but cool. I am pretty sure now that this will end up being my favorite film of the year. And if it really is better than Fellowship then this will end up being one of my 10 favorite films of all time because FOTR is on my top 10 of all time (it's #10). So that will be very cool :)

ANTBond007

12-09-2003, 02:12 AM

My review :)

http://a744.g.akamai.net/6/744/582/000/images.hollywood.com/images/large/l_1718171.jpg

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
There is a point towards the end of THE RETURN OF THE KING in which Aragorn leads a contingent of warriors to the Black Gate of Mordor. Surrounded by thousands of Sauron's forces, he quietly looks at his troops and says, "For Frodo."

And that is what the last chapter of the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy is truly about. As the hosts of Mordor launch an assault upon the last free city of Men -- Minas Tirith -- ringbearer Frodo moves ever closer to the peak of Mount Doom.

Whereas THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING was about friendship and compassion, and THE TWO TOWERS was an out-and-out war film, this final RINGS installment is a marriage of the two. Middle-earth is indeed at stake, but more importantly the lives of these characters we've grown to love are on the line.

The story kicks into high-gear twenty minutes in, with mischievous Pippin stealing the palantir from a sleeping Gandalf. Looking into the Seeing Stone, Pippin sees a dead white tree amidst a city in flames. Gandalf sees this as a sign that Sauron is ready to launch a strike against Gondor's capital. Taking Pippin with him, he rushes to the White City in hope of counseling the present steward, Denethor.

Denethor is the father of both Boromir, who perished in FELLOWSHIP, and Faramir, the Captain of Gondor who held Frodo and Sam prisoner for a time in TWO TOWERS. He is grieving the loss of one son, and disgusted with the other, for he has failed to hold the city of Osgiliath. Facing his father, Faramir asks if he wishes that his sons had switched places, and that he was dead and Boromir still lived. To this, Denethor coldly replies "Yes" and begins to eat his dinner, sending his son on a suicide charge to retake the city.

With Osgiliath taken, the orcs have the ability to cross the River Anduin and make for Minas Tirith. Realizing that Denethor is lost, Gandalf convinces Pippin to light the Beacons of Gondor, which signals the need of aide to the likes of Rohan. Heeding the call, Theoden prepares to ride to Minas Tirith. But they are outnumbered, and Aragorn is advised by Elrond of Rivendell to travel the Paths of the Dead and seek fulfillment of a thousand-year oath to the King of Gondor.

Meanwhile, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum move closer to Mordor, traveling through the emerald city of Minas Morgul. As they begin the climb up the long stair, they witness the march of an army: Sauron's forces, lead by the Witch King of Angmar, who also happens to be the Nazgul that stabbed Frodo in FELLOWSHIP.

Making their way deep into Mordor, Frodo is betrayed, and finds himself alone in a dark lair -- home of the monstrous spider Shelob, portrayed as a wonderful Visual Effect by WETA Digital.

In the two previous films, there have been several scenes that made my heart leap. RETURN OF THE KING has these as well, only tenfold in number. Director Peter Jackson clearly shows off the city of Minas Tirith, letting us see each level as Gandalf climbs higher and higher to see the steward. As this happened, a wide smile stretched across my face. There it was -- the White City.

The scene that topped all others in this regard, however, involves Eowyn, niece of King Theoden. She is confronted by the dreaded Witch King. He utters “No mortal man can defeat me.” To this, she proudly removes her helm and replies, “I am no man!” Their battle is breathless and elicited quite a cheer from the audience I saw the film with.

Some have criticized the ending(s), saying they are too numerous and run on too long. To this, I contend that they're wrapping up a 10-hour story, and the sense of closure is needed. Many mention overly long fades to black, tricking the audience into thinking the film is finished. In fact, there is only one fade to black, and the audience whom I was with seemed to love the last two segments most.

Quite a few moments induce sobbing. As Gandalf puts it, "Not all tears are evil." Many of the final scenes will have your face running red, but others in the middle may bring upon the same response. Whether it be Gandalf explaining life after death to Pippin, or Denethor in a final moment finally appreciating Faramir, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone in the crowd who had dry eyes for the entire three hour, twenty minute runtime.

So, what now? I dearly want the Extended Edition, and a film of Tolkien's original THE HOBBIT. But I'm very much content with what we have. THE RETURN OF THE KING is easily the best of the three, and a fine end to what very well may be the greatest trilogy in motion picture history.

A+

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 02:16 AM

That rocks, ANTBond! Glad to hear you loved it!

Tuukka

12-09-2003, 02:47 AM

We are going to see at least one rotten review at rottentomatoes.com:

Mike D'Angelo from Panix.com has posted his numeric ranking of the film (though not his review). He gives it a 58/100. He gave FOTR a 65/100 and TTT a 74/100.

He said that the film was in his opinion too long, too similar to TTT, and he also admitted not liking fantasy in general. I've understood he liked TTT because it was relatively "realistic".

Still, 58/100 is not too bad, D'Angelo tends to be pretty harsh critic.

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Tuukka
We are going to see at least one rotten review at rottentomatoes.com:

Mike D'Angelo from Panix.com has posted his numeric ranking of the film (though not his review). He gives it a 58/100. He gave FOTR a 65/100 and TTT a 74/100.

He said that the film was in his opinion too long, too similar to TTT, and he also admitted not liking fantasy in general. I've understood he liked TTT because it was relatively "realistic".

Still, 58/100 is not too bad, D'Angelo tends to be pretty harsh critic.

If you don't like fantasy, I can understand it.

But saying a film is too long is a bit suspicious.

quoth_the_raven

12-09-2003, 03:55 AM

The more i read, the more i am looking forward to this.

someone pass me the drool bucket :D

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
The more i read, the more i am looking forward to this.

someone pass me the drool bucket :D

All we have are napkins. Just dab at your chin.

CyclicNightmare

12-09-2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
All we have are napkins. Just dab at your chin.
Sorry, I think I used the last of them.

quoth_the_raven

12-09-2003, 05:27 AM

Guys, pass me something. my essay on public policy in negligence is getting wet and i am buggered if i am writing it again!!!!

Lynn Minmei

12-09-2003, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
Guys, pass me something. my essay on public policy in negligence is getting wet and i am buggered if i am writing it again!!!!

Only the British joke about essays on public policy in negligence ;)

Anyways, only a few hours until we get a few more reviews.

miguel_montes

12-09-2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by ANTBond007
My review :)

http://a744.g.akamai.net/6/744/582/000/images.hollywood.com/images/large/l_1718171.jpg

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
There is a point towards the end of THE RETURN OF THE KING in which Aragorn leads a contingent of warriors to the Black Gate of Mordor. Surrounded by thousands of Sauron's forces, he quietly looks at his troops and says, "For Frodo."

And that is what the last chapter of the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy is truly about. As the hosts of Mordor launch an assault upon the last free city of Men -- Minas Tirith -- ringbearer Frodo moves ever closer to the peak of Mount Doom.

Whereas THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING was about friendship and compassion, and THE TWO TOWERS was an out-and-out war film, this final RINGS installment is a marriage of the two. Middle-earth is indeed at stake, but more importantly the lives of these characters we've grown to love are on the line.

The story kicks into high-gear twenty minutes in, with mischievous Pippin stealing the palantir from a sleeping Gandalf. Looking into the Seeing Stone, Pippin sees a dead white tree amidst a city in flames. Gandalf sees this as a sign that Sauron is ready to launch a strike against Gondor's capital. Taking Pippin with him, he rushes to the White City in hope of counseling the present steward, Denethor.

Denethor is the father of both Boromir, who perished in FELLOWSHIP, and Faramir, the Captain of Gondor who held Frodo and Sam prisoner for a time in TWO TOWERS. He is grieving the loss of one son, and disgusted with the other, for he has failed to hold the city of Osgiliath. Facing his father, Faramir asks if he wishes that his sons had switched places, and that he was dead and Boromir still lived. To this, Denethor coldly replies "Yes" and begins to eat his dinner, sending his son on a suicide charge to retake the city.

With Osgiliath taken, the orcs have the ability to cross the River Anduin and make for Minas Tirith. Realizing that Denethor is lost, Gandalf convinces Pippin to light the Beacons of Gondor, which signals the need of aide to the likes of Rohan. Heeding the call, Theoden prepares to ride to Minas Tirith. But they are outnumbered, and Aragorn is advised by Elrond of Rivendell to travel the Paths of the Dead and seek fulfillment of a thousand-year oath to the King of Gondor.

Meanwhile, Frodo, Sam, and Gollum move closer to Mordor, traveling through the emerald city of Minas Morgul. As they begin the climb up the long stair, they witness the march of an army: Sauron's forces, lead by the Witch King of Angmar, who also happens to be the Nazgul that stabbed Frodo in FELLOWSHIP.

Making their way deep into Mordor, Frodo is betrayed, and finds himself alone in a dark lair -- home of the monstrous spider Shelob, portrayed as a wonderful Visual Effect by WETA Digital.

In the two previous films, there have been several scenes that made my heart leap. RETURN OF THE KING has these as well, only tenfold in number. Director Peter Jackson clearly shows off the city of Minas Tirith, letting us see each level as Gandalf climbs higher and higher to see the steward. As this happened, a wide smile stretched across my face. There it was -- the White City.

The scene that topped all others in this regard, however, involves Eowyn, niece of King Theoden. She is confronted by the dreaded Witch King. He utters “No mortal man can defeat me.” To this, she proudly removes her helm and replies, “I am no man!” Their battle is breathless and elicited quite a cheer from the audience I saw the film with.

Some have criticized the ending(s), saying they are too numerous and run on too long. To this, I contend that they're wrapping up a 10-hour story, and the sense of closure is needed. Many mention overly long fades to black, tricking the audience into thinking the film is finished. In fact, there is only one fade to black, and the audience whom I was with seemed to love the last two segments most.

Quite a few moments induce sobbing. As Gandalf puts it, "Not all tears are evil." Many of the final scenes will have your face running red, but others in the middle may bring upon the same response. Whether it be Gandalf explaining life after death to Pippin, or Denethor in a final moment finally appreciating Faramir, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone in the crowd who had dry eyes for the entire three hour, twenty minute runtime.

So, what now? I dearly want the Extended Edition, and a film of Tolkien's original THE HOBBIT. But I'm very much content with what we have. THE RETURN OF THE KING is easily the best of the three, and a fine end to what very well may be the greatest trilogy in motion picture history.

A+

ANTBon007, what a great review!! Congratulations!

This review ALONE made my heart stop for a while... I can't wait no more...

Merry Christmas.

Moviefan1234

12-09-2003, 06:56 AM

I can't bloody wait to see this. This has been my most anticipated film of the year since The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers. As for awards, I hope if nothing else, Peter Jackson wins his very much deserved Best Director Oscar. I just cannot stress how much I want to see this. It's the epitome of anticipation.

blankpage

12-09-2003, 09:27 AM

Wow. I seriously cannot wait for this film. While not the biggest fan of LOTR, I am certainly on the bandwagon on followers; FOTR (10/10), TTT (9/10). This could, no doubt, be the best of the whole trilogy, and I think this film will blow people right out of the water. I think people will still be surprised and amazed, even with all the buzz. Many of my friends are saying "Best Film to be ever made is coming soon..". Kinda puts a smile on my face. I'm going in with the highest expectations, and I think I'll still be blown away. It has been such an honour to watch this trilogy, you know, just being there. This is no doubt biggger than the 'Star Wars' films, if you ask me. Although it's sad this is the final chapter, I am without a doubt, terribly excited.

Thank you and tip your waitresses. :)

gyro_44

12-09-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Tuukka
We are going to see at least one rotten review at rottentomatoes.com:

Mike D'Angelo from Panix.com has posted his numeric ranking of the film (though not his review). He gives it a 58/100. He gave FOTR a 65/100 and TTT a 74/100.
I'm not even sure that D'Angelo is ever quoted on rottentomatoes.com, actually. Either way, I'm sure there will be a few rotten up there. He is an admitted detractor of the fantasy genre.

Anyway, I have my tickets for the midnight show next Tuesday. Thanks for the terrific review, ANTBond. Just as "The Two Towers" was one year ago, "Return of the King" is probably my most highly anticipated movie ever. All my thought is bent on it.

Bring it on.

Puck Bond

12-09-2003, 10:54 AM

Just to let you know I will get to see this on Monday Dec 15th!! As soon as I get home I will write down as full a review as I can and post it early Tuesday morning! As a fan and completely won over by this story and these films...you can expect heaps of praise.

quoth_the_raven

12-09-2003, 11:53 AM

i wont be seeing it until sunday, the um, 21st. bloody life getting in the way! ;)

gyro_44

12-09-2003, 03:28 PM

Thought I might share this with you:

http://www.aint-it-cool.com/display.cgi?id=16641

This guy writes the occasional "review" over at Aint it Cool. It shouldn't even be considered a review, and it's ABSOLUTELY NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. It also has ***HUGE SPOILERS*** in amongst the ridiculous ranting and raving, as well as horrible grammar and extreme foul language. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Hope you enjoy.

quoth_the_raven

12-09-2003, 03:33 PM

I guess its kind of positive, eh gyro?

but if i met the author, i think i would have to deck him ;)

gyro_44

12-09-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by quoth_the_raven
I guess its kind of positive, eh gyro?

but if i met the author, i think i would have to deck him ;)
Oh yeah, the writer loved it... he is obviously just the biggest idiot to ever walk the face of the planet. But of course he's trying to be an idiot (he refers to the characters as "the elf chick, the giant midget with the axe, midget-men and the huge flying bat demon things"), so therein lies the novelty.

My favorite passage:

"This movie will make you forget that if you stick a knife in your belly you’ll bleed to death so do not bring a knife to this movie."

Really funny stuff.

Oh, I still can't wait for this movie.

The Other

12-09-2003, 03:40 PM

I did, in your PM, Lynn, to open it at midnight tonight because we really don't need it open too fat ahead no matter how big the movie is. But, whatever, it's already got 45 replies, so...

Jon Lyrik

12-09-2003, 04:35 PM

Up here in Connecticut FM 96.9 (I think) is doing something with free tickets to ROTK early on a Midnight showing at Hartford's Crown cinema or something? I dunno.

Either way, everyone knows I'm a massive Ring nut and will give away an arm and a leg to see it.

Jon Lyrik

12-09-2003, 04:36 PM

Strider

12-09-2003, 05:33 PM

YES!!!!!

It's almost here! "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is almost here! I can not wait! I'm dying in anticipation!

This film is going to be just like the other two; a classic and a masterpiece, and one of the best films ever made! I gurantee that this film will be magnificent! This will be the greatest film of the year 2003! I've read the novel, and this film is going to be absolutely spectacular! Absolutely Spectacular!

I can not wait to see this! Just as in the years 2001 and 2002, this third and final "Lord of the Rings" film is my most anticipated film of the entire year!

This is going to incredible! Incredible! Incredible!

I can't wait!!!!!

:D

Benny

12-09-2003, 06:03 PM

The end of a trilogy... only 8 more days till Middle Earth!

I can't see it opening night for the second year in a row because of homework and a band concert, but I will definitely be there Thursday night and probably Friday. This weekend I think I'm gonna view the films again so I can get into the mood by next week...

ROTK has a strong candidacy for Film of the Year in my mind right now, because I have no 10/10's so far this year, and the other two were definite 10's, but we'll have to wait and see...

miguel_montes

12-10-2003, 07:43 AM

I think it's important to say that ROTK has the biggest number of super-positive reviews I have ever seen... Almost 100 freakin' % !!! How amazing is that?? And the movie hasn't opened yet....

Generally speaking, the levels of antecipation are so high that I can't see this one not being the best and the highest grossing movie of the year! And if ROTK doesn't win the oscars that it deserves, I just might start slicing some academy member's dicks!!! :D

Merry Christmas.

jaymx

12-10-2003, 09:47 AM

Have you fellow schmoes checked out this rather amusing but profanity-ridden review from AICN:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16641

Its very positive but absolutely hilarious, as long as you don't mind the odd;) bit of swearing. Enjoy!!

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by gyro_44
Thought I might share this with you:

http://www.aint-it-cool.com/display.cgi?id=16641

This guy writes the occasional "review" over at Aint it Cool. It shouldn't even be considered a review, and it's ABSOLUTELY NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. It also has ***HUGE SPOILERS*** in amongst the ridiculous ranting and raving, as well as horrible grammar and extreme foul language. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Hope you enjoy.

RE:

Damn, that was the funniest review I have ever read. It's really worrisome that many people on the AICN talkback thinks this is a lousy, homophobic review. Grow a sense of humour people, and check out the word "satire" in your dictionary.

I'm willing to bet this guy is a professional writer. The review has more great one-liners than most comedy movies.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 12:41 PM

VICTORIA ALEXANDER FROM FILMSINREVIEW:

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
By
Victoria Alexander
FilmsInReview.com

I was naively unaware of the vicious assault I would get from foolishly daring to write a negative word about LOTR: THE TWO TOWERS. (I loved LOTR: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING but was on an arduous trek through Nepal and was not able to review it in a timely fashion). I was, therefore, unprepared for the Taliban-like response to my LOTR: THE TWO TOWERS review.) The LOTR’s fanatics are still calling me “a whore.” It certainly makes me wonder about Tolkien’s empirical influence and the true affect the books and movies have had on people.

I’ve come to the sad realization that all of the thousands of ugly emails I got were from Tolkienites who would have slavishly kept The Ring.

With crazy fierce disregard for the LOTR’s fan base, I attended a screening of LOTR: THE RETURN OF THE KING and, determined not to be intimated by LOTR’s fedayeen, have decided to write a critique of the film.

It is gorgeous, breathtaking, astonishing, and engrossing.

But wait! Fans, be forewarned: I’m reckless enough to continue. Emails and curses be damned!

I too practice black magic.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING has my Las Vegas Film Critic’s Society nomination as Best Film of the Year. Even with, and let the wrath begin - the most man-tears and “the love that dares not speak its name” than any other epic I have ever seen.

Sam (Sean Austin) cries and stares longingly in Mr. Frodo’s (Elijah Wood) eyes. Sam takes the notion of loyalty and devotion to a level of piety. I haven’t seen such love since St. Catherine of Siena starved herself for Jesus. Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) gaze at each other with adoration. Yes, I understand that Hobbits are characteristically touchy-feely and tend towards idolatry but the sexual undercurrents are hard to ignore.

Perhaps being just around the Ring makes one lose one’s focus.

[Move over Mel. It’s now my turn to be crucified.]

Have Frodo and Gollum (Andy Serkis) been subtly transformed since TTT? In RETURN they both have the biggest, bluest eyes that mirror their comfortable duality. It was disturbing that they were filmed by director Peter Jackson in such obvious cinematic rapport.

It is the skill and artistry of a director to hold a glance, fix an actor’s eye, and through staging and placement, to convey non-verbal subtext. Jackson achieved his purpose here in making certain directorial decisions that cleverly telegraph his subterranean point of view on the characters.

Once again I will admit that I have not read the LOTR’s saga. In this case, it works wonderfully. I was surprised. I was intrigued. I anticipated nothing. It was a joy to see the story unfold so masterfully.

Not a devotee, I was thrilled the film opened with Hobbit Smeagol finding the One Ring. His physical and emotional evolution from Smeagol to Gollum puts context to the story. Gollum is by far the most fascinating character to emerge in RETURN.

RETURN moves fast. No more forced marches, tree-talking philosophy, or dwarf wise-cracking. Mercifully, Arwen (Liv Tyler) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) have small, meaningless roles. Taking center stage is the dynamic Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who leads the survivors of the Battle of Helm's Deep to Isengard. Here, Aragorn again meets Rohan fighters and unrequited love interest/warrior Eowyn (Miranda Otto). Thankfully, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) is back in the action while my favorite, the Elf bowman Legolas (Orlando Bloom), finally steps out from behind Aragorn’s sword. Jackson and co-writers Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh skillfully introduce new characters with luxurious, and conflicted dimensions.

Fantastically realized creatures such as Sauron, the Black Captain of the Nazgul, the Mumakil, and the wondrous Army of the Dead make RETURN a visually captivating extravaganza. The attention to detail is unparalleled. The enormous battle scenes are brilliant. The technical achievements of RETURN mark a new standard in filmmaking with second and third theatrical viewings mandatory.

The battles won, the Ring destroyed, Frodo's destiny fulfilled, a king is crowned (and finally washes his hair), and sensibility returns as Sam marries and has children.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 01:28 PM

MIRROR:

HOBBIT FORMING: FINAL RINGS EPIC REVIEWED Dec 10 2003

JOHN HISCOCK On Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King FIRST REVIEW OF THE FINAL RINGS EPIC

John Hiscock

PETER Jackson, the barefooted filmmaker behind the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, faced a massive task with the final film The Return Of The King.

His challenge was to make it bigger, better and more spectacular than the first two - and, hobbit-like, he has triumphantly succeeded against all the odds.

The Return Of The King brings the three films of Tolkien's cult classic novels to a rousing conclusion with the most spectacular battle ever filmed while at the same time wrapping up the story of hobbit Frodo's epic journey to destroy the ring.

It is already one of the favourites to win the best picture Oscar which, despite a total of 19 nominations for the first two films, has so far eluded Jackson.

Jackson has said The Return Of The King is his favourite of the three films and he lets it unfold over a marathon three hours 20 minutes.

Rings fans will love every second of it while the unconverted may be bemused by references to the kingly sword of Anduril or the white tree of Gondor. Midway through the film, a girl in front of me whispered: "I just don't get it."

But while it undoubtedly helps to have some empathy for Middle-earth folklore, it is impossible not to be entranced by the bravura action sequences and the sheer spectacle of creations such as Minas Tirith, the seven-tiered city of kings, and the monstrous armies of the Orcs. Jackson has made wonderful use of computer-generated images and the storming of Minas Tirith and the climactic battle of Pelennor Fields are quite simply the most spectacular and breathtaking fights ever filmed.

Like all good epics, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy has at its heart the simplest of stories: the heroes, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his trusty sidekick Sam (Sean Astin) head off on a journey of discovery and return in the end transformed by their ordeal.

The story picks up where the Two Towers left off, with Frodo, Sam and Gollum on their torturous trek to Mount Doom to destroy the ring.

On the way, Frodo does battle with the giant spider Shelob, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) recruits an army of zombies, Merry the hobbit goes to war, Pippin falls foul of a fiery crystal ball and through it all rides Ian McKellen as the sword-wielding, inspirational Gandalf.

The final, emotional drama comes as the exhausted Frodo and Sam climb the fiery mountain towards an abyss while struggling to save their lives and souls.

Jackson's outstanding achievement has been to make us care about the fates of the heroes and the little hobbits, the fallible folks fighting impossible odds. Somehow, it matters what happens to Sam, whether Frodo will find the strength to destroy the ring or whether Aragorn will fulfill his destiny. For three hours, 20 minutes, Jackson has made fantasy become reality.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 01:30 PM

Rottentomatoes finally has a rating! 5 reviews, 100% fresh!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/

BarkingSparrow

12-10-2003, 01:33 PM

Thanks Tukka for posting that review. Very interesting.

I'm sure some of you may remember Victoria's infamous review of the TTT from last year. And that she came to these forums and posted for a short while, with (IMHO) an attitude that seem to imply she had a bit of an agenda or a purpose in posting a negative TTT review. Anyway, that's yesterday's news.

Now that Victoria has defected from The Dark Side, I'm predicting Jo Blo will give this movie at least a 7. However, as we all well know, this is not his type of movie/genre.

JCR

12-10-2003, 01:43 PM

Cumpston is the best thing on AICN right now- that wasn't as funny as his school of rock review (or whatever the fuck he called it) but it was damn close. :D

Oh and to hell with silly out of 10 or * grades. If ROTK does anything less than blow the fuckin roof off the cinema I watch it in I will be disappointed. But I know jackson and co. will come through.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 02:13 PM

NEIL CUMPTON FROM AICN... THIS REVIEW SPOILS THE CLIMAX, SO DON'T READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOKS:

HOBBIT-MAN: THE KING RETURNS

Whenever cool movie series get to the third movie they suck dicks like they’re trying to become Emperor of Dicksuck-ylvania. George Lucas had Star Wars, and then Empire Kicks Ass, and then all of a sudden it’s Planet of Furry Faggoty Fuckheads. Then he had to make two more to feed the Suck Demon that was holding his children hostage, and those movies went beyond gay to where they’re paying old people to take a dump on them.

Even this summer, with MATRIX: SUDDENLY GAY and TERMINATOR: I LOVE COCK, the Rule of the Suck-y Third Movie got re-proven. If the third X-Men movie had come out this summer it probably would have been some crippled crock of crap where Wheelchair Charlie traps Fuck Yeah Wolverine in an illusion mind-trap where Wolverine thinks he’s a time traveler from a hundred years ago romancing Meg Ryan in right-now New York. Of course, the X-Men movie would try to redeem itself in the third act by having Wolverine realize it’s a mind-illusion and cut Meg’s head off and play dodgeball with it, but it would be too late and here comes my extra large Sprite at the screen.

But guess what? One movie series turned that rule on its head. One 3-movie series said, “Wait a minute, we’re going to make the 3rd movie SO tits it will make the FIRST two movies look gay.”

I just saw HOBBIT-MAN: THE KING RETURNS and that’s the movie I was talking about in the last paragraph. This movie will make you forget that if you stick a knife in your belly you’ll bleed to death so do not bring a knife to this movie.

It’s also, thank fucking God, LOUD. Even if you bring an iPod so you can listen to VH during the Elf parts you’ll take it off because I swear to fucking Roth you do NOT know where the next big bang is going to come from, or when something big is going to crunch someone’s skull while you picture that person getting their skull crushed is really your neighbor upstairs that plays Dido all day or that dude at the Starbucks who’s always reading and looking all smart.

Oh yeah, the movie is also 3 hours and 20 minutes, and I think it’s almost four hours if you sit through all the credits (it was all pencil sketches of the characters, which I think means they ran out of money). So if you bring some chick who’s all like, “I have a spinning class tomorrow” or “I’m thirsty” tell her to go home and watch Gay Dudes and the Straight Guy because this movie takes fucking commitment. I saw the one dude in front of me who was with this girl, and the President of Warner Brothers came out and said, “This movie is three hours and twenty minutes,” and before I could say, “So what, gaylord” the chick says to the dude she’s with that she has to GO. And he LET her go because this movie kicks so much ass you can SENSE it even before it starts. And this chick was a stone fox, and he probably could have made out with her, but he was like, “I’m going make out with this movie,” that’s how good it is. See ya, hottie.

This movie starts with the origin of Golem – that creepy guy who looks like Iggy Pop and wears Tarzan pants and wants the invisible-ring. He’s still on a quest with the two hobbits - Rudy from the film RUDY and Fredo - to throw the ring into a volcano (this is like a serious version of JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO). The ring is also evil but you keep thinking, while you watch it, that someone should put it on and check out some boobs. I have a feeling those scenes will be in the DVDs.

At the same time, the two other midget-men and the giant hippies have seriously fucked up that one evil guy’s tower (he was Count Duke in Star Wars: Every Cock in the Universe Up My Ass Part II), and they hook back up with Magneto, and also that chick with the bow and arrows and finally the Giant Midget with the Axe. Oh, and also that I Don’t Want to be the King/I Am Destined to Be the King Dude is with them, and he has this whole other story where he pretty much decides to be the King because, I mean, pussy for miles. This is where I started getting really confused, though, because they start talking about kingdoms and alliances and there’s a lot of lines like, “Rohan shall ride!” and “Gondor still stands!” and “Flabadan Son of Rectum must wear the mantle of Bloggith!” and also there’s some shit with the elves that’s like being in a fucking candle store for twenty minutes.

But the movie is only doing this to set up the BATTLE OF SHIT-YOUR-PANTS, which isn’t the actual name of the battle but SHOULD be because you will shit stuff you did not eat when you see it.

It all has to do with the fact that one of the midget-men takes this orb from the bad guy and he looks into it and sees the glowing eye’s plan (or part of it – something about a tree dying and Enya music playing). So he and Magneto go to this huge white city where the king is being a dick and just eating dinner while every puke-ugly bad-ass on the planet starts surrounding it, ready to open a Wal-Mart that only sells ball-stomp. There’s this one medium-sized battle in a city that is like the last line of defense for the Big-Ass White City and it’s pretty cool, with a lot of head-crunching and these huge flying bat demon things that I swear to God grab horses and the dudes riding them and fuck them up from the floor up. They’re really loud, too, and a lot of chicks and older people were covering their ears.

Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo into a cave where there’s a giant spider and FUCK that was really scary because even in real life giant spiders are bad news.

Someone told me that all of the spider stuff actually happens in the second book in the series, and that they had to tweak some of the stuff that happens in the books to make the movies work. You know what? Good. Books suck. They used to be good back when people didn’t have movies and TV and dressed like Davey Crockett. People also used to ride horses and drink tea, but now we have cars and Sprite. Move the fuck on. Peter Jackson did an amazing job adapting these books, and now the movies are so kick-ass that some people are going to go back and READ the books, which wouldn’t have happened if he’d just filmed the books exactly as they are. Happy now, smarty?

Let me give you an example of how NOT to make books into movies:

This summer a huge bucket of farts came out called LEAGUE OF ADVENTURE GENTLEMEN. It was about how a bunch of characters from old-timey books got together and fucked up bad guys. And NO ONE SAW IT. Why?

First, they picked a bunch of characters like Invisible Man and Mr. Hyde and Dracula-Woman and Huck Finn. These are all characters from books that were written five hundred years ago. Huck Finn was actually written before writing. These are the kind of books they make you read in summer school but you’re all like, “Fuck you, I’m going to play Sonic on my Sega” and you totally complete all the levels by August. So who the fuck is going to go see a movie about characters and people they’ve never heard of (the movie acts like you’re supposed to know who these people are)? Like I said before, MOVIES are the new books, so how about this for a movie (I even thought of a good title):

__________________________________________________ _

TEAM 1970’S FOOT-TO-ASSERS

The movie opens: A cult killer tries to assassinate Chauncey Gardiner, the President of the United States. Before the brainwashed assassin dies he gasps the word, “Cyrus” and takes a poison pill.

Senator John “Bluto” Blutarsky forms a super-team to infiltrate New York and take down the “Cyrus” cult. This team is made up of “Bruce” (from ENTER THE DRAGON), “Dirty” Harry Callahan, a now-teenaged Regan MacNeill (who is a stone boner machine and also has devil powers), “Quint” from JAWS, who’s upper torso washed ashore after the shark attacked him, and who has now been made bionic by Oscar Goldman and OSI, and finally Beau “The Bandit” Durville, who’s driving his Trans Am.

They enter New York with the Bandit driving like a fucking maniac, and Dirty Harry shooting people out the window and Regan making people’s heads explode and shit. Wow!

They get to the center of the Cyrus Cult headquarters in the middle of Central Park and confront Cyrus. He’s controlling his subjects with a glowing Chevy Malibu. Bruce goes totally Jackie Chan on everyone while Harry and the Bandit battle their way to the car. Quint dies bringing down all the cult killers, and they drive off with the Malibu. They also find out that Cyrus was trained by the Parallax Corporation.

Back at the White House, they get their next assignment. They must take down the Parallax Corporation, which is being run by Gregory Marmalarde. They are creating an Army of brainwashed super-killers at their facility at Crystal Lake. These new killers are indestructible and a step above the cult killers of Cyrus. For this phase of the mission they are joined by CIA agent Vincent J. Ricardo (from THE IN-LAWS) and off they go.

They blast their way into Parallax Headquarters, only to find their way blocked by the new generation of super-killers – hockey-mask wearing motherfuckers who have all undergone the “Vorhees treatment”. Bruce and Regan take on the killers, while Harry and Vincent go for Marmalarde. That’s when he reveals his newest, greatest killer – New York taxi driver Travis Bickle, who’s undergone the “Vorhees treatment” and is a virtual arsenal of different guns, knives – all of which appear from his wrists, chest, even eyes. Bickle killed Marmalarde’s frat brother Douglas Neidermeyer in Vietnam. Harry dies fighting Bickle, but not before killing Marmalarde. Ricardo searches the Parallax files, only to find that Parallax is only a tiny part of a much bigger, much more evil power – the Thorne Corporation, run by Damien Thorne. He has a huge facility in the Nevada desert, near Area 51.

Their final mission is to deliver the Chevy Malibu to Area 51. The Chevy contains a weapon which can defeat Thorne’s final plan.

Thorne’s compound is patrolled and protected by driverless trucks from DUEL and a bunch of those devil limousines from THE CAR. Two teams are sent in – The Bandit, driving his Trans Am with Regan and Bruce, and another driver named “Kowalski”, who will drive the Malibu along with Ricardo.

They battle their way through the devil trucks and demon limos until they penetrate Thorne’s headquarters. He’s got every character from every boring-ass indie film in the last twenty years strapped to posts in this huge chamber full of leather-y ALIEN eggs. The eggs are hatching and putting face huggers on the douche bags from WALKING AND TALKING and SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPES and CHASING AMY and everyone from every Henry Jaglom film ever made and killing them.

There’s nothing anyone can do – they have to stand and watch while all of these characters are slowly and horrible killed before our eyes, and they hatch into Aliens. That’s when “Kowalski” opens the trunk of the Malibu to reveal: ROY NEARY, JR. This is the half-human/half-alien offspring of Roy Neary from CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and he starts going outer space whup-ass on the aliens along with Bruce Lee. The Bandit looks at the camera, winks, and smiles. (There can be a lot of shots during the closing credits of The Bandit cracking up).

Ricardo and Regan work their way to Thorne’s headquarters where there’s this huge demon battle between Regan MacNeill and Damien Thorne that will make the audience go, “We need new words for ‘HOLY FUCKING SHIT’”.

__________________________________________________ _

See? Use characters from movies thirty years ago, instead of from books five hundred years ago. And by the way, that’s only using characters from 70’s films. I also have plans for an 80’s team of ass-kickers and a 90’s team. Everyone who was into movies from before 1969 is dead, and we’d actually better hurry with the 70’s thing, now that I think of it. Also, I totally copy-wrote this with the Writer’s Society, and I also know a 400 pound man who will man-rape anyone who makes this movie without me.

Okay, back to HOBBIT-MAN, although at this point it’s just wall-to-wall awesome. The Battle for the White Mountain City has trolls and elephants and catapults and a battering ram that looks like a dragon head on fire. Also, earlier Gandalf scares off the flying bats-things with his glowing staff. In the battle for the White Mountain City Gandalf just runs around giving orders. How about turning the bad guys into babies or something with his staff? But that would actually cut down on the ass-kicking so, actually, fine.

The I Don’t Want to Be The King Guy gets a bunch of ghost warriors to fight, and that’s just awesome when it happens, and also the elf chick with the bow takes down an elephant all by herself, and the Giant Midget keeps killing people with his axe.

Then when THAT battle’s over and you’re thinking, “Just air comes out when I spooge now” they stage a whole OTHER battle at Evil Town to distract the orks so Golem and Rudy and Fredo can get to the volcano. And I won’t reveal what happens in the volcano except to say it involves Fredo and Rudy getting right to the very edge, but at the last second Fredo turns evil and decides not to throw the ring in, and puts it on instead so he turns invisible, buy Iggy shows up and bites off Fredo’s finger and Iggy falls with the ring into the lava and Evil Town is completely destroyed. You will have to find out the rest for yourselves. I hate spoilers.

You can totally leave at this point but there’s an extra half hour of everyone relaxing and going home and being happy and I guess they put that in so you can realize your pants are choked with poop from all the battle scenes, so thanks.

There’s also an Annie Lennox song over the closing credits. ????? How about Led Zeppelin’s “Ramble On”, which is where they got the name Golem, or “Ain’t Talking ‘Bout Love” by Van Halen?

Peter Jackson has proved with these films that he is the man to bring A-TEAM to the screen. Five stars. Best movie of the next four years.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 03:15 PM

Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly:

All hail The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King! I can't think of another film trilogy that ends in such glory, or another monumental work of sustained storytelling that surges ahead with so much inventiveness and ardor. The conclusion of Peter Jackson's masterwork is passionate and literate, detailed and expansive, and it's conceived with a risk-taking flair for old-fashioned movie magic at its most precious, a rarity now that CGI prowess has fallen into the hands of run-of-the-mill studio ring-chasers.

And now that I have your attention, here's why, specifically, the concluding episode of this fantasy epic is so good.

• The narrative soars, sweeping us up exactly where we were deposited at the end of ''The Two Towers,'' with confidence that if we've come this far, we're willing to follow without need of a remedial recap. As its title suggests, the times are climactic as the J.R.R. Tolkien saga resumes: The Ring-toting Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his devoted hobbit friend Sam (Sean Astin) are picking their way toward Mount Doom with the help/hindrance of the tormented Gollum (Andy Serkis + digital sorcery). The various constituencies of Middle-earth -- including the men of Rohan and their king Théoden (Bernard Hill), the Ranger-with-potential Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), the archer-elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and the hearty dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) -- are plucking up courage, at the urging of the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), to take a desperate stand against the monstrous orcs who fight on behalf of the evil Sauron. And very human emotions of fear, despair, madness, sorrow, rage, distrust, defiance, and hope are playing out against an onslaught of fantastical monsters of discord. ''The Return of the King'' begins in midair, and never loses loft.

• The characters deepen. Perhaps because the actors themselves have spent so much time in the skins (real or, in the case of the amazing creation Gollum, computer-generated) of their Middle-earth counterparts, shadings and subtleties of personality emerge that refresh our love of these fairy-tale players.

Dashing leaders Aragorn and Théoden become more soulful. The squabbly partnership between Legolas and Gimli softens. Théoden's niece, Éowyn (Miranda Otto), discovers reserves of battlefield bravery. Backbench hobbits Pippin (Billy Boyd) and Merry (Dominic Monaghan) have some nice moments as stand-ins for the kind of unspectacular folks most of us in the audience are. And most profoundly of all, the balance of heroism shifts between Frodo and Sam -- the hobbit with greatness thrust on him, and the theoretically less remarkable, decent hobbit by his side -- so that in an accretion of revelatory acts, we realize that it's Sam whose saga this really is. Wood is a marvelously human-style study in second thoughts; Astin is, quite simply, the average Joe star of the show.

• The discipline of the production never falters. The battle scenes are stupendous, as one would expect or hope: Flapping dragonlike beasts, stomping elephantine-via-''Star Wars'' behemoths, and a nightmare giant of a spider do their worst, and 200,000 orcs assemble for an attack. But Jackson puts each creature and each stirring speech there for a reason. (He doesn't linger, either, when a smoldering look will do, whether between Mortensen and Liv Tyler as Aragorn's beloved Arwen, or between Gandalf and the heavens.) And as he has done throughout, the director paces scenes of action, intimacy, and even panoramic, geographical grandeur (as when the fires blaze in sequence on mountain peaks, alerting the populace that the time of battle has arrived) with the control of a superb choreographer.

• The stakes matter. I'm certain that henceforth in its long life ahead as a great movie classic, the entire ''Lord of the Rings'' trilogy will pick up the vibrations of whatever unease, instability, and longing are in the air -- of enemy threatening enemy, neighbor fearing neighbor, alliances forming and dissolving as alliances do in this real world. Perhaps the meaning of it will change as future audiences translate the parable to suit future times. The point is, it's impossible to watch ''The Return of the King,'' or to listen to the delicate passages and ringing declarations shaped by screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Jackson from Tolkien's text, without also feeling that real world pressing in. And that's a triumph, first of Tolkien's relevance, and second of this production's valor in holding so inventively true to the author's vision.

GRADE: A

JCR

12-10-2003, 03:33 PM

And I won’t reveal what happens in the volcano except to say it involves <goes on to reveal ending to story>. You will have to find out the rest for yourselves. I hate spoilers."

LOL I love that guy.

Jon Lyrik

12-10-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka
RE:

Damn, that was the funniest review I have ever read. It's really worrisome that many people on the AICN talkback thinks this is a lousy, homophobic review. Grow a sense of humour people, and check out the word "satire" in your dictionary.

I'm willing to bet this guy is a professional writer. The review has more great one-liners than most comedy movies.

Must disagree here. It's a run-of-the-mill AICN review with less fanboy masturbation. There are plenty of funny satirical reviews out there, that's just crap.

If that's professionalist reviewing, God Save the Trouble World of Writing.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 03:56 PM

I have to disagree. Don't let the rude words fool you, that was a very intelligent review IMHO. It's a collection of every thing that is wrong with AICN talkbacks, a parody.

Jon Lyrik

12-10-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka
I have to disagree. Don't let the rude words fool you, that was a very intelligent review IMHO. It's basicly a parody of the AICN's own talkbacks.

I use naughty words all the time.

A parody? I could buy that, I guess. But it just doesn't work. It's not clever enough, anybody could make a parody of AICN's talkbacks.

gyro_44

12-10-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka
I have to disagree. Don't let the rude words fool you, that was a very intelligent review IMHO. It's basicly a parody of the AICN's own talkbacks.
Yeah, I'm with Tuukka here. I am no fan of AICN's slapdash, barely literate reviews sent in by random geeks, but this guy is different. I find him quite entertaining. You know the thing is some sort of sly parody when he doesn't even refer to it as "Return of the King", but "Hobbit-Men: The King Returns." Gave me a damn good laugh anyway.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 04:11 PM

Come on, the guy definitely has creative ways of saying that a film is good:

"I saw the one dude in front of me who was with this girl, and the President of Warner Brothers came out and said, “This movie is three hours and twenty minutes,” and before I could say, “So what, gaylord” the chick says to the dude she’s with that she has to GO. And he LET her go because this movie kicks so much ass you can SENSE it even before it starts. And this chick was a stone fox, and he probably could have made out with her, but he was like, “I’m going make out with this movie,” that’s how good it is. See ya, hottie. "

And I have to admire his ability to sum up the whole trilogy in just one sentence:

"this is like a serious version of JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO"

And he also very effectively sums up the Elrond/Arwen scenes both from TTT and ROTK:

"and also there’s some shit with the elves that’s like being in a fucking candle store for twenty minutes."

And this must be the most creative and original shit-analogy I have EVER read...

"But the movie is only doing this to set up the BATTLE OF SHIT-YOUR-PANTS, which isn’t the actual name of the battle but SHOULD be because you will shit stuff you did not eat when you see it."

And Neil's take on the original book the film was adapted from is just GREAT:

"Someone told me that all of the spider stuff actually happens in the second book in the series, and that they had to tweak some of the stuff that happens in the books to make the movies work. You know what? Good. Books suck. They used to be good back when people didn’t have movies and TV and dressed like Davey Crockett. People also used to ride horses and drink tea, but now we have cars and Sprite. Move the fuck on."

...I have quoted only 10% of the great stuff in this review, but come on, if that isn't wildly creative parodic writing then I don't know what is.

Jon Lyrik

12-10-2003, 04:13 PM

Here is my parody of AICN's talkbacks:

MoriartysBitch sez:

this review is soooo ghey man, i mean WTF!!!1

PewpShewtFeelmFawn sez:

YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD! I WOULD BLOW HARRY!

KingKongInHarryKnowles sez:

I agree. I mean, is this reviewerr so stupid.

I could go on more, and that is pretty unclever, but I only slapped it up in five minutes, and that review would sound like it was slapped up in five minutes if it wasn't as long.

In my opinion, anyway.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 04:17 PM

Well, humor is a relative thing. You either dig it or you don't.

But this guy is very creative with his comparisons. The elf scenes are feel like spending 20 minutes in a candle store? I would have never thought of that. Joe Vs. Volcano? That's a BRILLIANT comparison, and nobody has ever thought of that before. I will also promise to say "You will shit stuff you did not eat when you see it" as an analogy for ultimate coolness from now on. That's brilliant.

The good old Neil is a very imaginative writer.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 04:23 PM

A lot of his humor is also very subtle and knowledgeable. For example Aragorn's reluctance to accept his destiny as a king is something that caused an uproar among purists. In the books he was never reluctant, he couldn't wait to become a king. Neil knows this, so what name does he give to Aragorn?

"The I Don’t Want to Be The King Guy".

HILARIOUS!!!

ScaryFreak1827

12-10-2003, 04:51 PM

I CANNOT WAIT!!! I just got my tickets yesterday for the midnight showing (like I did last year with TTT) and can't wait to see the last part in the epic LOTR trilogy. So far all the reviews sound great and are getting me more and more excited! Only one week left!:D

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 05:01 PM

RT got updated again. 9 reviews, 100% fresh, 9.5 average grade.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/

Lynn Minmei

12-10-2003, 05:04 PM

I should point out that Entertainment Weekly gave TTT a B last year, and now RotK gets an A.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 05:06 PM

Laura Clifford from REELING REVIEWS gave FOTR -A, TTT B+, here is her review:

The long awaited capper to Peter Jackson's trilogy is expected to be a knockout, the film the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is waiting to bedeck with Oscars, but while the film is certainly an honorable ending to a series justifiably considered a towering achievement, repetition and an inability to let the film end seriously mar its impact. "Return of the Kings" is blessed with many, many moments of cinematic splendor, but all too often I was wishing Jackson would just get on with it. When all is said and done, Frodo has become an almost annoying character and Aragorn never fully emerges. "The Lord of the Rings's" true heroes are Gandalf and Sam, and McKellan and Astin are the two actors whose lifeblood pumps through this saga.

"Return of the King" begins by going back, revealing the transformation of the Hobbit Smegal (Andy Serkis) into the emaciated Gollum after his murderous acquisition of the ring. Perhaps the trilogy's only ineffective special effect comes within the first three minutes of the third film, an unconvincing shot of a hobbit being pulled along underwater by a fishing line. This is made up for with a poetic look at the ring's retrieval from the pond bottom, the golden band encased in slime. As time passes and the Gollum is formed ('We forgot the taste of bread, the sound of trees') we can see that his giant, watery blue eyes are cousin to Frodo's own.

Back in the present, Pippin (Billy Boyd, "Master and Commander") cannot resist the pull of the Palantir at Isengard, Sauron's crystal ball which Gandalf had hidden away. The gaze into it is a physically horrific experience for the Hobbit, but when Gandalf learns he has seen Minas Tirith under siege, he gallops off with to the grand white city (production designer Grant Major has outdone himself with the spiral mountain clinger, constructed at New Zealand's Dry Creek Quarry). There they find Lord Denethor (John Noble), gone mad over the death of his son Boromir (Sean Bean), about to make a sacrifice of his unappreciated Faramir (David Wenham, "The Bank").

Arwen (Liv Tyler) sees her human future and turns back towards a life of mortality and so her father, elf king Elrond (Hugo Weaving, "The Matrix Revolutions") reforges the Sword of Kings for her lover Aragorn. Aragorn takes his leave from Éowyn (Miranda Otto) to call up a cursed army while she disguises herself and takes Pippin's friend Merry (Dominic Monaghan) into Pelennor Fields with her father to battle the Witch-king of Angmar and Sauron's armies. In the end, of course, it is not the trinity of Gandalf, Aragorn and Théoden who can save the kingdom. What they must do is distract the Eye of Sauron long enough for Frodo to destroy the Ring.

Pairings and repairings mark "The Return of the King," with Pippin and Merry split between two different armies yet partnered with a wizard and future queen, Sam and the Judas Gollum struggling for Frodo's allegiance, and Aragorn's heart moving from human to Elf. Former unlikely alliances are made with Rohan and Gondor and the Elf Legolas standing with the Dwarf Gimli.

Jackson achieves some great moments of humanistic drama, such as when he intercuts Pippin's plaintive singing during Denizor's supper with Faramir leading troops to certain slaughter or when Frodo forsakes Sam over Gollum's stolen bread. There are also scenes of soaring majesty, such as Gandalf blinding flying Fell Beasts with light reflected from his staff, or anytime Gandalf rides Shadowfax for that matter. Once again, John Rhys-Davies is relied on for the film's humor, proclaiming 'That still only counts as one!' after Legolas single handedly takes out one of the elephant-like Mûmakil (visually reminiscent of the Imperial Walkers) during ferocious combat. And yet, the film often goes limp for extended periods. When Frodo is lured into Shelob's Lair, it is "The Return of the King's" misfortune that the giant spider only recalls last year's "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and the final stages of his mission are agonizingly drawn out. Jackson may be trying to stay true to his source material, but cinematically, four endings are three two many. If only some of that screen time had been given over to Aragorn's love life, which is too abruptly dealt with.

With "The Lord of the Rings," Jackson can take his place as the literary George Lucas of his time. Yet after his next big outing, "King Kong," one hopes for a return of the Jackson who gave us "Heavenly Creatures" as well.

B+

ANTBond007

12-10-2003, 05:21 PM

It's good to know someone agrees with me about the underwater shot of Deagol being pulled along. That did look pretty damn fake.

gyro_44

12-10-2003, 05:28 PM

Another funny review (well, sort of), this one from the always reliable Mark Ramsay at Movie Juice. Great Legolas humor...

Ah the ring, the ring, always the ring. Everyone is seduced by this ring.

"Precious is inscribed with Carmen Electra's phone number, give it to us!" screams Gollum.

Meanwhile nobody wants the ring more than the Dark Lord Sauron himself, a putrid, decaying entity. Says Legolas, "You would think he'd take more interest in hygiene considering how much he values his jewelry."

"Run, Shadowfax! Show us the meaning of haste!" says Gandalf to his trusty steed. At three hours and twenty minutes, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King could learn a thing or two from that horse. I could have tossed that crazy ring into the infernal fires of Mount Doom twice and still had time for a latté at the Mordor Starbucks, because you just know there's a Starbucks on every corner over there.

When last we met, the evil Saruman had been vanquished. Amid the ruins of Saruman's castle sit Hobbits Merry and Pippin smoking some Shire weed and jonesing for some Elven bread and plenty of Nacho Cheese Doritos.

In the absence of a lava lamp and some black light posters, young Pippin yearns to fondle Saruman's crystal ball. Success finally! But no sooner does he grab it when bolts of lightning shake his body collapsing him into a heap! "It's not every man who can touch Saruman's balls safely, let alone enthusiastically," says Legolas wistfully, sweeping his lovely blonde hair over his graceful shoulder.

Liv Tyler once again fulfills her primary Middle Earth function: To look pretty and sincere and pretty sincere. Even with her hope for world peace fading, she's one swimsuit competition away from a pageant win. Inevitably, Liv will hook up with Aragorn and become the Elf Queen - which means Legolas will have to abdicate.

"The board is set; the pieces are moving," says Gandalf. But what is the game? "If it's Jeopardy," notes Legolas, "I'll take Ethel Merman for a thousand!"

The forces of good are best reflected in the nature of elves: Attractive, clean, and fully versed in the history of musical theater. On the other hand, there's evil and worse than evil: dirty evil. Slovenly and ugly and unruly and unkempt and in need of urgent dermatological assistance. "Forget the Eye of Sauron, where's the Queer Eye of Sauron when you need it?" asks Legolas.

Beware! The dark army approaches! Fires are lit, blazing atop every hill in Middle Earth.

"The age of Men is over. The time of the Orc has come," says the Orc leader. "If it's the age of Orcs," replies Legolas, "then it's definitely the age of teeth whitening."

So off to battle rides Merry or Pippin (I can't tell them apart) in full war gear on the lap of lovely Eowyn or Legolas (I can't tell them apart either).

"We must ride light and swift," says King Theoden.

"Pack a man-bag, everybody," suggests a helpful Legolas. "Chain mail is the new black," he adds.

The stakes are enormous and our heroes are outnumbered. Aragorn needs more men to fight the massive shadow of evil Orcs. So into the mountains he goes. There live the restless souls of a lost army of ghosts. The way Aragorn figures it, calling on an army of the already dead is a great strategy since it seriously minimizes your downside.

"Oh cripes!," exclaims the Evil Sauron when he discovers the plan, "an exorcist, an exorcist, my kingdom for an exorcist!"

Frodo and Sam, meanwhile, are steadily making their way up the volcanic cliffs of Mount Doom. "Dandy potential for cheap time shares up here, eh Mr. Frodo?" says Sam.

The bad guys attack - atop giant elephants. Elephants! Naturally, they're rocking all over the place.

"It's a good thing nobody in Middle Earth has yet invented a wheel!" says Aragorn.

"Why would you put an elephant on wheels?" asks the dwarf, Gimli.

"Not the elephant, the MEN on wheels, my altitude-challenged, panoramic-nosed, punchline-oriented little friend!" replies Aragorn.

Legolas single-handedly disarms one giant elephant, climbing up his behind and surfing down his long trunk to safety. Why so tired, Legolas? "YOU ride up an ass and go down a trunk that big and see how YOU feel," he answers.

I don't know if this third and final chapter is better or worse than The Two Towers or Fellowship of the Ring, but I don't care and neither should you. It's a glorious, crowning chapter to the ultimate gold standard in sweeping epic adventure.

And best of all, none of these three movies contains Ben Affleck!

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King caps an extraordinary achievement in cinema history. If Oscar is for anything, it must be for this.

Heed the words of our heroic friend Gimli: "Certainty of death, small chance of success. What are we waiting for?"

What, indeed.

dellamorte dellamore

12-10-2003, 07:28 PM

There's only one problem with this film , everyone knows Middle Earth will be saved , and everyone is going to be happy .

For me , that takes away the suspense factor .

I know , i know , a couple of main character's may die , or get injured and survive , but the one major flaw from the very beggining of the trilogy was the fact that the ring will be destroyed . That's not a spoiler , because there is no other way they could have ended it with all this build up , not too mention they would have been straying way too far from the book if they did .

Yes , it's the journey that matters , how all the characters get to the point when all is saved that is important , but a few major surpises , like the one's found in the other popular trilogy ( still way potent even today ) would have given the entire trilogy just that much more emotional heft .

In another thread i metioned that the two films so far do not break any new narrative ground , and what i mean by that is simply because most of the characters are basically one and a half dimensional archetypes that are frequently witnessed in these types of epics .

They are either good or bad . Even if they do become conflicted at times , ultimately the good guys / girls , and the bad guys will come back to their senses and do the " right " thing , whatever that may be . That's where the half dimension comes in , the temporary conflict or doubt , and the eventual " revelation " of what they must do .

I'm not saying that's such a bad thing , to have unabashedly earnest , simplistic characters , that don't exactly challenge you intellectually , if anything it's refreshing , and it's one of the main attractions for me , it's why i feel these films work so well , but i'm not fooling myself by thinking the characterizations in LOTR ( the films , not the books ) are anything more than what they are .

The first two films are cliched , cinematically speaking . They are immensely manipulative with the reliance on grand musical interludes to convey certain emotions , self conscious speeches , come hitherish psuedo shakespearian pronouncements , and the obvious attempt by PJ to make certain characters " lovable " ( see Gimli , Merry , Pippin , Frodo , Sam et all ) . I know , it's a mainstream film , so it's imperative that the director appeal to as large an audience as possible by making the lead characters lovable , but in my opinion the films suffer a bit as a result , and no doubt the cuteness factor will be turned up quite a few nothces in ROTK . There is a fine line between genuine directorial inspiration , and obvious manipulation , and in my opinion PJ has crossed that theshhold many times in this series . Yes , he was also genuinely inspired many times , so it can be somewhat overlooked .

In the end , i'm definitely impressed with these films , and there is no doubt ROTK will be the best in the series , so far the first two have been terrific ( although TT is not as amazing as i first thought , especially Helm's Deep , but that's another topic altogether ) , it's just that i feel a bit used , all the first two were in essense , were one longsetup for the final battle and destruction of the ring .

Now , don't get me wrong , but somehow i get the feeling that as time passes , even the most diehard fanboy / girl will somewhat neglect the first two films in the trilogy in favor of ROTK . I have a feeling their relevancy will diminish in light of the final chapter .

As a technical marvel , or maybe as something nostalgic they will endure , but after what should be a great finale to the series , how many people will still want to sit through the first two , especially Two Towers , in the end the one that may prove to be the weakest of all of them .

Maximus721

12-10-2003, 09:09 PM

When ROTk is out(mainly the ROTK:EE), I will look at this as 1 movie. TTT will be a big part of the overall story so no I don't think TTT will become irrelevant when ROTK is out.

beastieben21

12-10-2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
There's only one problem with this film , everyone knows Middle Earth will be saved , and everyone is going to be happy .

For me , that takes away the suspense factor .

I know , i know , a couple of main character's may die , or get injured and survive , but the one major flaw from the very beggining of the trilogy was the fact that the ring will be destroyed . That's not a spoiler , because there is no other way they could have ended it with all this build up , not too mention they would have been straying way too far from the book if they did .

Yes , it's the journey that matters , how all the characters get to the point when all is saved that is important , but a few major surpises , like the one's found in the other popular trilogy ( still way potent even today ) would have given the entire trilogy just that much more emotional heft .

In another thread i metioned that the two films so far do not break any new narrative ground , and what i mean by that is simply because most of the characters are basically one and a half dimensional archetypes that are frequently witnessed in these types of epics .

They are either good or bad . Even if they do become conflicted at times , ultimately the good guys / girls , and the bad guys will come back to their senses and do the " right " thing , whatever that may be . That's where the half dimension comes in , the temporary conflict or doubt , and the eventual " revelation " of what they must do .

I'm not saying that's such a bad thing , to have unabashedly earnest , simplistic characters , that don't exactly challenge you intellectually , if anything it's refreshing , and it's one of the main attractions for me , it's why i feel these films work so well , but i'm not fooling myself by thinking the characterizations in LOTR ( the films , not the books ) are anything more than what they are .

The first two films are cliched , cinematically speaking . They are immensely manipulative with the reliance on grand musical interludes to convey certain emotions , self conscious speeches , come hitherish psuedo shakespearian pronouncements , and the obvious attempt by PJ to make certain characters " lovable " ( see Gimli , Merry , Pippin , Frodo , Sam et all ) . I know , it's a mainstream film , so it's imperative that the director appeal to as large an audience as possible by making the lead characters lovable , but in my opinion the films suffer a bit as a result , and no doubt the cuteness factor will be turned up quite a few nothces in ROTK . There is a fine line between genuine directorial inspiration , and obvious manipulation , and in my opinion PJ has crossed that theshhold many times in this series . Yes , he was also genuinely inspired many times , so it can be somewhat overlooked .

In the end , i'm definitely impressed with these films , and there is no doubt ROTK will be the best in the series , so far the first two have been terrific ( although TT is not as amazing as i first thought , especially Helm's Deep , but that's another topic altogether ) , it's just that i feel a bit used , all the first two were in essense , were one longsetup for the final battle and destruction of the ring .

Now , don't get me wrong , but somehow i get the feeling that as time passes , even the most diehard fanboy / girl will somewhat neglect the first two films in the trilogy in favor of ROTK . I have a feeling their relevancy will diminish in light of the final chapter .

As a technical marvel , or maybe as something nostalgic they will endure , but after what should be a great finale to the series , how many people will still want to sit through the first two , especially Two Towers , in the end the one that may prove to be the weakest of all of them .

Can you name another fantasy/adventure film that doesn't base itself around archetypal characters? You can trace the lineage all the way back to Gilgamesh, thousands of years ago. Star Wars has good characters and bad characters. If you go back in time and find all the things Lucas based his trilogy on, you discover the same thing. Archetypes.

The reason Jackson (really, Tolkien) is painting such stark pictures is because people don't want to see conflicted characters. We want good to win. Everyone of us has both good and evil built within ourselves, that's why we flock to films where 'archetypal' heroes (Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, to name some in the past few years) overcome the odds and succeed.

I disagree with much of what you say. I think the fact that Shore can illicit emotion of out a mere instrumental piece is a credit to what he and Jackson have accomplished thus far. The fact is, Lord of the Rings isn't meant to be a modern telling. It's supposed to feel dated (like Shakespeare) and a window into a history of our Earth that may or may not have happened. Theoden speeches are going to sound larger than life, because that's the character Tolkien created. Many of your qualms seem to stem from the way the book was written and not Jackson.

You can say that Return of the King will be the only prominent film of the series, however I, again, don't see the logic. The amazing thing about these films is that it's converted average movie-goers into fans. Don't believe me? Ask anyone. Gauge an audience reaction after seeing the Return of the King trailer. These aren't fanboys, they're average people. People that four years ago couldn't tell you what a hobbit was and would call fantasy films 'nerdy.' Almost everyone has embraced these films, and many believe TTT to surpass FOTR. If you want to talk about a film series that will be forgotten, it's the Star Wars prequels. Part Three may end up being the only one worth talking about when all is said and done. But LOTR will not be shunned, ROTK becoming the only accepted chapter. It will end up being one of the crowning achievements of cinema, and ultimately, the greatest 12 hour movie ever. And this is coming from a guy who 4 years ago couldn't tell you what a hobbit was...

dannywalker17

12-10-2003, 09:52 PM

I've been reading the reviews at Rottentomatoes and I can't wait for this movie. The fact that it has a 100% and an average grade of 9.5 just makes me so freaking excited. For one, I get to see this movie in 6 days, and for another, there looks to be a strong chance that ROTK will have the glowing reviews it needs to win Best Picture--especially with Cold Mountain only getting a 33%.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 09:55 PM

"There's only one problem with this film , everyone knows Middle Earth will be saved , and everyone is going to be happy .

For me , that takes away the suspense factor."

RE:

Have you read the books? Because the ending won't be happy, but a bittersweet one. If you expect it to be just happy, then I think you will be positively suprised.

"In another thread i metioned that the two films so far do not break any new narrative ground , and what i mean by that is simply because most of the characters are basically one and a half dimensional archetypes that are frequently witnessed in these types of epics .

They are either good or bad . Even if they do become conflicted at times , ultimately the good guys / girls , and the bad guys will come back to their senses and do the " right " thing , whatever that may be . That's where the half dimension comes in , the temporary conflict or doubt , and the eventual " revelation " of what they must do .

I'm not saying that's such a bad thing , to have unabashedly earnest , simplistic characters , that don't exactly challenge you intellectually , if anything it's refreshing , and it's one of the main attractions for me , it's why i feel these films work so well , but i'm not fooling myself by thinking the characterizations in LOTR ( the films , not the books ) are anything more than what they are ."

RE:

I would argue that the characters are more archetype in the books. They have more shadows of grey in the films. Saruman is the only exception where the films have simplified a character for worse. Maybe Denethor will be like that as well, we'll see. But for example Aragorn is more complex and flawed in the movies.

But let's consider the most complex film characters:

BOROMIR is a good man. But he does not believe that the ring should be destroyed. He doesn't believe that it can be destroyed. Instead he thinks like a soldier, the weapon of the enemy should be used for good purpose. The ring uses this belief to corrupt him and to make him turn against his friends. But when he understands that his own pride and belief in the use of physical force have turned him into evil, he becomes ridden in guilt and uses his last moments to save his soul by sacrificing his life for his friends.

GOLLUM had a tendency towards evil right in the beginning. He was greedy and self-centered. But when he kills his friend Deagol to gain benefit, to gain the ring, he feels guilt. This guilt that burns inside of him makes him create himself an alter-ego, Gollum, so that he has someone to blame. Now Smeagol can think that he is "good" and it's the "evil" Gollum who is responsible for the evil things he does. Now Smeagol can do all the self-centered and greedy things he wants to do, because it's not really him who does those things... But there is goodness in Smeagol, otherwise there wouldn't be guilt. Also, an important driving force inside Smeagol is the desire to be loved. This desire goes even as far that he is willing to give up his "precious" if he can be loved in return.

FRODO had a lot of goodness in him. But because he is consumed by the "drug" called The One Ring he slowly turns in to evil. He starts to desire power, he becomes a self-centered asshole. And yet at the same time he fights against those feelings. But he can't throw the ring away, because it's his duty to destroy it. It's his responsibility to destory his own soul, because otherwise the world can't be saved. And his soul will be destroyed, it's inevitable.

These three are the most complex characters in the films, and I have to say that they are way more complex than what we can see in most movies. Simple and one-dimensional? Hell no.

I could write similar complexities on other characters as well, but these three are the most important ones.

"Now , don't get me wrong , but somehow i get the feeling that as time passes , even the most diehard fanboy / girl will somewhat neglect the first two films in the trilogy in favor of ROTK . I have a feeling their relevancy will diminish in light of the final chapter ."

RE:

Might be. But I have also heard some people say that ROTK made them appreciate previous movies more. There are no three movies, just one long story.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 10:02 PM

STEVE RHODES INTERNET REVIEWS

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 2003 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): ****

"Large chance of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?" the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies ) asks his fellow fighting companions. Like everyone else, what you've been waiting for is one last chance to fight with your heroes. You'll finally get it in Peter Jackson's THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING, the final film in the wildly successful trilogy, which looks to be a surefire Oscar winner. It's also the best of the three. The first was great. The second was quite good, but disappointing nonetheless. The third, however, is such a stunning achievement by Jackson that it's hard to believe that he could ever be able to surpass it even if he make a hundred more films. (Actually, most viewers are mainly interested in one more from him in particular -- THE HOBBIT, which reportedly he'd like to make. I don't believe that finding the funding will prove to be a problem.)

So epic in scale and length and so operatic in music and sound, the movie calls to mind another famous story about a ring -- Wagner's opera, The Ring of the Nibelungen. The music to THE RETURN OF THE KING is so stunning and memorable that the first thing that you're likely to do when leaving the theater is to purchase its equally incredible CD. The movie is also quite dramatic with Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) giving a speech to the troops that is reminiscent of King Henry's St. Crispin's Day charge to his soldiers in Shakespeare's HENRY V.

"We come to it at last," Gandalf (Ian McKellen) tells Pippin (Billy Boyd), "the great battle of our time." The story this time is basically one long series of battles, of which you will never tire. Trust me on this. My bladder frequently has trouble lasting even for a normal length film, but it made it through all three and a half hours of this one. My son remarked that I barely moved through its showing. If it had been six hours long, I don't think I would have complained or budged.

My favorite times during the fighting occur when the cameras pull way back, and we get aerial views of the action. God, isn't CGI great! The best of the new mythical animals used for warfare are a cross between STAR WARS' Imperial Walkers, Hannibal's elephants and prehistoric beasts.

The picture's ensemble cast is so strong and memorable that you'll wish the Academy would consider giving a special ensemble Oscar to all of the actors. A few characters do stand out, in addition to Aragorn, Gandalf and, obviously, Frodo (Elijah Wood), the lad who has the dubious honor of carrying the ill-fated ring. Again, the movie's scene stealer is a CGI character named Smeagol, whose voice and motion is done by Andy Serkis. I still think that Serkis deserves a supporting actor award.

Let me be honest. I was frequently lost. It's easy to figure out the overall outline of the story and what is happening, but you'd have to frequently consult a detailed program to figure out all of the story's various clans -- just like in an opera. Jackson's genius is that he managed to make this tale of Middle Earth grand and mesmerizing rather than hokey and silly. In lesser hands, the movie could have turned into the bomb of the century rather than the must-see trilogy of the decade.

After one ending after another, which allows needed closure, Jackson finally finds one that fits perfectly. Don't be surprised if you tear-up when the ending credits roll since you'll be bidding adieu to good friends. You been in there fighting their battles with them for three years now, and they're leaving. Goodbye. We'll miss you.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING runs a fast 3:20. It is rated PG-13 for "intense epic battle sequences and frightening images" and would be acceptable for kids around 12 and up.

My son Jeffrey, age 14, went on and on about how much he liked this one, his favorite of the three. Giving it ****, he gave special mention to the fighting sequences, the intricate scenery and the story itself. He couldn't find anything about it that he didn't like.

Tuukka

12-10-2003, 11:18 PM

Oh, and let's not forget that there is also another site collecting reviews from established critics, METACRITIC. ROTK right now has 100/100.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/returnoftheking/

Lynn Minmei

12-10-2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka

There are no three movies, just one long story.

That's how Tolkien wanted it to be. Technically, you could watch all three films in a row and it'd be pretty seamless.

Maximus721

12-10-2003, 11:37 PM

Especially how Jackson made them too. He didn't put a cheesy "Last time in Middle-Earth" intros to ROTK or TTT. he started the 2 films with flashbacks but within the framework of the story. I think the filmmakers wanted this to be looked upon as a continuous story and finally we'll be able to see it that way.

Lynn Minmei

12-11-2003, 12:07 AM

I think that putting all three films together is overkill. Your buttocks will melt, I guarantee it.

Lynn Minmei

12-11-2003, 07:33 AM

Rotten Tomatoes is up to 11 positive reviews and no negative, meaning a score of 100%.

dellamorte dellamore

12-11-2003, 08:36 AM

I do like almost all of the characters in this series , with the exception of Gollum / Smeagol , he's one of the most over the top , annoying creations in quite some time , no matter how effective his visuals may be . And A serkis' Renfiled / Sybil interpertation is nothing special , like most people are saying , it's downright cringe inducing at times . I'll burst the bubble on that overrated character later .

Allright , the archetypical characters are fine , they are simple , you are comforted in the knowledge that they will do the right thing , or that they will redeem themselves , or that they will ultimately get what they deserve . Now , this is somewhat of a conflict , because what makes those characters appealing , also limits their potential complexity , so with a film such as these , no matter how hard a filmmaker tries to flesh out the characters , he simply has to stop at a certain point , or create false conflicts as a means to add more dimensions to them , it's called contrivance .

I know , PJ is simply following the narrative from the novels , for the most part , so how else could he have brought them to life ? Adapting the novel was going to limit his characterization options regardless of his writing and technical skill , so i'm not blaming him , but his obsession with making certain characters sympathetic ( an obsession of almost all filmmakers ) is what keeps , the FOTR and TT , from perfection .

And the love story angle between Aragorn and Arwen , although somewhat touching , is pointless , an obvious pander to the romantics in the audience . If that whole subplot was ditched , i wouldn't have missed it one bit , it just slows everything down considerably .

And what's with the ever increasing buffoonishness of Gimli ? He's supposed to be a fierce warrior , not some one liner spewing wiseguy .

Then there's Merry and Pippin , two femmebot characters extrordinaire . Yeah , eventually they will play a part in the defeat of Sauron's forces , but wow are they annoying , a low point of Two Towers .

Which reminds me , after seeing TT a couple of times , i've come to the conclusion that the Helm's Deep sequence isn't the great triumph i thought it was originally . It's pretty standard stuff , action wise , even on the Ex edition with some gore restored . It's not something that ages well , but gets somewhat tiring with repeated viewings .

Now , with the advent of ROTK , i don't see how the HD sequence can keep anyone's attention anymore , because you know that there is something bigger and better waiting in the next installment , with the stakes of the characters much higher . Heck , like is said before , for me it's already fading .

Yeah , it's supposed to be one long movie , but who , except the diehards will have the patience to sit through the first two , when they can simply check out the third and get it over with .

I do admit , for me personally , i will watch it , because of it's technical excellence , but with repeated viewings , the characters and the narrative become somewhat boring . Yes , boring , sorry to say it , but no matter how much i have enjoyed this series so far , it does become boring eventually .

That's not to say , i won't watch them all numerous more times , but it's effect diminishes with time , and it's flaws become more apparent . The curtian is drawn on LOTR , it's an amzing " Mainstream " effort that seeks to please the masses , but , aside from the wondrous visuals , there's not exactly that much complexity to talk of .

Oh yeah , about the acting , some people are raving about it , and with good reason . But , don't fool yourself , the sheer scope of the films , their running time , the sheer number of characters on display , and the aforementioned stunning visuals , make everyone seem more effective than they really are . That's not to say that there isn't a diverse level of talent on hand , but these films elevate almost all involved to heights they will never reach again .

V Mortensen , E Wood , S Austin , M Otto , K Urban , B Boyd , S Bean , B Hill , Orlando Bloom , they are all excellent in this , but are just about underwhelming in almost everything else they have done . How could you not look good in these films , it's almost impossible not too .

Now , for me , ultimately , no matter how much PJ would like to be a real life Hobbit , and no matter how much care he took to make everyone love them , for me the entire series is all about the character of Aragorn , and the struggle of men .

V Mortensen is the entire trilogy , not the little twit gollum , or the hobbits , or the talking trees , or some scizophrenic Gondorian warrior , or some woman who wants to prove her mettle , or some brother of Boromir who wants to please his daddy , or Scaramanga Saruman , or Howard shore's over the top and cheesy score ( still cool though , if a bit annoying at times ) , it's all about the future king , he's the real foundation to the entire trilogy , and if they focused entirely on his personal journey , i wouldn't have any complaints .

Yes , i said he wasn't that great in anything else i've seen him in , but in these films , he's unconscious , i couldn't see them working without him , regarless of all the work it took to bring them to fruition , he is the cornerstone of the series , and when i watch the first two , i can't wait until he shows up again .

Viggo Mortensen is the Lord of the Rings .

ps , even when the ring is destroyed , it won't matter , because one of the original Eldar ( Sauron's Mentor ) Morgorth / Melkor escpaes from the Void in the fourth , fifth , sixth age ? , and attempts to lay siege to middle earth again ( i'm imagining this becaue in the Silmarillion i don't think it ever states that he was destroyed , only imprisoned or something ) . So , although the film may paint a rosy picture , and the ending is all nice , an evil even more powerful than that chump Sauron is lurking in the shadows . And it will take a little more than chucking a gold ring into a volcano to destroy him .

Let's see PJ bring that one to the screen , or maybe even the Silmarillion , then i'll really be impressed .

miguel_montes

12-11-2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Yeah , it's supposed to be one long movie , but who , except the diehards will have the patience to sit through the first two , when they can simply check out the third and get it over with .

I do admit , for me personally , i will watch it , because of it's technical excellence , but with repeated viewings , the characters and the narrative become somewhat boring . Yes , boring , sorry to say it , but no matter how much i have enjoyed this series so far , it does become boring eventually .

That's not to say , i won't watch them all numerous more times , but it's effect diminishes with time , and it's flaws become more apparent . The curtian is drawn on LOTR , it's an amzing " Mainstream " effort that seeks to please the masses , but , aside from the wondrous visuals , there's not exactly that much complexity to talk of .

But this feeling of boredom happens all the time! Why is LOTR so special? If you do something lots of times, it's bound to become boring! A movie example of mine: Titanic! When it came out, I went to see it 3 times, then I bought 2 (!! not one! Two!) vhs tapes of it, and, since then, I must have watched, ..., maybe 100 times... and now I can't stand it! It has become a bore!
And the same happens to the everyday life. If you eat always the same food for one year, within two months you are begging to have something else! Of course, these numbers may vary from person to person, and to some it may never happen, who knows? But this feeling of boredom is natural to occur. Hell, if I saw FOTR a thousand times, in the end I would go insane just from seeing those pointy ears...! ;)

cutman

12-11-2003, 10:07 AM

About LotR and repeated viewings...

I believe that the first two films have aged (if you can call it that after only a year or two) extremely well. These two movies have been in my DVD player FAR more than anything else simply because they are that much better than anything else. I would honestly rather listen to LotR movies than watch a lot of the crap Hollywood puts out these days.

I agree about Helm's Deep, though...I've never really considered it to be all that special action wise. It's still a great scene, but it was hindered because the scope of it was severely limited by the physical bottleneck presented by the fortress. While it was cool to see 10,000 Uruk Hai, we never got to see them all fight at the same time because they couldn't all get through the wall.

The ending of Helm's Deep, however, is one of my favorite scenes in any film ever. Watching Gandalf come running down that hill followed by the Rohirim is simply amazing.

Lynn Minmei

12-11-2003, 09:18 PM

RotK is currently at 100% at RT with 13 positive reviews. Very nice indeed.

Scorchlord

12-12-2003, 09:36 AM

It's now at 14 and 100%, but one is negative and probably should be a splat.

JCR

12-12-2003, 11:00 AM

Dunno if www.scotsman.com is counted for RT, but they've just published a negative review:

"Disappointing turn of the Ring

FILM REVIEW

by ALASTAIR MCKAY

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (12a) *** out of *****

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Orlando Bloom, Billy Boyd, Liv Tyler

IT WAS hard, watching the first two episodes of Peter Jackson’s trilogy, to match the scale and ambition of the film-making with the knowledge that the director’s first movie was Bad Taste, a monster mangler which inhabited the unhappy space between spoof and homage.

When it premiered at the Edinburgh Film Festival, the film occupied a late-night slot, on the understanding, no doubt, that a dozy audience is less able to distinguish between fun and folly. Apparently, Bad Taste has become a cult classic: a lucky fate for a picture that was so bad it wasn’t even bad.

Lord of the Rings was something else. The three films were made in a single effort, and the completion of the cycle has taken six years. It differs from other franchises in that the sequels were filmed at the same time as the earlier episodes, so it can’t be said that the approach of the director has been affected by the reaction to the film.

In which case, it’s disappointing to note that at certain points in The Return of the King - when the special effects run wild or the monsters roam too freely or the tone of brutish heroism is punctured by uneasy comedy - it is easy to reconnect the director with the first film on his CV.

Bad taste will out, and Jackson’s trilogy is transformed in its final part from something almost magical to a heavy-metal fantasy. True, it is an impressively realised heavy-metal fantasy, but it reeks, nevertheless, of magic mushrooms and Spandex.

In another sense, it is a tediously modern film, in that its story is divested of nuance, and played instead with the kinetic predictability of a video game in which the characters travel through various levels of torment only to face new and unimagined perils.

True, the mature director is better at doing horror, and has more control over his self-mocking tendencies, but there is a problem when the gears grind from knuckle-chewing violence to prom-night horror, if only because the horror is more effective.

The violence of the battle scenes is all about speed, sinew and gore. The horror - see the scene in which Frodo is tormented by a peeved spider - has a few moments of knuckle-biting fright to dilute the overriding sense of disbelief.

The story? Well, newcomers need not apply. Aficionados may wish to note the Fellowship’s journey is nearing its end.

The sky is darkening. The once-great kingdom of Gondor is faltering in the absence of its Moses-like king, Aragorn, and Gandalf, the white wizard, is desperately trying to persuade the forces of good, broken and demoralised as they are, to join a battle against the forces of evil, to allow Frodo, the saucer-eyed Hobbit, to return the ring to the fiery pits of Mordor and, in so doing, save the universe.

What this means is fighting. Lots of it. On horses, against beasts and mutants coming from land and air, under bombardment from giant cannons, endlessly and forever, against computer-generated armies, though Jackson’s efforts are never persuasive enough to dispel the suggestion that, by the end, happy days will be here again.

The best thing about The Return of the King is Ian McKellen, who lends Shakespearean gravitas to his portrayal of the weary wizard. He also displays some understanding of the absurdity of his position, puncturing the pomposity with a wry wiggle of an eyebrow, or a crinkling of the brow. It takes a fine actor to say "Show us the meaning of haste" to a horse, instead of "Giddy-up".

The plunging arrives soon enough, and it lasts for a very long time. There is much chopping of swords, much swooshing and squelching of winged beasts. The battle scenes make the Zulu dawns of the second Rings film look like Grange Hill, though this does not make them more meaningful. Indeed, there is so much fighting that it’s easy to forget what the point of the war was supposed to be. In the book, this is the destruction of the ring, a tacky piece of jewellery which seems to bring out the worst in men.

Tolkien was mixing ancient myth with a warning about the dehumanising power of ideology. For Jackson, the battle is as much about beauty and ugliness, and the overarching moral seems to be - to paraphrase Corporal Jones - "The Orcs don’t like it up ’em!" Oddly, though there are a couple of misty love scenes, and one bruising kiss, there is something peculiarly homoerotic in Jackson’s trilogy. Some of this can be put down to good old-fashioned fellowship between the pretty boys, but the relationship between the Hobbits, particularly fat Sam and saucer-eyed Frodo, is played like a teenage crush. "I can’t carry it for you," says fireman Sam to Frodo. "But I can carry you."

The Hobbits are the most adolescent of the creatures, and hence the most vulnerable, but Frodo finds himself on a relentless journey towards maturity, which takes him away from his true love. Near the end, when he goes to Another Place, Frodo observes: "Dear Sam, you need not always be torn in two." In the next scene, Sam is seen behaving in a ruggedly heterosexual manner.

What else? There is a Blairite speech by Aragorn, Liv Tyler has glycerine eyes, and Gollum, the malign ET with a Bobby Charlton hairdo, gives the most nuanced performance, despite being computer-generated. The walking trees, thank God, are missing in action.

And thus it was."

Lynn Minmei

12-12-2003, 12:43 PM

Rotten Tomatoes now has RotK at 100% with 15 positive reviews. Looks like the one that was slightly negative won't be counted as a negative.

Did you know that sometimes there are reviewers who are such jerks that when a film is at 100% and their review is counted as positive when they felt it was negative, they actually tell RT to make theirs negative, just so they can make their point :rolleyes:

Maximus721

12-12-2003, 01:21 PM

Each reviewer gives their own fresh/rotten scale to Rottentomatoes. Walter Chow has given many films 2 1/2 stars and each has been counted as fresh so on his scale, 2 1/2 is positive. The one thing that's bothersome is every lukewarm or negative review I've read always mention that Frodo and Sam are gay or imply that they're gay. I think it's easy to see the homophobia in their writing and it seems like the writer is doing it to take shots at the LOTR fans because it has nothing to do with the film.

croman

12-12-2003, 02:09 PM

I am also in the boat that I can not wait to see this movie.

Unfortunately, I do not get to see it until Saturday but at least it is for a good reason.

I have seen both of the other movies in the Theater suite and will be the same for ROTK. That is the only reason I am waiting, I would rather see it the first time while enjoying the comfort of a leather recliner and a full sound system pounding away around me. Its worth waiting 3 extra days.

Problem is, the waiting never stops. Wait wait wait for the movie, then wait wait wait for the Extended Edition. Well, I guess the waiting does stop next November with the EE is finally out. (then we will probably just be waiting with the hopes that Peter Jackson does The Hobbit)

JCR

12-12-2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by croman
Problem is, the waiting never stops. Wait wait wait for the movie, then wait wait wait for the Extended Edition. Well, I guess the waiting does stop next November with the EE is finally out. (then we will probably just be waiting with the hopes that Peter Jackson does The Hobbit)

Waiting is a good thing. The Matrix was hurt bad because the gap between reloaded and revolutions was too short.

Addi88

12-12-2003, 05:32 PM

I'm so excited! I'm going to "Return Of The King" with my school. I see it next Thurs. I can't wait!

Scorchlord

12-12-2003, 05:47 PM

SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

If Sam's gay, how come he's got the hots for - and marries - Rosie Cotton?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End Spoilers

gyro_44

12-12-2003, 07:24 PM

Well, that's just it. The Samwise Gamgee that Tolkien created is not homosexual. He just has an abiding love and loyalty for his dear old Mr. Frodo, which could be construed in various ways by different people (largely those who are immature and giggle about it).

This whole issue has been done to death. For a certain few, maybe it HELPS to think of them as gay, I don't know. And they could be... but the simple fact of the matter is they are not. Not the way that Tolkien wrote it. That should be the end of that.

I find the bond between Frodo and Sam touching. It's about friendship and loyalty. If it were more than that, and they were gay, I don't think it would make a difference to me because I don't care two ways about it. But again, THEY ARE NOT GAY.

In other news, ROTK is here in 5 days! Oh yeah! Most critics are heaping endless amounts of praise on it, and I'm looking forward to hearing from Joblo and James Berardinelli, among others.

Lynn Minmei

12-13-2003, 12:28 AM

RT has 16 positive review and is still at 100%.

100 Posts!

dellamorte dellamore

12-13-2003, 01:22 PM

Now that i got my temporary insanity out of the way in another Rings thread , it's time to seriously start letting the unabashed " fanboy " out .

What more can be said , this will be the best film of the year , without exception .

My only problem , or my only complaint , or maybe my only fear , is that the film looks to be so good that the other two will pale in comparison .

How could i ever go back to watching the Helm's Deep sequence when the end all be all battle is to be found in ROTK . How can i watch the journey that leads to the destruction of the one ring when the peril contains so much more resonance in the final chapter .

It's going to be a serious challenge to appreciate the first two chapters in the trilogy when ROTK is just so much superior .

I know , i haven't seen it yet , but come on , it will be amazing , wondrous , and all that other nice stuff , it's a given , and i'll watch it 30 or so times when the dvd becomes available .

So , for me that will be the only negative with regards to LOTR , the ROTK will be too good , but i'm certianly not complaining , i'm rejoicing .

Guy Strong

12-13-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by JCR
Waiting is a good thing. The Matrix was hurt bad because the gap between reloaded and revolutions was too short.

No, The Matrix was hurt bad because they sucked.

darkface

12-13-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Addi88
I'm so excited! I'm going to "Return Of The King" with my school. I see it next Thurs. I can't wait!

for what class?

My teacher and i tried getting a field trip together for X-men 2, but due to budget cuts that got thrown out :(

Scarface98.9

12-13-2003, 08:04 PM

I just finished watching The Two Towers Extended Cut for the 5th or so time, and I'm really looking forward to this movie more and more. I wish Wednesday would come already

Addi88

12-13-2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by darkface
for what class?

All of the art classes. The music students, the drama students, and the art students. Anyone who was part of the arts in my high school could go.

It's pretty cool.:)

badberry

12-13-2003, 10:12 PM

Word cannot express how badly I want to see this movie.

I better say nothing more, or I might get too excited and wet myself....:p

ilovemovies

12-14-2003, 05:18 AM

At last the review I've been waiting for, James Berardinelli's. Here is his * * * * ( out of * * * * ) review:

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
A Film Review by James Berardinelli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Zealand/United States, 2003
U.S. Release Date: 12/17/02 (wide)
Running Length: 3:21
MPAA Classification: PG-13 (Violence, mature themes)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, Orlando Bloom, Miranda Otto, Bernard Hill, Andy Serkis, John Noble, Liv Tyler
Director: Peter Jackson
Producers: Peter Jackson, Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh
Screenplay: Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson, based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien
Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie
Music: Howard Shore
U.S. Distributor: New Line Cinema

According to the calendar, Christmas is December 25. According to the movie release schedule, it's December 17. There can be no greater gift for a movie lover than the one bestowed upon audiences by Peter Jackson, whose The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is not only the best movie of 2003, but the crowning cinematic achievement of the past several years. In fact, labeling this as a "movie" is almost an injustice. This is an experience of epic scope and grandeur, amazing emotional power, and relentless momentum.

One could be forgiven for initially approaching The Return of the King with a little trepidation. As good as the first two films, The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, are (in either their theatrical or extended DVD versions), movie history is littered with occasions when trilogy conclusions have crashed and burned. Return of the Jedi. Godfather III. The Matrix Revolutions. And so on… Yet, with The Return of the King, Jackson has done more than just bucked the trend. Not only is this motion picture an entirely worthy conclusion to the landmark trilogy, but it's better than its predecessors. Somehow, Jackson has managed to synthesize what worked in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, while siphoning off the less successful elements. The result is amazing. Taken as a whole, there is nothing out there today that can come close to comparing to The Lord of the Rings.

As with The Two Towers, some form of previous knowledge of The Lord of the Rings is necessary. However, with the earlier chapters readily available on DVD, anyone with the desire can be prepared. The Return of the King opens where The Two Towers ended, with hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin), and the creature Gollum (Andy Serkis) approaching the dark land of Mordor. Meanwhile, the company of Gandalf the wizard (Ian McKellan), Aragorn the ranger (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas the elf (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli the dwarf (John Rhys-Davies), reunite with their hobbit friends Pippin (Billy Boyd) and Merry (Dominic Monaghan) in the wake of the battle of Isengard. From there, the film follows two branches. The first tracks Frodo's progress as the increasingly haunted and weary ringbearer attempts to make his way to Mount Doom. Along the way, he is burdened by betrayal and paranoia, and must face a deadly giant spider called Shelob. Meanwhile, Gandalf and Pippin head to the city of Minas Tirith to warn them against a coming invasion, while Aragorn prepares to announce himself as Iseldur's heir, the returned king of Gondor.

The slowest portions of The Return of the King occur early in the proceedings, as Jackson re-establishes the characters. From there, it's a slow, steady buildup to a rousing climax. The experience is so immersive that I found myself in the middle of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields along with the heroes, rooting for them - even though I knew how things were going to turn out! Along the way, there are moments of genuine pathos that draw a tear from the eye; times of triumph that cause the heart to soar; instances of overwhelming tension that cause the adrenaline to surge; and images of spectacle that make the jaw drop. The pace is unflagging - once Jackson has us, he doesn't let go. When the movie was over, I couldn't believe that 3 1/4 hours had passed.

Although it's unfair to characterize the film as a collection of great moments - the character arcs and overall narrative are too strong for that - it is nevertheless impossible to deny the power of many individual scenes. One of Jackson's most notable contributions is that he directs the film with the intention that certain instances will raise nape hairs. It's the "wow" factor, and it is frequently repeated. Gene Siskel once argued that a great film needs three memorable scenes to go along with no bad ones. The Return of the King exceeds that criteria by a considerable amount.

I can think of three key reasons why this film is stronger than the earlier chapters. The first is that this is the conclusion - the resolution we have eagerly awaited for what seems like more than two years. The second is that Jackson, like Tolkien, saved the best for last. As impressive as the Battle of Helms Deep was, it is dwarfed by the Siege of Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. And Frodo's struggles have become magnified. Jackson views elements of the hobbit's travails as operatic (witness the choral aspects of Howard Shore's score). Finally, there's the simple fact that we have gotten to know the characters. By now, they have been with us for two years and six hours of screen time (over seven if you count the DVD special editions).

For those who despise truncated endings, Jackson has a treat in store. The Return of the King ends with a 20 minute epilogue that chronicles events after the War of the Ring, going as much as four years into the future and tying up nearly every possible loose end. The film concludes on exactly the same note as the book (in fact, with the same line), and, while the final chapter of the trilogy is as satisfying as it could possibly be, there's still a vague sense of melancholy when "The End" appears on the screen, because it means that these adventures are over.

Tolkien purists will be as disgruntled with The Return of the King as they were with The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, but this isn't made for them. This is Tolkien's saga as filtered through Jackson's fertile imagination, not some dry, slavishly faithful adaptation (although it is probably as true to the books in both spirit and narrative as any movie version could be). If you want rigorous adherence to the text, wait for the next Harry Potter movie. It's hard to fault the director for many of his choices. There are some omissions in The Return of the King. A couple - Saruman's death at the hands of Wormtongue and the Houses of Healing - were cut due to time constraints, but will appear on the DVD. Another, The Scouring of the Shire, was not filmed. While that may be a viable way to end the book, it is too anticlimactic for a movie, and, as such, is better excised.

The acting shines through more in The Return of the King than in the other films. Elijah Wood is excellent as Frodo, a shell of the cheerful hobbit he once was. Sean Astin transforms Sam into a fierce knight protector, defending his master against the treacherous Gollum, the terrifying Shelob, and the forces of Mordor. Viggo Mortensen gives Aragorn his fullest opportunity to be seen as a three-dimensional hero. Newcomer John Noble, as Denthor, the Protector of Gondor, displays madness laced with cunning. Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies have less to do, but provide us with a little comedic banter as well as some more serious moments. Miranda Otto's Eowen is as sharp and fierce as any man, and far better looking. Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan are given an chance to flesh out Pippin and Merry. Cate Blanchett, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, and Ian Holm all make brief appearances.

But the two I must single out are Ian McKellan and Andy Serkis. For the first time, Gandalf is on screen for a significant portion of time (rather than somewhere in the distance fighting a balrog, trapped by Saruman, or rounding up the Riders of Rohan). McKellan presents the wizard as a man of great wisdom, little patience, and incomparable battle skill. Using a sword and staff instead of magic, Gandalf proceeds to kick butt big-time. In fantasy mythology, Gandalf is second only to Merlin when it comes to famous sorcerers. On screen, McKellen's wizard is second to none.

For most of the film, Serkis is heard but only partially seen - Gollum is a computer generated creature that gets its cues from Serkis' body movements. (Although there is one flashback in which Serkis plays the pre-corrupted Smeagol.) The subtlety of Gollum's movements and expressions is so astonishing that it's difficult to believe this isn't a real creature. Serkis deserves a lion's share of the credit, since Gollum is as much his creation as it is that of the animators. Although a long shot, Serkis is deserving of some sort of awards credit.

Expectedly, the special effects set a new standard. The CGI participants of the major battles look more like real combatants than cartoonish computer creations. The locations, set design, and costumes are without flaw. By building many of the elaborate locales, Jackson achieves a sense of verisimilitude that he might not have attained by relying more heavily on computers. And composer Howard Shore's score is perfectly wed to the visuals, being alternately bombastic and delicate, as circumstances dictate.

Leaving Middle Earth, Jackson is now headed for Skull Island and a remake of King Kong that already has me excited. He has not ruled out a return to this fantasy world - he would like to make The Hobbit with some of the same actors, if the complicated rights issues surrounding the prequel can be straightened out. In the meantime, he has given us a trilogy of films to savor and remember. The Lord of the Rings will go down in cinematic lore as a milestone. It has legitimatized fantasy like no other production and has shown that it is possible for studio executives to realize huge gains when taking huge risks. (Had The Lord of the Rings failed, New Line Cinema would have gone down with it.) History will show the importance of The Lord of the Rings. The present illustrates its broad appeal and undeniable critical and commercial success. For many, the release of The Return of the King is the event of the year. And this is one time when the product is good enough to weather the storm of hype. This ring is golden.

© 2003 James Berardinelli

Fisting Ackbar

12-14-2003, 10:18 AM

Berardinelli's review makes me even more excited for this.

Got my tickets for a wednesday showing of 6:30 CET, only 74 hours from now!

thompsoncory

12-14-2003, 12:18 PM

I really hope that Liv Tyler has a more substantial role in this film, for in the first two her screen time equaled a grand total of around 15 minutes.

Anyways, can't wait to see this film and will be seeing it Sunday the 21st.

gyro_44

12-14-2003, 12:28 PM

In response to Berardinelli's review: WOW. I'm barely going to be able to make it until Tuesday...

Scorchlord

12-14-2003, 12:52 PM

Filmjerk has a review up and gives ROTK a C+, but they are quite possibly the worst movie review site in the world. The nonsense they spewed about Fellowship makes me wish for an electrical backlash from their computer that prevents them from ever typing again.

Lynn Minmei

12-14-2003, 01:45 PM

Berardinelli actually liked a movie?! Whoa...

Lynn Minmei

12-14-2003, 01:55 PM

RotK has 19 positive reviews on RT with 0 negative, meaning a score of 100% so far.

dannywalker17

12-14-2003, 03:13 PM

I will be seeing ROTK in 55 hours! I am so freakin' excited. The new TV spot has me in a frenzy. Can't wait til Tuesday!:D

T-1000

12-14-2003, 09:45 PM

I won't be able to see the film until Friday :(

Jerk Shapiro

12-14-2003, 11:01 PM

The closer it gets, the more excited I get. Possibly my most anticipated film of all-time. All-time!

bankholdup

12-15-2003, 01:09 PM

FOTR - 7/10
TTT - 5/10

I'm obviously not looking forward to it, but if it comes to my town (which it probably will), I'll give it a go. I might as well, since I've seen the first two.

Tuukka

12-15-2003, 01:42 PM

The New York Film Critics Circle has just chose ROTK as BEST FILM OF THE YEAR! These are the most snobby, high-brow, indie-loving critics in the country!

This is great news for ROTK Oscar changes, especially since the supposed contenders such as Cold Mountain and Last Samurai are doing disappointingly.

Best Film Lord of the of the Rings: Return of the King!!!!!!
Supporting Actress: Shohreh Aghdashloo, House of Sand and Fog
Best Supporting Actor: Eugene Levy, A Mighty Wind
Animated: Triplets of Belleville
Actor: Bill Murray
Director: Sofia Coppola
Actress: Hope Davis (American Splendor, Secret Lives of Dentists)
Documentary: Capturing the Friedmans
Best First Film: American Splendor
Foreign Film: City of God
Harry Savides: Elephant, Gerry
Screenplay: The Secret Lives of Dentists

ToRontoRon

12-15-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Guy Strong
No, The Matrix was hurt bad because they sucked.

No, The Matrix was hurt bad because it was simply too smart for the average moviegoer. It wasn't designed well enough to please the average fan. This was a trilogy designed specifically, and uncompromisingly for the devoted fans, and we wouldn't want it any other way.

Jon Lyrik

12-15-2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by ToRontoRon
No, The Matrix was hurt bad because it was simply too smart for the average moviegoer. It wasn't designed well enough to please the average fan. This was a trilogy designed specifically, and uncompromisingly for the devoted fans, and we wouldn't want it any other way.

I have to disagree. I like The Matrix but all the philosophical yammering was a bunch of pretentious horseshit to me. Philosophy doesn't work in a big jumble of fancy words and a bunch of psuedodeep meanings.

It's still quite entertaining though.

ToRontoRon

12-15-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Gollum / Smeagol , he's one of the most over the top , annoying creations in quite some time , no matter how effective his visuals may be . And A serkis' Renfiled / Sybil interpertation is nothing special , like most people are saying , it's downright cringe inducing at times . I'll burst the bubble on that overrated character later .

Thank God, I thought I was the only one who found Gollum to be extremely annoying. People marvel at how lifelike he is, and yet if a real live actor were to act like that, people wouldn't be able to keep from cracking up in laughter at how ridiculous his performance is. He makes Jim Carrey look like Sir Alec Guiness. From The Two Towers, anyways, there were two parts with him I liked; when he was arguing with himself and the camera would go from one side of him to the other to indicate his split personality, and the untrusting look he gives Frodo when he's fishing in the pool and Frodo tells him to come to him before he is captured by those warrior guys. Aside from that, I couldn't stand his character.

Also, Gimli is a joke, but not in a good way, Merry and Pippin were extremely annoying in the first, but less so in the second, Legolas was always too wide-eyed and not a real enough person to me. What I mean is, can you actually see yourself hanging out with this guy? Gandalf and Saruman were charactatures of your average good and evil wizards and their dialogue for the most part is nauseating. I'm just not a fan of the fantasy styled, Shakespearan dialogue in the trilogy and these two were the worst culprits. Sam and Frodo, while not being too gay, (I never thought there was anything actually going on between them), are too buddy buddy for my liking. I do think that they're both pretty good though, I just would have liked their performances a bit more if they'd have toned down their admiration for each other at times.

Aragorn, on the other hand is pretty kick ass. I loved him in both of the first two, but his speech during the third one that's playing during the trailer does not sound very good. He's not exactly William Wallace on the fields of Stirling in Braveheart. It doesn't sound like it's coming from his heart at all, but I only heard a bit of it, and maybe he does demonstrate the cojones, (sp?), necessary to pull off the speech.

But these are just my opinions, and I realize that I've ventured into the wrong place to state it if I wanted people to agree with me, so feel free to let me have it if you want. I will say, however, that I would recommend the first two movies, despite the problems I stated above and a few others, and I'm sure I'll like the third one too. It might even make my top 10 list of all time based on what I'm hearing. I just resent the trilogy a bit because it could have been so much better in my opinion. If they could have cut the first two movies from 6 hours to between 4 and 4 1/2, they'd have really been something special. (Most of the editing could have taken place in The Two Towers, which was WAY to long given how far the plot actually advanced. Not very.)

ToRontoRon

12-15-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
I have to disagree. I like The Matrix but all the philosophical yammering was a bunch of pretentious horseshit to me. Philosophy doesn't work in a big jumble of fancy words and a bunch of psuedodeep meanings.

It's still quite entertaining though.

To each his own. I know what your saying and I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I like the philosophical talk throughout the trilogy. I think it goes along very well with the issues of reality, fate, free will and growth brought up in the trilogy, but I think that's just a matter of taste. For me, the fantasy style yammering of the LOTR trilogy got on my nerves a lot, but again, that's just my opinion and overall I have found the first 2/3rds of the trilogy entertaining, and I'm sure I'll like the third. No one has the monopoly on good taste.

Lynn Minmei

12-15-2003, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka
The New York Film Critics Circle has just chose ROTK as BEST FILM OF THE YEAR! These are the most snobby, high-brow, indie-loving critics in the country!

This is great news for ROTK Oscar changes, especially since the supposed contenders such as Cold Mountain and Last Samurai are doing disappointingly.

Best Film Lord of the of the Rings: Return of the King!!!!!!
Supporting Actress: Shohreh Aghdashloo, House of Sand and Fog
Best Supporting Actor: Eugene Levy, A Mighty Wind
Animated: Triplets of Belleville
Actor: Bill Murray
Director: Sofia Coppola
Actress: Hope Davis (American Splendor, Secret Lives of Dentists)
Documentary: Capturing the Friedmans
Best First Film: American Splendor
Foreign Film: City of God
Harry Savides: Elephant, Gerry
Screenplay: The Secret Lives of Dentists

That's a great list also, and I'm shocked that they pick RotK as their film of the year. They usually do not side with major releases like that.

Lynn Minmei

12-15-2003, 04:49 PM

Geez! RT has 28 Positive reviews for RotK and 0 negative with a score of (Still) 100%!!!

usuallysuspected

12-15-2003, 05:23 PM

I can't wait for this movie any longer. I haven't been this antsy for a movie since the first Jurassic Park, and see how that turned out for me. I seriously have read enough reviews of this movie to induce a small coma, and if I read just one more my head will explode with anticipation and small peices of candy. On top of that I have to wait till thursday, god what a nerd I have become, but I don't care, this movie beckons me. AAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Jon Lyrik

12-15-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by ToRontoRon
No one has the monopoly on good taste.

Yes. Yes. I do.

Its reviews are still all positive, I wonder how long that will last.

Lil' Lebowski

12-15-2003, 06:24 PM

I'm going to be on a plane all day tuesday, so I'll
have to wait for wednesday morning. I can't wait!

Lynn Minmei

12-15-2003, 07:04 PM

An even 30 positive reviews on RT and still at 100%!

darkface

12-15-2003, 07:50 PM

I was over at lordoftherings.com and figured i'd watch the theatrical trailers in order to get my hyped, cause i'm not the biggest LOTR fan. I've been to the first two opening day, and liked both, TTT being better, and i'm not terribly excited for ROTK although it looks pretty good. But i just watched all three trailers, and just from that alone, it's really got me excited! 3 1/2 hours does sound mighty long, but i'm still really excited for it! And like the times before i have tickets to see it wednesday after school! Kick ass!

blankpage

12-15-2003, 08:08 PM

I picked up my ticket today. 4 pm, Wednesday....oh yeah!

Strider

12-15-2003, 08:28 PM

Hmm... I probably won't see the film for myself until the weekend. I'm going to have a very tough and stressful weekday starting tomorrow. Therefore, I'm not going to have time to see it until the weekend.

Oh well, I'm still DYING to see it!!! I can't wait!!!

At least I'll have something to look forward to once my week is completed.....

Strider

EDsoulsurvive*

12-15-2003, 09:25 PM

ehhh i really dont like the LotR films. If I do see this film anytime soon its all for the Kill Bill Volume 2 trailer.

:rolleyes:

ilovemovies

12-15-2003, 10:47 PM

Just 2 more days and I'm getting my ticket today :)

Lynn Minmei

12-16-2003, 01:48 AM

JoBlo didn't seem too crazy about RotK and gave it a 6/10.

ilovemovies

12-16-2003, 01:52 AM

So does that make Joblo's review officially the worst review that ROTK has recieved so far?

Not that a 6/10 is bad. It seems for him that a 6/10 is ok just nothing special. Still I am disappointed he didn't enjoy it so much.

But I KNOW I am going to LOVE it!

ilovemovies

12-16-2003, 02:14 AM

There is now 39 reviews at rottentomatoes and it is still 100%!!

The average rating is 9.7/10

I think it's safe to say that this is the best reviewed movie of 2003.

Slim

12-16-2003, 03:13 AM

From JoBlo's review:

The ending was also nicely handled (except all the stuff AFTER the ending, which felt out of place)

After the ending and out of place...? I wonder how many people are going to be thinking the same thing.

Snowboy

12-16-2003, 03:23 AM

Actually, Joblo's review was quite nice. I'm glad he at least enjoyed it. I think he pretty much stated most of the criticisms that I've heard, so I know that I am going to enjoy it. I finally read the book not long ago, so I am definitely looking forward to this. If I can get tickets, midnight tonight, baby!!! :D

Lynn Minmei

12-16-2003, 03:55 AM

According to Jo's score, RotK falls directly inbetween the two films.

The only way that the ending will bother me is if it doesn't end on the "right" note and seems like they could've orchestrated it better.

miguel_montes

12-16-2003, 06:36 AM

I understand JoBlo's review.
The funny thing about this review (at least in my opinion), is that in 1/3 of it he talks about the negative aspects of the movie, and in the remaining 2/3 he basically says that the movie rocks!!! :)

From JoBlo's review:

Bad aspects:
...overrated...
...it went on way past its bedtime...
...The film's 3-4 different endings were also ridiculously out of line...
...little self-indulgent...
...a little bloated and redundant...
...Arwen, on the other hand...why was she in these movies again?
(and perhaps the most important): these "types" of movies don't do it for me in the first place...

Good aspects:
...All in all, everyone is ready to rock and to roll over the greatest battle that Middle-Earth...
...it's a decent film...
...as great as its battles are, and as entertaining...
...I love Peter Jackson...
...I think he's a genius and I doubt that anyone else could have done such a great job with these three films...
...Is it a good movie? Sure...
...scream accomplishment, innovation, entertainment and epic in many senses of the words...
...continue its tradition of kickass action sequences, many characters and plotlines intertwined and continuing suspense dealt upon its fellowship of do-gooders...
...loved the flashback to Smeagol...nice...
...Legolas continues to look far into the horizon and sense danger (his elephant-beast ride was the friggin' bomb!)...
...Aragorn continues to kick ass and look great...
...Gandalf continues his non-wizarding, but does have a lot more "presence" in this round and actually makes some things happen...
...The rest of the hobbits also had more to do here and did so effectively...
...The standout in the cast was Sean Astin though. His Samwise received a greater focus here and he made the best of it...
...packed with a number of memorable sequences, most notably the awesome spider-tunnel scene, as well as the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, with the elephant-beasts, trolls, orcs et al...
...I also appreciated the inclusion of Miranda Otto's character and her fate. Girl power indeed...
...The ending was also nicely handled ...
...I enjoyed the film...
...also inserted enough coolness to amaze those who didn't believe that more "oomph" was possible...

So, considering that this type of movies isn't what JoBlo's likes the most, and the good aspects of his review (he enjoyed it!!! :) ), I understand the 6/10. But, in MY OPINION, balancing the good and bad, the likes and the dislikes, he could have rated it higher... But, to each his own...

In the end, I'm glad JoBlo liked it.

miguel_montes

12-16-2003, 06:59 AM

There are now 42 reviews at rottentomatoes and still 100%!!

The average rating is 9.5/10

Do we need to say more...? :p

Scorchlord

12-16-2003, 09:13 AM

You know what? Frankly, screw JoBlo's reviews. I take them with less than a grain of salt. He has his mind set going in that he's not going to enjoy it because he's too hoity-toity for these stupid ol' fantasy movies, and can't see the exceptional nature of them with his bias on full blast.

And fuck Roger Ebert for his idiotic assertion that Gandalf is too old to be out fighting. He's a wizard, for crying out loud! He's thousands of years old! Ebert's a grade A moron.

The Arrow

12-16-2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Scorchlord
You know what? Frankly, screw JoBlo's reviews. I take them with less than a grain of salt. He has his mind set going in that he's not going to enjoy it because he's too hoity-toity for these stupid ol' fantasy movies, and can't see the exceptional nature of them with his bias on full blast.

And fuck Roger Ebert for his idiotic assertion that Gandalf is too old to be out fighting. He's a wizard, for crying out loud! He's thousands of years old! Ebert's a grade A moron.

It blows my mind that some people (like you) are not able to accept that others won't love what you love. Its called difference of perspective, individual tastes and opinion man. That's the way of the world. If you can't deal with that on a message board, it makes me wonder how you deal with it in every day life.

I've read JoBlo's review and I respect it. He actually goes out of his way to explain his position. He doesn't claim that his opinion is the be and end all of opinions (like some people...yep you). Its just his opinion, take it or leave it.

As for Gandalf the Pink or whatever is name is this weekend. He's easily the most useless wizard to ever grace the silver screen IN MY OPINION (yeah I have a RIGHT to it tough guy). It takes more than a light bulb at the end of a staff to make a potent Wizard. I use magic more often in my everyday life than Gand (yes we're good friends, I can call him that) does in all three films put together. He sure knows how to ride a white horse, change the color of his tunic and bark orders though!

In conclusion: YOU LOVE LOTR? All the power to you!

But yes, there are people that don't care for it (like me)....that's life buddy...THAT'S LIFE! CAN YOU DEAL WITH IT? Obviously not...

gyro_44

12-16-2003, 10:47 AM

Yep, to each his own. I can deal with that.

Joblo was never a big "Rings" fan... I expected him to be kinder to ROTK than TTT (I had thought maybe 7/10), but there's no reason to get upset over it. He made valid points. As for the multiple endings beef, I have said I'll reserve judgment until I see it (tonight! yay!), but I disagree that Jackson should end it promptly after the big climax. Many people want to see what happens to these characters. For many others, it will be a long, numbing stretch to the credits, but not for me I'd wager.

Interesting stand that Joblo takes, saying Jackson seemed to stay too true to the books. That's almost refreshing after hearing so many ranting purists saying "PJ should die a horrible death, fuck PJ", etc, etc. The fans should appreciate how Jackson honors the book this time around (at least it sounds like he does). But I respect Joblo's opinion. They can't all be raves.

But there are qiute a lot of four-star reviews out there... USA Today, Chicago Tribune, New York Post, Newsday. Pretty incredible notices so far. I'll be pitching in with my thoughts tomorrow... I can't believe the big day is here.

chinton

12-16-2003, 10:48 AM

Well this is just great. Is this going to be like the Two Towers thread where if you didnt like the film, like me, you were burned in effigy. Cant people accept that not everyone think the films are perfect. I like Two Towers but it is not a great film. ill probably say the same here

miguel_montes

12-16-2003, 10:52 AM

gyro_44, you lucky bastard! :) I don't even know when I'm going to see it! :( Perhaps next week, but until then, the wait is driving me crazy!!!

TheGodSon

12-16-2003, 10:53 AM

gyro_44

12-16-2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by miguel_montes
gyro_44, you lucky bastard! :) I don't even know when I'm going to see it! :( Perhaps next week, but until then, the wait is driving me crazy!!!
:) Yeah, midnight show tonight for me (as many theaters will be having, I believe). I have also bought tickets for a matinee tomorrow to see it AGAIN. I'm a huge geek, as you may have gathered.

I hope you get to see it soon, miguel.

Maximus721

12-16-2003, 11:13 AM

With these big event films that have a huge following(Matrix, Star Wars, LOTR), if you give the film a negative or mixed review, you better expect people to criticize you. It really never happened as much until LOTR and Matrix trilogy started but it has divided the geek fanbase and has basically become an all-out verbal war when one of the films is released. I think most people understand that each person has their own opinion but a few let their strong emotional attachment to that film cause them to lash out at the person.

miguel_montes

12-16-2003, 11:14 AM

Me too, gyro, me too! :rolleyes:
Glad to see you're enjoying at the fullest this wonderful time...
My thoughts go out to the millions of LOTR fans who are going, tonight, to see the amazing end of one of the best movies ever made. I'm with you guys!!!

And here I am, surfing the net, hoping to catch the latest reviews and posts about ROTK, when I should be studying linear algebra and analithical geometry. Definitely, there isn't a cure for my disease... Well, there is, but I'm getting the shot in a few days, which is more than I can wait...

Side note: in a peculiar and awkward sort of way, JoBlo's review made me even MORE anxious about it (like THAT's possible!!! :D ).

dellamorte dellamore

12-16-2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by ToRontoRon
Thank God, I thought I was the only one who found Gollum to be extremely annoying. People marvel at how lifelike he is, and yet if a real live actor were to act like that, people wouldn't be able to keep from cracking up in laughter at how ridiculous his performance is. He makes Jim Carrey look like Sir Alec Guiness. From The Two Towers, anyways, there were two parts with him I liked; when he was arguing with himself and the camera would go from one side of him to the other to indicate his split personality, and the untrusting look he gives Frodo when he's fishing in the pool and Frodo tells him to come to him before he is captured by those warrior guys. Aside from that, I couldn't stand his character.

Also, Gimli is a joke, but not in a good way, Merry and Pippin were extremely annoying in the first, but less so in the second, Legolas was always too wide-eyed and not a real enough person to me. What I mean is, can you actually see yourself hanging out with this guy? Gandalf and Saruman were charactatures of your average good and evil wizards and their dialogue for the most part is nauseating. I'm just not a fan of the fantasy styled, Shakespearan dialogue in the trilogy and these two were the worst culprits. Sam and Frodo, while not being too gay, (I never thought there was anything actually going on between them), are too buddy buddy for my liking. I do think that they're both pretty good though, I just would have liked their performances a bit more if they'd have toned down their admiration for each other at times.

Aragorn, on the other hand is pretty kick ass. I loved him in both of the first two, but his speech during the third one that's playing during the trailer does not sound very good. He's not exactly William Wallace on the fields of Stirling in Braveheart. It doesn't sound like it's coming from his heart at all, but I only heard a bit of it, and maybe he does demonstrate the cojones, (sp?), necessary to pull off the speech.

But these are just my opinions, and I realize that I've ventured into the wrong place to state it if I wanted people to agree with me, so feel free to let me have it if you want. I will say, however, that I would recommend the first two movies, despite the problems I stated above and a few others, and I'm sure I'll like the third one too. It might even make my top 10 list of all time based on what I'm hearing. I just resent the trilogy a bit because it could have been so much better in my opinion. If they could have cut the first two movies from 6 hours to between 4 and 4 1/2, they'd have really been something special. (Most of the editing could have taken place in The Two Towers, which was WAY to long given how far the plot actually advanced. Not very.)

Yeah , no matter how much of an innovation the character of Gollum / Smeagol is with regards to CGI creations , his underlying characterization , and portrayal by Serkis , for me , will not age well . There are times when his character is just too over the top to take seriously , and there are times when his portrayal is hilarious when it's supposed to be serious . I find myself fast fowarding his scenes whenever i watch the TT , i have a difficult time watching those particular scenes , especially after what is now the 20th or so time , probably a bit more , but i've lost count . I do agree though , that some of his cenes are genuinely effective , and he's not a total waste , but overall , he becomes grating , although , obviously he's one of the main charaters in the books , so he has to be there . You know what scenes really makes me crings , the one that reminds me of some old picture from the 30's , the ones that were set in the south and some rich person lived on an estate , and they had servants . It's the scene when Frodo , Sam , and Gollum finally reached the gates of Mordor , and Frodo attempts to secure Sam who has just fallen off the cliff . Gollum yells out " Master " , but for the longest time , i always thought he said Massa . It sounded almost like the way the " servants " in those old films would say Master . That for me , kind of really killed Serkis' portrayal for me , because i couldn't get that line of dialogue at of my head . I'm not saying that it's somehow racist , but it's one of the reasons i feel his character just didn't work , at least not as good as he could have .

Now Gimli , agreed again , a fierce , no nonsense warrior , is emascualted , and turned into one of the three stooges . Obviously , in an attempt to get people to like him , and to break up the tense moments . Didn't need too , some director's carefully , and brilliantly build up tangible tension , only to squander it away with a joke , why , i don't want the tension relieved , i want to " suffer " through it , that's the whole point of building it and sustaining it . Gimli was one of the characters who's job it was to break up that tense feeling , but he should have been just a kickass , pissed off warrior of the Dwarves . To be fair , he was so much more effective , and fleshed out in FOTR , then he went off the deep end in TT .

Aragorn - i have to say it again , he is the saving grace , not only in the books , but in the films also . I don't see the films working as well as they did , without V Mortensen's masterful and genuinely passionate performance . He is like a cornucopia of all the other characters , he dispays the spirit of the rest of the fellowship . The way VM plays him , he's a potent combination of courage , empathy , compassion , self confidence , independence , and hopefulness . He's the best character in the series .

Ah , i went on too long for one post , but let's put it this way , i agree that the films aren't perfect , and if you can't accept the characters or the narrative , they will have much less resonance , it's just that in my opinion these are / will be the best 3 films ever created in any genre , they have already altered people's expectations of what an epic can be , and of what can be accomplished when someone is creatively inspired .

note : i altered the rallying cry of the Rohirrim just a bit .

Fell deeds await , now for Wrath , now for Ruin , and the Red Dawn . FORTH EORLINGAS !!!!!!!

http://www.lordotrings.com/images/movies/rotk5.jpg

cutman

12-16-2003, 11:45 AM

I don't care who likes or hates this movie...but how can you see that Gandalf doesn't do magic, Arrow! :)

Are you forgetting the scene with the Balrog (that was the fiery demon in FoTR)? Gandalf singlehandedly defeated one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth.

Besides that, though, I agree with you...there isn't much magic. There isn't much magic inthe books either...this isn't Harry Potter we're talking about. Gandalf's main power is his wisdom, and he has that power because he's a wizard who has lived for over a thousand years.

12 hours to go!

The Arrow

12-16-2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by cutman
I don't care who likes or hates this movie...but how can you see that Gandalf doesn't do magic, Arrow! :)

Are you forgetting the scene with the Balrog (that was the fiery demon in FoTR)? Gandalf singlehandedly defeated one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth.

Thats exactly my point! I'm not saying he NEVER uses magic, I'm saying he doesn't use it enough. If he can use magic to defeat a powerful monster why doesn't he use his magic during the many massive battle scenes more often? For example in ROTK, the good guys are outnumbered and he's beating peeps with his staff senseless. Thats all good but how about using some of that magic to even out the odds, take out loads of baddies in one ray of light or something? I mean that's when it would be uselful!

Slim

12-16-2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by The Arrow
Thats exactly my point! I'm not saying he NEVER uses magic, I'm saying he doesn't use it enough. If he can use magic to defeat a powerful monster why doesn't he use his magic during the many massive battle scenes more often? For example in ROTK, the good guys are outnumbered and he's beating peeps with his staff senseless. Thats all good but how about using some of that magic to even out the odds, take out loads of baddies in one ray of light or something? I mean that's when it would be uselful!

YOU'RE A GRAND WIZARD...NO???? DO SOME WIZARDRY! BAFFLE ME SILLY! DO SOMETHING WIZARD LIKE OTHER THAN HAVING A STAFF FLASHLIGHT! Pretty kool staff flashlight nonetheless though :)

It's clear that Gandalf has more power than he chooses to display. But his purpose is not to singlehandedly defeat the enemy. This is ultimately humanity's last stand. He is simply there to help. Also, I think it would be very cheesy to see Gandalf repeatedly "take out loads of baddies in one ray of light." This isn't Harry Potter, it was written over fifty years ago.

dellamorte dellamore

12-16-2003, 12:46 PM

I think PJ said he specifically limited the amount of magic that was utilized in the trilogy because he wanted to focus more on the human / realistic aspects of the various characters personas .

He said something about other films losing their emotional impact if it's only about magic tricks . He didn't want his character to become a cliched , over the top , fantastical fireball slinging wizard .

Plus , Gandalph , although powerful , is still limited in what he can and cannot do , he's not exactly all powerful , like some people think . He's one of the guardians of Middle Earth , and more importantly a guide for the people of middle earth that are fighting against Sauron and his minions .

He was sent there to encourage , inspire , and warn them , but ultimately it is there responsiblity to eventually defeat evil and save middle earth . He steps in when absolutely neccesary , but because of free will , they have to make that choice , based on the wisdom that he imparts .

The Valar ( the original spirits created by Eru , Middle earth's eqivalent of God ) could come down and end the war themselves , and save everyone , but they were sent to Middle Earth and given life for a reason , as a test , to see if they could with stand evil , maybe not neccesarily defeat it , but at the very least not succumb to it , commune with it , like Sauron , Saruman , the Easterlings , and Grima Wormtongue have done .

That's too much fanboyism for one day , but it's my little take on the Gandalph character based on watching the films , reading the books ( including the Silmarillion ) , reading the other shmoes thoughts , and by checking out the encyclopedia of arda .

Hope it makes a smidgen of sense , because i thought that these films were overrated too ( they still may be just a bit ) , until i discovered all the history behind the events and characters , then much more made sense to me , and i appreciated them in a way i couldn't before .

The Arrow

12-16-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
I think PJ said he specifically limited the amount of magic that was utilized in the trilogy because he wanted to focus more on the human / realistic aspects of the various characters personas .

He said something about other films losing their emotional impact if it's only about magic tricks . He didn't want his character to become a cliched , over the top , fantastical fireball slinging wizard .

Plus , Gandalph , although powerful , is still limited in what he can and cannot do , he's not exactly all powerful , like some people think . He's one of the guardians of Middle Earth , and more importantly a guide for the people of middle earth that are fighting against Sauron and his minions .

He was sent there to encourage , inspire , and warn them , but ultimately it is there responsiblity to eventually defeat evil and save middle earth . He steps in when absolutely neccesary , but because of free will , they have to make that choice , based on the wisdom that he imparts .

The Valar ( the original spirits created by Eru , Middle earth's eqivalent of God ) could come down and end the war themselves , and save everyone , but they were sent to Middle Earth and given life for a reason , as a test , to see if they could with stand evil , maybe not neccesarily defeat it , but at the very least not succumb to it , commune with it , like Sauron , Saruman , the Easterlings , and Grima Wormtongue have done .

That's too much fanboyism for one day , but it's my little take on the Gandalph character based on watching the films , reading the books ( including the Silmarillion ) , reading the other shmoes thoughts , and by checking out the encyclopedia of arda .

Hope it makes a smidgen of sense , because i thought that these films were overrated too ( they still may be just a bit ) , until i discovered all the history behind the events and characters , then much more made sense to me , and i appreciated them in a way i couldn't before .

Thanks for the insight dude, it makes a tad more sense to me now. But at the same time, if Gand wants to help out, then he should help out with all he's got. I'm not crazy about this half-half random helping out that Gand pulls when it comes to his magic. Its a personal qualm, I guess its the extremist in me talking...:)

ANTBond007

12-16-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by The Arrow
It blows my mind that some people (like you) are not able to accept that others won't love what you love. Its called difference of perspective, individual tastes and opinion man. That's the way of the world. If you can't deal with that on a message board, it makes me wonder how you deal with it in every day life.

I've read JoBlo's review and I respect it. He actually goes out of his way to explain his position. He doesn't claim that his opinion is the be and end all of opinions (like some people...yep you). Its just his opinion, take it or leave it.

As for Gandalf the Pink or whatever is name is this weekend. He's easily the most useless wizard to ever grace the silver screen IN MY OPINION (yeah I have a RIGHT to it tough guy). It takes more than a light bulb at the end of a staff to make a potent Wizard. I use magic more often in my everyday life than Gand (yes we're good friends, I can call him that) does in all three films put together. He sure knows how to ride a white horse, change the color of his tunic and bark orders though!

In conclusion: YOU LOVE LOTR? All the power to you!

But yes, there are people that don't care for it (like me)....that's life buddy...THAT'S LIFE! CAN YOU DEAL WITH IT? Obviously not...

You know, Arrow, I remember you saying something quite like this last year after people were reacting rather... negatively... towards JoBlo's Two Towers review :p

BarkingSparrow

12-16-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by The Arrow
Thanks for the insight dude, it makes a tad more sense to me now. But at the same time, if Gand wants to help out, then he should help out with all he's got. I'm not crazy about this half-half random helping out that Gand pulls when it comes to his magic. Its a personal qualm, I guess its the extremist in me talking...:)

Got any kids, Arrow? Gandalf's situation is almost like raising children, you've got to let them fend for themselves most of the time, otherwise they'll never learn to make it on their own, but you can help by providing some wisdom.

Of course, when the drooling Orcish lustbins like you and JoBlo come sniffing around my daughter, it's time to step in and kick some ass.

Weapon X

12-16-2003, 01:40 PM

I'm still reeling from that 5/10 Jo gave to TTT...But I know Joblo's got his views same as I got mine. No movie can appeal to everyone, and I guess LOTR, being a big long epic fantasy, is more susceptable to be disliked by average joe moviegoers. But to go from a 7/10 to a 5/10 and then back to a respectable 6/10...well, for a guy who admittedly isn't into Lord of the Rings, that's not TOO shabby. I'm just gonna have to boycott the site now until he comes around. ;) I joke, I joke.

But what about you, Arrow? I know you reviewed Fellowship and skipped Two Towers (at least for a review anyway), but what, out of your usual one-to-four scale, would Return of the King score?

BarkingSparrow

12-16-2003, 02:15 PM

Damned Martian

12-16-2003, 02:17 PM

44 reviews, 100% fresh, 9.5/10 rating (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/)

And if you look at the "Cream of teh Crop" column, the rating is a perfect 10.

WOW

The Arrow

12-16-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by BarkingSparrow
Got any kids, Arrow? Gandalf's situation is almost like raising children, you've got to let them fend for themselves most of the time, otherwise they'll never learn to make it on their own, but you can help by providing some wisdom.

Of course, when the drooling Orcish lustbins like you and JoBlo come sniffing around my daughter, it's time to step in and kick some ass.

I dont have any kids (none that I know of...yet) but nice analogy there, puts things in perspective.

NOTE TO SELF: Stay away from BarkingSparrow's daughter...he's the shotgun type dad...hey...and I respect that :)

JoBlo

12-16-2003, 02:55 PM

quoth_the_raven

12-16-2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by JoBlo
We've already banned one person today and will continue to do so until everyone understands that YOUR OPINION is not the ULTIMATE opinion. That's why it's called...an opinion....

Ah, but isn't that just your opinion on the matter? ;)

Can't help myself today :D ;)

Sugar Magnolia

12-16-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by JoBlo
RESPECT is still KING on our board

I thought the Burger King was still king. He rules all. He's even more powerful than Mayor McCheese. Then again, he never did kill the Grimace like he promised to. No one can kill the Grimace...

Anyways, I'm gonna see this tomorrow. Weeeee. I'm quite excited, hence the weee...

ANTBond007

12-16-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by JoBlo
Yeah, I'm the king of "hoity-toity". Read my reviews of CHARLIE'S ANGELS, ARMAGEDDON and BEND IN LIKE BECKHAM to wallow in the utter hoity-toitiness of JoBlo. Sheesh.

I'd like to remind EVERYONE that RESPECT is still KING on our board and anyone who takes this opportunity to DISRESPECT others on the board (yeah, that includes l'il old me), will be banned. We've already banned one person today and will continue to do so until everyone understands that YOUR OPINION is not the ULTIMATE opinion. That's why it's called...an opinion....

Even if my opinion is the Awesome Opinion? :)

Damned Martian

12-16-2003, 03:36 PM

Take a look at Metacritic's rating: 100/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/returnoftheking/)

That means that every single critic that they use have given it a 10/10. WOW again!

gspawn

12-16-2003, 04:07 PM

I do have to say I disagree with JoBlo completely on the first movie (9/10), although I definately understand his perspective on the second. Doesn't mean I'm going to start flaming like mad over it. RotK should be the best movie I've ever seen in my life, and if it's anything less I'm going to be quite unhappy. The story deserved nothing but perfection. I don't want to sound like I'm "hyping" the movie, it's just that Jackson took on one of the biggest movie projects ever and even he will have to own up to it if he didn't exceed expectation.

Here's hoping the movie is as good as it should be!
And now on to Kong... ;)

chinton

12-16-2003, 04:09 PM

I really dont understand this. Why are we treating these films like the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. They are jus t movies that are open to critcism like every other film. I salivate over HP but I still look at the films critically and have become more dissapointed with every viewing.

Cant we all just get along.

Or in the words of Timmy

"Come....on."

The Other

12-16-2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Damned Martian
Take a look at Metacritic's rating: 100/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/returnoftheking/)

That means that every single critic that they use have given it a 10/10. WOW again! No, that doesn't mean they all gave it a perfect grade, it just means every critic gave it a positive review so far, that's what it counts. So if someone gave it a 6/10, they still count that as a positive review and all.

Mike Sampson

12-16-2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by BarkingSparrow
Got any kids, Arrow?

Now THAT's funny. Can you imagine a little Arrow running around? That's almost as funny as seeing a little me running around. Oh wait....

Also funny is the using "JoBlo" and "hoity-toity" in the same sentence. Never thought I'd hear that adjective ascribed to my man B.

Jon Lyrik

12-16-2003, 05:14 PM

BarkingSparrow

12-16-2003, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by chinton
I really dont understand this. Why are we treating these films like the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. They are jus t movies that are open to critcism like every other film. I salivate over HP but I still look at the films critically and have become more dissapointed with every viewing.

Cant we all just get along.

Or in the words of Timmy

"Come....on."

Chinton: Ever have the experience where your town go nuts when a local football or basketball team gets to the Super Bowl or the NBA Finals or something like that? That's all everyone talks about and people go overboard with their enthusiasm.

In a way, the ROTK is like that. The books/movies have engendered a near fanatical following, and being the last film, ROTK is effectively the "Championship"; so the hype/excitement ramps up out of control, particularly when the pre-release reviews have been near uniform raves, plus the unexpected New York Critics Best Picture win, etc.

This is just one of those rare once-in-a-lifetime movie events. Just go with the flow, it'll be over soon enough.

Jon Lyrik

12-16-2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Homer
You had to respond in such a know-it-all way, didn't you? Instead of politely correcting him you had to state it in such a way that comes across as very rude and obnoxious.:confused:

Nay, Homer.

My posts come off with good intentions, without the want to be hostile.

Never tried to be rude or obnoxious.

If I came off that way, I didn't mean to.

Besides, if you read my posts for a while you can see I'm pretty tongue in cheek.

If you take me seriously, you should lighten up a little, I'm not trying to actually be mean, and like to think I'm not overall. This is Jon "Sarcoking" Lyrik you are speaking to, not a prophet of doom.

Since you are new here I'll give you a break, you probably don't about my real attitude here, I'm a nice guy, really.

-Jon.

miguel_montes

12-16-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by BarkingSparrow
Chinton: Ever have the experience where your town go nuts when a local football or basketball team gets to the Super Bowl or the NBA Finals or something like that? That's all everyone talks about and people go overboard with their enthusiasm.

In a way, the ROTK is like that.

I totally agree with you. But it's so much nicer if you say that it has already won, isn't it???
It's a victory party!!!! :D

usuallysuspected

12-16-2003, 06:15 PM

I am actually very happy that JoBlo gave this movie an imperfect reveiw as well. I have read so many positive reveiws that it's elevating my expectations way to high, I mean waaay to high. So thanks Jo, you helped to level me out some.

JoBlo

12-16-2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by usuallysuspected
I am actually very happy that JoBlo gave this movie an imperfect reveiw as well. I have read so many positive reveiws that it's elevating my expectations way to high, I mean waaay to high. So thanks Jo, you helped to level me out some.

There you go. That's probably the BEST WAY to look at my review. It'll lower your expectations so that ya'll will love it all that more! :)

Jon Lyrik

12-16-2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by JoBlo
There you go. That's probably the BEST WAY to look at my review. It'll lower your expectations so that ya'll will love it all that more! :)

Yes, but we fans are still going to encircle your house with pitchforks, axes, swords, bow-and-arrows and staffs for DARING to give ROTK a review less than 10,000,000,000,000/10.

Man, just 20 hours and 39 minutes left until I see it.

Can't..fuckin'...WAIT!!!

Tuukka

12-16-2003, 08:36 PM

Well, I've been looking forward to Joblo's review more than anything, and I thought it was an excellent review. I was guessing that he would give the film something from 6 to 8 anyway, so it's not suprising.

The thing is that even without seeing the film I know that he is giving valid points. In fact the same flaws have been noted by quite a few other people and to a degree the same flaws apply to previous films as well.

Along with that, the flaws have *mostly* to do with the book. If you like the book a lot, like I do, those flaws are unlikely to trouble you that much.

Dragged out ending? In the book. Too many characters many of whom don't really serve much story in the movies? It's a problem that comes straight from the book, which had more time to build the characters. Gandalf doing wizarding sometimes, sometimes not? Straight from the book, he tends to use his skills only when they serve a certain plot point Tolkien wants to make, not when it would be the most logical and useful to use them.

The book has it's flaws as well and most importantly it's pretty much unfilmable. The films would work better as films with heavier cutting and bigger changes, but book fans would have executed PJ if he would have done that.

Not everone is going to love these films. JoBlo never did. But he did like ROTK, despite disliking TTT. That's a good enough recommendation for me.

I'll be going to cinema to see it in 8 hours. I'm sure it will be a flawed film, just like the previous two were, but I also think that I'm going to like it quite a lot.

Andrew Tom

12-16-2003, 08:49 PM

I have no idea what I'm going to write. It's now 3:43 am, and I just came back from seeing The Return Of The King. Just like Tuukka said earlier, it's a film that's not for everyone. But for those who have cherised the movies that came before...this one will top them all. To me, this film is probably the most religious experience of my life. I'm still in awe. And I had read the books before seeing this film.

I'll write a short review on the "What did you think?" category later on, but I'll just say that, right now, approx. 20 minutes after the film ended, I feel like a completely other person. Laugh at it, if you will, but it was very emotional and deeply personal movie for me. 10/10. Best movie of the year. Wow...

therealjohng

12-16-2003, 08:52 PM

4 hours and 9 minutes till the midnight showing. I'm getting a little ancey.

Tuukka

12-16-2003, 08:55 PM

The best of the trilogy

It's a little silly for masterpiece status but Return of the King is a great achievement.

Roger Ebert

At last the full arc is visible and The Lord of the Rings trilogy comes into final focus. I admire it more as a whole than in its parts.

The second film was inconclusive and lost its way in the midst of spectacle. But The Return of the King dispatches its characters to their destinies with a grand and eloquent confidence. This is the best of the three, redeems the earlier meandering, and certifies the Ring trilogy as a work of bold ambition at a time of cinematic timidity.

That it falls a little shy of greatness is perhaps inevitable. The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece. It is a melancholy fact that while the visionaries of a generation ago, like Francis Ford Coppola with Apocalypse Now, tried frankly to make films of great consequence, an equally ambitious director like Peter Jackson is aiming more for popular success. The epic fantasy has displaced real contemporary concerns and audiences are much more interested in Middle-earth than in the world they inhabit.

Still, Jackson's achievement cannot be denied. The Return of the King is such a crowning achievement, such a visionary use of all the tools of special effects, such a pure spectacle, that it can be enjoyed even by those who have not seen the first two films.

Yes, they will be adrift during the early passages of the film's 200 minutes but to be adrift occasionally during this nine-hour saga comes with the territory; Tolkien's story is so sweeping and Jackson includes so much of it that only devoted students of the Ring can be sure they understand every character, relationship and plot point.

The third film gathers all of the plot strands and guides them toward the great battle at Minas Tirith; it is "before these walls that the doom of our time will be decided." The city is a spectacular achievement by the special effects artisans, who show it as part fortress, part Emerald City, topping a mountain, with a buttress reaching out over the plain below where the battle will be joined.

I complained that the second film, The Two Towers, seemed to shuffle the hobbits to the sidelines -- as humans, wizards, elves and orcs saw most of the action. The hobbits are back in a big way this time, as the heroic little Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his loyal friend Sam (Sean Astin) undertake a harrowing journey to return the Ring to Mount Doom -- where, if he can cast it into the volcano's lava, Middle-earth will be saved and the power of the enemy extinguished.

They are joined on their journey by the magnificently eerie, fish-fleshed, bug-eyed creature Sméagal/Gollum, who is voiced and modeled by Andy Serkis in collaboration with CGI artists, and introduced this time around with a brilliant device to illustrate his dual nature: He talks to his reflection in a pool and the reflection talks back. His Sméagal personality loves Frodo but his devious Gollum side loves the Ring more.

Although the movie contains epic action sequences of awe-inspiring scope (including the massing of troops for the final battle), the two most inimitable special effects creations are Gollum, who seems as real as anyone else on the screen, and a monstrous spider named Shelob. As Sam battles the spider, we're reminded of all the other movie battles between men and giant insects, and we concede that, yes, this time they got it right.

The final battle is kind of magnificent. We see men and even an army of the dead join battle against orcs, flying dragons and vast lumbering elephantine creatures that serve as moving platforms for machines of war. As a flaming battering-ram challenges the gates of the city, we feel the size and weight and convincing shudder of impacts that exist only in the imagination.

3.5/4

Tuukka

12-16-2003, 08:58 PM

"That it falls a little shy of greatness is perhaps inevitable. The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece.

RE:

Yes, it was a praising review for the movie, but I find this quote stupid. If someone else would have said it, I could agree with his point of view, but Ebert is well known for declaring MUCH SILLIER movies as masterpieces.

But I have always considered Ebert to be an awfully inconsistent writer, even if he is really good at his best.

BarkingSparrow

12-16-2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by therealjohng
4 hours and 9 minutes till the midnight showing. I'm getting a little ancey.

Speaking of midnight showings, they've sold out 6 of the 7 screens at a theater nearby, and two of those screens are 350+ seaters. In Columbus, OH, one theater has sold out 23 out of 24 screens.

Lynn Minmei

12-16-2003, 10:19 PM

Urgh. Some (Inevitably "hoity-toity" ;) ) critics have sent RotK's Tomato-meter down to 98% with two negative reviews, meaning that it falls short of such 100% cinematic classics like ROBOCOP or THE BREAKFAST CLUB.

Ron34

12-16-2003, 10:40 PM

YOu guys are freakin crazy for who ever is seeing a midnight sneek peek. YOull be coming back around 3:30, thats really freakin late. Why dont people see it tomorrow, it wont freakin hurt.

Im bored, so I just wrote this, theres nothing else to do.

Lynn Minmei

12-16-2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Ron34
YOu guys are freakin crazy for who ever is seeing a midnight sneek peek. YOull be coming back around 3:30, thats really freakin late. Why dont people see it tomorrow, it wont freakin hurt.

Im bored, so I just wrote this, theres nothing else to do.

Some nights I don't even go to sleep. 3:30 am is nothing.

therealjohng

12-16-2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
Some nights I don't even go to sleep. 3:30 am is nothing.

Plus I have the day off. Then there's the second viewing. At 3:15 p.m.

My god, I am a movie nerd, and damnit, I'm proud to admit it.

Lynn Minmei

12-16-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by therealjohng
Plus I have the day off. Then there's the second viewing. At 3:15 p.m.

My god, I am a movie nerd, and damnit, I'm proud to admit it.

It's good that you can admit it, because we all know you are anyways ;)

Gone in 60sec

12-16-2003, 10:53 PM

19 HOURS TILL I SEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM SO FUCKIN EXCITED I CAN'T WAIT............AND EVERY TIME I SEE A TV SPOT I GET PISSED OFF BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE ITS LIKE TOURTURING ME LIKE TEASING ME IT SUCKS BUT THIS TIME TOMORROW ILL BE IN THE THEATER

Lynn Minmei

12-16-2003, 10:54 PM

I get to wait until Friday to see it. Yay.

ToRontoRon

12-17-2003, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Lynn Minmei
Urgh. Some (Inevitably "hoity-toity" ;) ) critics have sent RotK's Tomato-meter down to 98% with two negative reviews, meaning that it falls short of such 100% cinematic classics like ROBOCOP or THE BREAKFAST CLUB.

Well, I don't think anyone, even the biggest LOTR nerds, were putting ROTK in the same class as Robocop or The Breakfast Club.;)

ilovemovies

12-17-2003, 12:36 AM

Approx. 16 hours left until I see it, boy I can't wait!

Too bad I have to get through work first tomorrow :mad:

Lynn Minmei

12-17-2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by ToRontoRon
Well, I don't think anyone, even the biggest LOTR nerds, were putting ROTK in the same class as Robocop or The Breakfast Club.;)

I put some saracasm on "classics" when I said it.

darkface

12-17-2003, 01:28 AM

LMAO

I was just watching my local news, and they were at the line for LOTR the first midnight showing... and there were two narfs/nerds dressed up with all their shit, and they had a fucking wedding! They had everyone else dress up, and while in line for the movie they had a f'n wedding! Some people man. Hey- i totally understand being a fan of a movie, but to dress up like a character for your wedding while in line for a lotr movie. Give me a break!

DareDevil

12-17-2003, 01:45 AM

ITS good to be back on the boards!

well i got to see this movie a day earlier due to my conections, and WOW, seals what everyone was thinking, lotr is the greatest triliogy in movie history

this movie is an epic breathtaking spectacular film, i will bet m bottom dollar that it sweeps the oscars, but that doesnt meen much, its just great, loved it, so many memrobale scenes

loved when leogalas took on the elephant

"that only counts as one"

10/10

first 10/10 of 2003 i would say

The Delfonics

12-17-2003, 01:50 AM

WHOW!!

First off Id like to admit I have never seen the Trilogy and I did attend Trilogy Tuesday.

WHAT A SERIES!

Fellowship of the Ring - 8/10
Two Towers - 9/10
Return of the King - 8/10

Everyone also got film cell/frame collectibles if you attended from new line!

http://i17.ebayimg.com/01/i/01/10/15/df_1.JPG

Annie Hall

12-17-2003, 04:22 AM

I too just returned from Trilogy Tuesday (kickass gifts, thanks New Line!)...and...I'm in awe. Peter Jackson is...a God. I'll write a fuller review tomorrow, when I can collect my thoughts...but...let me just say; 10/10.

Tuukka

12-17-2003, 04:25 AM

35 minutes to the show... I'm just leaving work to go to cinema. I will write my thoughts probably later today.

Damned Martian

12-17-2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by The Other
No, that doesn't mean they all gave it a perfect grade, it just means every critic gave it a positive review so far, that's what it counts. So if someone gave it a 6/10, they still count that as a positive review and all. Metacritic makes a balanced average of the ratings that critics have given to the movie (not all critics, just the ones they selected as the most important and trustful). So a perfect 100 indicates that all of them have given it a 100/100. Right now, it has been lowered to a 95/100, but still is a great metascore! In fact, one of the bests of the year.

It's Rotten Tomatoes the site that takes into account just the positiveness or negativeness of reviews to make its Tomatometer.

Shockwave

12-17-2003, 07:20 AM

I must admit, it impressed me but god almighty, it was long winded at the end! It faded to black at least 4 times and was waaaaay to loose with its screen time after the war had been won. End it already!!

The Sarumon thing was swept under the carpet much better then i expected but with the overly long ending i dont see why they cut some of the things they did. This was a movie u could TELL had been edited down from a much larger scale. Whatever happend to the Witch King "breaking" Gandalf? He said he was going to, then did nothing. Many things like this made it feel a little choppy.

Overall it did its job very well, but its far from a masterpiece. 7/10

*On a side note, i feel like this will benifit from the EE even more the TT or FOTR.

blankpage

12-17-2003, 08:48 AM

DAMN! 4 Pm can't come soon enough. I've been waiting a whole year for this....and now the day has come. I'm fucking shaking. I'm so excited! :)

Tuukka

12-17-2003, 09:27 AM

Saw it, loved it.

I was suprised how fast time flew by. FOTR and TTT dragged in places, but ROTK has a much stronger sense of momentum. Multiple endings didn't bother me at all, in fact I appreciated them. Made the experience much fuller to see the life after the war.

I think that the final 20 minutes will be a benefit commercially, I don't think I have EVER heard so many people crying in a theatre. It didn't move me that much, but then again I'm a cold hearted bastard.

Action scenes were awesome, the general scope was bigger than anything I have ever seen. Tech credits were extremely high as usual, the SFX was the best of the trilogy.

All the characters really came through in this film, especially Sam and Frodo. Acting was strong, as expected.

The overall quality was a bit incoherent, as with previous films. A great scene is followed by a mediocre scene only to be followed by a great scene again. The editing was a bit choppy at times, I didn't get a good sense of time that had passed.

I also felt that some scenes fell short of their potential. I was expecting some book moments to be truly iconic on screen, but they were "only" really good and that's it.

But in this case the whole is much more than just a sum of it's parts. It's a hugely entertaining film with wit, heart, style and visionary tendencies.

I loved it. I will see it again. Many times.

After one viewing feels like the best film of the trilogy and the best film of the year (winning City Of God). Enters my top 20 of all time.

9/10.

gyro_44

12-17-2003, 10:33 AM

I do not know quite how to respond to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. I'm currently functioning on very little sleep, having seen the midnight show last night. So I will be brief for now.

ROTK is one of the most staggering works of film craft I have ever seen. At least half-a-dozen times during the film, tears welled up in my eyes, my breathing became irregular, and I started to shake. Perhaps that was the three cups of coffee I had a few hours prior, but I don't think so. This is an intensely powerful experience.

The Siege of Gondor/Pelennor Fields is awesome. There has never been anything of this scope on screen before. Not EVER. The charge of the Rohirrim (and Bernard Hill's extraordinary rallying speech) is one of the greatest pure movie moments I have ever witnessed. It is then followed by the arrival of the Oliphaunts, during which my jaw almost became permanantly fixed wide open.

The hobbits come into their own. Special kudos to Ian McKellen, Hill, and particularly Elijah Wood and Sean Astin, who make the hobbits' final trek up Mount Doom grueling, emotional and unforgettable. This portion of the film just about destroyed me.

ROTK takes a while to get chugging, but once it does the movie is like a fell beast out of hell. Pacing/intercutting of action is much improved over TTT. In a way, this is the most perfunctory of the three films, and the most conventional. But it's also the most impressive. Wait, that's putting it mildly... it's one of the most impressive accomplishments in film history.

The final 20-minute stretch is indeed long. It also contains some of my favorite moments from the film. I would not have missed them for the world. Thank you Peter Jackson.

I do not see any other choice but to award this a 10.

BarkingSparrow

12-17-2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Tuukka
Saw it, loved it.

I loved it. I will see it again. Many times.

After one viewing feels like the best film of the trilogy and the best film of the year (winning City Of God). Enters my top 20 of all time.

9/10.

I was curious to see your take, Tukka, since you always seemed to have a bit more of a level-headed view on these films. Glad to see your positive reaction. Very encouraging. Your comment on the "crying", sounds almost like another Titanic in the making.

Gotta wait until Friday before I can see it<sigh>.

Tuukka

12-17-2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by BarkingSparrow
I was curious to see your take, Tukka, since you always seemed to have a bit more of a level-headed view on these films. Glad to see your positive reaction. Very encouraging. Your comment on the "crying", sounds almost like another Titanic in the making.

Gotta wait until Friday before I can see it<sigh>.

RE:

The film does have it's flaws. It's bit cheesy at times, a bit overly sentimental, and so on. It shares the same flaws that previous films had, but like I said, the momentum is stronger. It feels that the story builds all the time instead of just wondering around like it partially did with previous films.

Of course I'm a reader. I'm pretty sure that many non-readers find scenes in the film that don't seem to fit so well in overall context. I can connect the dots more easily, and I'm already anticipating extraneous stuff that is in the books, but is not that necessary in the context of the movies.

Yeah, Titanic came to my mind. In fact I would say that the two films have pretty much the same amount of crying people in the final moments.

Having said that, I suspect that the shows on the very first days are full of people who are already fans of the movies and/or the book. So they are going to get more emotional than a standard viewer.

Still, I think the film will have outstanding legs, multiple endings or not.

Tuukka

12-17-2003, 11:11 AM

So what are people's favourite moments in the film? Remember to mark spoilers. Some of the first favourites that come to mind are unexpected things, something that I didn't really consider as a potential highlight:

*** SPOILERS ***

I loved it when the lights were lit on the mountains. Awesome scene.

Theoden's speech and the ride of the Rohirrim.

Pippin sings for Denethor when Faramir charges to battle.

Denethor runs through the yard and falls to the city. Impressive shot, very dramatic.

"I can't carry the ring, but I can carry you".

The black gate opens and the enemy surrounds the heroes. Biblical stuff.

Eowyn Vs. Wiki.

The first sight of the lighthouse eye. I loved this consept, even if many probably think it's cheesy.

Blah... Now that I think of it, there are TOO MANY scenes to mention. It was easier to point out favourite scenes in previous movies...

Annie Hall

12-17-2003, 12:49 PM

SPOILERS********

My favorite parts include...

-Eowyn and the Witch King (Hardcore!)

-Gandalf and Pippin riding to save Faramir whilst he is retreating (incredible shot)

-Anytime that Sam won a battle...Sean Astin deserves Best Supporting Actor, as far as I'm concerned

-The opening (Way to go Andry Serkis)

-Pippin sings for Denethor

-The scene at the harbor

-The scene at the bar in Hobbiton, superb acting all around.

I really think that this one shows WHY PJ casted who he did for each of the roles. Eowyn, Merry and Faramir all came into their own at one point or another, the latter doing so with such subtlety that it really blew me away. Every single performance is perfection, and, if I am not mistaken, I'm heading to my second viewing in about 10 minutes.

HHH123007

12-17-2003, 12:54 PM

SPOILERS

I'm upset, the Witch King was soooooo Darth Maul-ed. :rolleyes:

Shockwave

12-17-2003, 12:59 PM

I'm upset, the Witch King was soooooo Darth Maul-ed.

Thats the way he went in the book also however. Cheer up, im sure the scene between him and Gandalf in going to be on the EE so u have even more witch king to look forward to!

My fav scene (and one i totaly forgot about!) was the army of the dead scene.They reminded me of something out of The Evil Dead or PJ own horror movies.'

So far my trilogy standing goes-

FOTR-10 EE-10

TT-6 EE-8

ROTK-7-8 even though i gave it a 7 above im thinking it may have been the shitty theatre i was in(the sound went out 5 TIMES during the movie!) and other factors i wont bother to mention.

HHH123007

12-17-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Shockwave
My fav scene (and one i totaly forgot about!) was the army of the dead scene.They reminded me of something out of The Evil Dead or PJ own horror movies.

I laughed at the part where you just see them sweep over everything in the background while Aragorn is walking around.

therealjohng

12-17-2003, 01:10 PM

Good but not great. My first score is a 7/10. I'm leaving in an hour to go see it again.

Best scene is easily Eowyn vs. the Witch King.

Guy Strong

12-17-2003, 01:43 PM

This is a great Trilogy .... maybe the best ever?

The Fellowship of the Ring - 8.5/10
The Two Towers - - 8/10
The Return of the King - 9/10

Damn! ... ROTK is a great movie, and I think it's the best of the Trilogy.

Guy Strong

12-17-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by therealjohng
Good but not great. My first score is a 7/10. I'm leaving in an hour to go see it again.

Best scene is easily Eowyn vs. the Witch King.

Ditto!! ... That is a great scene, and The Witch King is fuckin' awesome!!!

Shockwave

12-17-2003, 01:59 PM

I laughed at the part where you just see them sweep over everything in the background while Aragorn is walking around.

Hell yeah! They swarmed over EVERYTHING like locusts! I loved how i got to see them take down the giant elephant in the background. Grade A stuff right there!

blankpage

12-17-2003, 02:34 PM

I'm leaving in a minute to go see it....OH BOY!!!! :D

JCR

12-17-2003, 04:14 PM

My favourite scenes were the one where the spider was behind frodo and the gollom opening. Peter Jackson the horror director shines through. :)

FOTR 10/10
TTT 9/10
ROTK 9/10

adamjohnson

12-17-2003, 04:19 PM

"Well, I'm back."

Just saw it. Greatness movie.

FAve scene: Sam putting Frodo on his back. It was the one scene I was begging them to include, its the most heartfelt moment between them, and shows Sams true devotion.

Did feel jipped though that it wasnt Merry that killed the Witch-King with his own blade, as was done in the books. But that scene still kicked ass.

Maximus721

12-17-2003, 04:44 PM

Amazing. 10/10. No need for a lengthy review as it's one of the best films I've ever seen. Go see it now!

urbanlegend23

12-17-2003, 06:18 PM

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)

THE GOOD:

I'm splitting up my THE GOOD part of this film into separate sections, because it's too hard to evaluate as one.

CHARACTERS AND PERFORMANCES:

Elijah Wood as Frodo - Wood gives a terrific, tormented performance as Frodo really going through the hardships and bearing the burden of the ring. The physical transformation he goes through is fascinating.

Ian McKellen as Gandalf - A determined performance from McKellen and we really get to see Gandalf kick some ass in this film. I was totally into the craziness with the staff; damn that old man can kick ass!

Liv Tyler as Arwen - Though Tyler does get more screen-time in this episode, she still doesn't have enough to completely sell me on her character.

Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn - Another fierce performance from Mortensen, determined and soulful at the same time. Aragorn develops into a true king in this film, and finalises his romance with Arwen.

Sean Astin as Sam - If anyone gets nominated for anything this year at the Oscars, it's gotta be Astin. His performance is so beautiful and moving, and his determination was such a great move for the character.

Cate Blanchett as Galadriel - She's very beautiful and Elvish, but sometimes Blanchett seems too much like the narrator of the story and not a character.

Orlando Bloom as Legolas - Legolas doesn't really have that much to do in this film. He still kicks ass and Bloom is still effective, though more of him would've been appreciated.

Billy Boyd as Pippin and Dominic Monaghan as Merry - These two have developed so much over the course of the three films, it's been fantastic watching them grow as actors and characters. The turns they both take in "The Return of the King" are surprising and not at all laughable like I thought they would be.

Bernard Hill as Theoden - Theoden steps up a notch and becomes a true leader in "The Return of the King", he was a really good character and Hill gave an appreciatively subtle performance.

Ian Holm as Bilbo - A small performance though it was appreciated to wrap up his character and Holm added that great little tingle to the end of the movie.

Andy Serkis as Gollum/Smeagol - Just as effective as he was in the previous entries as the double personality of Gollum/Smeagol. I was also pleased that Serkis got rewarded with us getting to see his true form at the very beginning of the film for around 10 minutes. Getting to see the transformation of Gollum was a treat!

John Noble as Denethor - A very intriguing character with a lot of layers. Noble did a great job of making him dark and both sympathetic.

Miranda Otto as Eowyn - WOW! Otto was probably my favourite of this final LOTR film. Her fierce determination and completely plausible performance as Eowyn makes her deserve an Oscar nomination this year for Best Supporting Actress.

Hugo Weaving as Elrond - Weaving really improves on his performance from "Fellowship" and "Towers" and delivers a solid show, giving more depth to the character of Elrond.

DIRECTING

An amazing directing effort from Peter Jackson. He brought the dramatic scenes across with such natural ability and I was completely sold, even close to tears at some points in the film. And his directing of the action…WOW. Just watch it and you'll understand. If Jackson does not receive an Academy Award this year, I will be so angered. If this happens, expect me to be locking the entire Academy in a small room with Jason Voorhees.

ACTION

You thought Helms Deep was big? Well, things are about to get a whole lot HUGER in this film. The Battle of Pellennor Fields was a stunning achievement for film. First we get orcs, then big Sauron look alikes, Nazgul, then those ginormous elephant creatures with servants of Sauron atop them! Fantastic! I thought that the scene where Eowyn is facing off against the "unkillable" black rider was the best of the Pellennor fields battle. That was wonderful, with a terrific performance from Miranda Otto.

TECHNICAL ASPECTS

Well, it's a LOTR film. What do you expect? The technical aspects were TERRIFIC! Andrew Lesnie's photography was once again fascinating and great eye candy. I especially love the work in Mt Doom, and also the shot of Aragorn, Gandalf and a couple of other characters walking away from the Black Gate as thousands of Orcs come marching up behind them. The imagery of the men being fully surrounded in a circle by Orcs was unforgettable and horrifying to watch.

I was warned to take earmuffs to the movie but I did not listen. I get the idea why I was warned. The sound in this movie is AMAZING and accurate and VERY LOUD. But that's not at all a bad thing. It helps with the tension and horror of the war scenes and the atmosphere during that scene where the orc/Uruk army comes storming out of the enemies' palace situated by the ladder to Mordor.

The visual effects were stunning, and better than they were in the first two movies. The Mt Doom stuff was flawless effects, Gollum/Smeagol still looked wonderful, and Shelob was a terrific visual achievement. Of all the giant spiders I've seen, she had to be the best.

The makeup was still incredible, the costumes fitting and the art direction fantastic.

THE BAD:

--This is more for the sake of Christopher Lee, but I think it kinda sucks that he didn't get a final scene with just his character. Lee worked hard on the films and should've at least got a final curtain cut or something.

--The movie is a little slow at the beginning, but the amazing work later in the film covers all that up flawlessly.

--This wasn't a big thing, but "The Return of the King" seemed to want to end at about 6 or 7 different places. The screen kept blacking out and I thought it was the end, and then we got another scene, and so on. I would've just liked one long montage, showing what happens to the characters, instead of the semi-awkward blackouts.

--It was stopped after a short while and had a great line ("THAT STILL ONLY COUNTS AS ONE!") but the fact that Gimli and Legolas were counting how many things they killed slightly hurt the seriousness of the Pellennor Fields battle.

RATING:

10/10 - Despite extremely minor flaws, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is the best film of 2003 and also what I consider to be the greatest movie achievement of all time.

IF YOU LIKED THIS MOVIE I RECOMMEND:

Braveheart (6/10)
Gladiator (9/10)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (9/10)
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (9/10)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (10/10)
The Matrix Revolutions (7/10)

Fisting Ackbar

12-17-2003, 06:34 PM

SPOILERS

Originally posted by JCR
Peter Jackson the horror director shines through. :)

The quick shot of the King of the Dead and Aragorn seeing some ghostlike statue in his dream were incredibly creepy.

Oh, and I don't feel like typing all my feelings at the moment - I might do that later - but this is easily the best of the three, and my new favorite movie of the year.

Common Sense Man

12-17-2003, 07:57 PM

Well I have been thinking about what I would say all day since I saw ROTK.

It can easily be said that it will take some contemplation and at least a few more viewings to get my final feelings.

I am so anticipating the EE version.

PJ is genius.

At first glance some may see flaws in this flick as he has changed some of the plot a bit and the ending is long.

But I have a feeling after a few weeks, or months go by more and more people will agree that this movie kicked ass and was a fitting end to this epic story.

I, like Tuukka have read much about the world of Middle Earth and all the books several times.

I think that my long awaited anticipation of all that I was hoping for has colored my opinion a bit.

I need to see the movie again and just watch and not keep wondering to myself how this part is going to be portrayed or if it will be included at all.

FOTR instantly struck a chord with me as being right, as it was the first glimpse of Middle Earth and PJ nailed it.

And ROTK was indeed a very emotional movie and unlike Big T. I felt a few tears roling down my face at times.

I can easily see where certain scenes have been removed or should I say I can easily see where certain scenes could be inserted.

But the acting was fantastic. It was nice to finally see Merry and Pippin get a chance to show their quality.

There is so much subtext, so much left unsaid, simple looks between characters. I feel sorry for the people who have not read the books.

I think that is part of the reason some critics pan it while others love it, it all depends on your background and if you know or even care about Tolkiens works.

I can say about the only thing I was disappointed in was Sams rescue of Frodo.

I was really looking forwad to seeing Sam show his courage and shine in that bit of heroism.

But I always wondered how they would depict that. As when you wear the ring in PJ's LOTR it appears it would not be an easy thing to move about let alone fight.

And showing his shadow seemed to kind of lessen his courage, making it seem he was lucky not brave.

Luckily for me they redeemed him several times over before the film was thru.

And if you look at LOTR as one movie, ROTK does feel much different than the previous two installments. It dispenses with much of the preamble or build up and gets right to the meat of the matter, as a Third Act would in a single movie.

I am still astounded that PJ has pulled this off and done it so successfully.

Thank God!

I will eagerly be heading back to the theater as soon as I can.

Thank you Mr. Jackson.

Out...........................................

Jon Lyrik

12-17-2003, 08:02 PM

Saw it.

Loved it.

The battle scenes are breathtaking, the acting incredible, the special effects utterly unbelievable, the direction about as tops as possible.

I might have a new favorite film...

See it, or I will send oliphants crashing into your house. ;)

dannywalker17

12-17-2003, 08:36 PM

Saw it on Trilogy Tuesday. Freakin' amazing movie. I love it. 10/10 easily. I'm about to go see it again and will be seeing it a third time tomorrow night. I'll post my thoughts later.

therealjohng

12-17-2003, 08:54 PM

Just got back from my second viewing and it's better the second time. 8/10. For this one and the entire trilogy.

Favorite character from the series: Eowyn.

therealjohng

12-17-2003, 08:57 PM

By the way, the best trailer attached to ROTK had to be that kick ass teaser for I, Robot.

The teaser for Spiderman 2 blows.

LexLuthor

12-17-2003, 09:11 PM

im gonna keep this short cause i have been writing about this all day...
not a way to end the trilogy....it all hinged on the end, and i dont think they executed it well.....
the movie as a whole, was quite boring....
and yes i am an LOTR fan...
and well too many cuts and nothing left but simple plot points elaborated to death.
we'll see though.....later if i change my mind...
but for now BLAH i say! BLAH! to the undeveloped King! :rolleyes:

Maximus721

12-17-2003, 09:43 PM

Ok now that I've had some time to sort things out I'll just do a good bad type breakdown:

Good:

Battle Sequences - Amazing
Special Effects - Terrific
Acting - Great
Editing was much better than TTT's editing, cutting between stories
The introduction to the Army of the Dead
Just about every scene that isnt in my bad section;)

Bad:

The opening scene was unnecessary and overlong
The army of the dead blob on Pellennor
The editing of the final 15 minutes, too many fades to black
The palantir scene was not very good and added nothing to the story

Overall, 10/10, Best Film of the Year, best film of the Decade

(FOTR gets a 9/10 and TTT a 8.5/10 for their theatrical releases)

Jon Lyrik

12-17-2003, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Maximus721
The editing of the final 15 minutes, too many fades to black

The fades to white did seem ever so slightly intrusive, but it was inevitable to end it that way without seeming massively anti-climatic.

Scarface98.9

12-17-2003, 11:22 PM

I've been operating on 2-3 hours of sleep since Monday night, so I won't be very in depth now. But I will say that:

ROTK is the near-perfect way to end one of my favorite trilogies of all time.

9/10

Lynn Minmei

12-17-2003, 11:27 PM

RotK pulled in $8 Million dollars, twice that the original made during midnight showings. Nice.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106068,00.html

ToRontoRon

12-17-2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by urbanlegend23
IF YOU LIKED THIS MOVIE I RECOMMEND:

Braveheart (6/10)
Gladiator (9/10)

This is clearly another debate for another board, but didn't you think that Gladiator "borrowed" a lot from Braveheart? I just thought a lot of it was a rip-off. Oh well, to each his own.

Here are my ratings for each of these, for what it's worth:

Braveheart 10/10
Gladiator 3/10

Tuukka

12-18-2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by ToRontoRon
This is clearly another debate for another board, but didn't you think that Gladiator "borrowed" a lot from Braveheart? I just thought a lot of it was a rip-off. Oh well, to each his own.

RE:

I always disagreed with this. The reason? Both films are so heavily drawing from the classic epics (both from movies and literature), that they simply share the same inspiration. Braveheart is also a very derivative film, just like Gladiator. But being derivative is not really a bad thing, when both films are just continuing a long going tradition, acknowledging their influences.

I like both very much. I would give each 8/10.

Common Sense Man

12-18-2003, 12:47 AM

I mentioned this in another thread but did anyone else notice that the first fade to black was very long. As if to signify the end of the main story.

The rest was sort of an epilouge. Don't get me wrong I am still very glad it was included.

But it had to be hard for PJ to have anything after the climax at Mt. Doom, but the story called for much more.

Can you imagine if they would have added the scouring of the Shire! Now I can easily see why it was cut.

And I thought the opening scene was great.

It helped the people that have never read the books learn more about Gollum and what motivated him.

Ah I just found out today there is an old art house one screen theater within walking distance of my house that is showing ROTK.

I anticipate many a afternoon there, starting tomorrow!

Out.............................................

Nachokoolaid

12-18-2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Tuukka
Saw it, loved it.

I was suprised how fast time flew by. FOTR and TTT dragged in places, but ROTK has a much stronger sense of momentum. Multiple endings didn't bother me at all, in fact I appreciated them. Made the experience much fuller to see the life after the war.

I think that the final 20 minutes will be a benefit commercially, I don't think I have EVER heard so many people crying in a theatre. It didn't move me that much, but then again I'm a cold hearted bastard.

Action scenes were awesome, the general scope was bigger than anything I have ever seen. Tech credits were extremely high as usual, the SFX was the best of the trilogy.

All the characters really came through in this film, especially Sam and Frodo. Acting was strong, as expected.

The overall quality was a bit incoherent, as with previous films. A great scene is followed by a mediocre scene only to be followed by a great scene again. The editing was a bit choppy at times, I didn't get a good sense of time that had passed.

I also felt that some scenes fell short of their potential. I was expecting some book moments to be truly iconic on screen, but they were "only" really good and that's it.

But in this case the whole is much more than just a sum of it's parts. It's a hugely entertaining film with wit, heart, style and visionary tendencies.

I loved it. I will see it again. Many times.

After one viewing feels like the best film of the trilogy and the best film of the year (winning City Of God). Enters my top 20 of all time.

9/10.

I pretty much agree with everything that is said here. I have a few comments, and yes, there are SPOILERS.

I loved this film, wholeheartedly, but when you love something so deeply, you will be that much more critical. So I must say that Peter Jackson, while a genius and all, really dropped the ball in a few spots. Well, maybe not dropped, but fumbled a bit. Where was the showdown between Gandalf and the witch king?

Ok, that part doesn't even bother me that bad. I'll get staight to the most upsetting part. THE moment from the book, at least for me, is when Eowyn confronts the Witch King. I cried, CRIED, when I read that. That is SO powerful in the book, and in the film it's sort of passed over. Not nearly as good as I imagined in my head, and that is the first time I can say that with these films. Everything in the movies has matched or surpassed my expectations, except that moment, and that's a true shame.

And it should have been hidden more that Eowyn was riding to battle. The only person that was oblivious was Theoden. In the book, there's the whole Dernhelm angle, and all that, and that helped the payoff when she removes the helm and says "I am no man!" As soon as she picks Merry up, he says, " Hello my lady," or something like that. Way to blow a great opportunity PJ!

But, it wasn't BAD. But where the hell is the houses of healing. What happened to Eowyn and Faramir? OH, there they are at Aragorn's coronation. They must have hooked up behind the scenes. RUBBISH!

So in order of PJ's screw ups-
1. Eowyn vs. Witch king
2. No Houses of Heling or relationship between Faramir and Eowyn at all.
3. No Gandalf vs. Witch King

Now, it may not seem like it at this point, but here are the things that kicked total ass.

1. Sean Astin= Academy Award Winning performance in a supporting role. Who the hell would have thought that Mickey from the Goonies could pull that off? I didn't think he had it in him, and I was WRONG. Sam is my fave character, by far, from the book, and I thought he was shortchanged until ROTK, where he absolutely steals the movie, even from Gollum. Bravo, Sean.
2. Battle of Pellenor Fields. WOW. That's all I can say. Charge of the Rohirrim=amazing. Best part of the battle.
3. Paths of the Dead. Way better than I thought. Blocking the dead leaders attack with Anduril was a nice touch. He was suitably creepy too.
4. Pippin gets his props, finally, and Billy Boyd delivers. Plus, Denethor is great. Props to John Noble too.
5. The endings, which I thought were great for the whole story (all three films). But if we're going to see 20 minutes, why not show what happens to Legolas, Gimli, Faramir, Eowyn, etc.
6. Howard Shore proves he's THE composer for great film music.
7. Lighting the beacons along the moutains. GREAT personal touch by Pj and the rest of the design team that I didn't expect. Very nice.
8. the one "money shot" (the other films seemed to have a couple more iconic "money shots". but for me, it's Gandalf and Pippin riding out to save the fleeing Gondorians amid the fell beasts, with the white light. Very nice.
9. Shelob creeping above Frodo. PJ really, amazingly, took his time here and played with the audience. At the theatre I was at, people began screaming at Frodo, "Turn around. It's behind you." Awesome. Creepy. Horror movie stuff.

I'd say at least 9/10, probably 10/10, maybe even 11/10. :)

One weird thing. I cried three times in FOTR (First seeing Gadalf ride into the shire (my dream envisioned), Gandalf's fall, and Boromir's death), Twice in TTT (Theodred's death, etc, and the Forth Eorlingas Gandalf's charge scene, and None in ROTK. I really expected to cry MUCH more here. That's odd to me.

Oh, and if Peter Jackson doesn't win the Oscar for Best Director, SHAME on the Academy for being lifeless, blah blah blah, etc.

There's much more I could write, but that'll do. Anyone out there agree with me, disagree? I'd love to know.