|
Comments index for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Date: 1 May 2004
Summary: A Grand Finale to the Greatest Movie Trilogy of All Time
The trouble with most film trilogies, is that part 3 can't possibly live up
to the standards of parts 1 & 2. For instance, "Godfather Part
III"--despite having a better screenplay than part II--was doomed due to bad
acting and poor direction. And "Return of the Jedi" was sabotaged by the
presence of Ewoks--who served no useful function in the plot--and by a
hackneyed ending. Not only does "LOTR: Return of the King" avoid these
pitfalls, it is actually superior to the first two installments.
The main thing I liked about this movie was the way the city of Minas Tirith
was presented as a city whose buildings, streets and battlements were all
carved out of a mountainside. Although the city was shown several times
throughout the movie, I was awestruck each time it was shown. I also really
liked the CGI effects (and this goes for the whole trilogy). I know that
most of the visual effects were CGI, but I rarely *saw* that they were CGI
(the only exception being the beacon bonfires; you can't set that much wood
on fire without any smoke).
But visual flash alone wasn't what made this movie for me. There was also
the fact that all the characters were 3-dimensional even in this shortened
theatrical release. In "The Two Towers" you only got that from the extended
DVD edition. Particularly, I liked John Noble as Demethor, the leader of
the most powerful free country in Middle Earth who is done in by his mad
lust for control and utter refusal to take his allies' advice or make
sensible war plans (one wonders if Peter Jackson & co were making a comment
on the current leader of New Zealand's most powerful ally).
The only problem I had with this movie was the overlong epilogue. And given
the epic nature of the trilogy, I am not about to hold that against the
film. The greatest movie trilogy of all time deserves to have an auspicious
ending, and "The Return of the King" is just that. 10 out of
10.
Date: 27 April 2004
Summary: Best Movie Ever!!!
Screw Finding Nemo,Lord of the Rings the Return of the King is absoutly
the
single greatest film EVER!!! Everything is just stunning about this film
the
actors, the story, the action, and the special effects.
I think that Ian Mckellen should have been up for best actor during the
Oscars.
And finally the fields of Pelenor scene is absoutly the single greatest
scene ever in a film that will have you at the edge of your seat with your
heart pounding like hell throught the entire scene.
Now that I have all the postivies out of the way let say some of the very
few negatives. Some of the scenes should have been in films
1 and 2 here is the list
*SPOLIER ALERT*
-Foreging of Narcil
-Shelobs lair
-Plantir of Saurman
Also where is Saurman?
To sum up this review Finding Nemo is the worst film ever Return of the
King
is the best.
Date: 27 April 2004
Summary: My Favorite Movie!!! I am so obsessed with the Lord of the Rings!!!
Return of the King is my favorite movie of all-time!!! The action
is my favorite and the throughout the whole movie I had chills down my back
because of the lines King Theoden sais and Viggo Mortensen and definitely
the action. All of the scenes were so unforgettable and the whole movie is a
timeless quality. I am such a huge fan by reading Tolkien's books over 5
times and watching this film over 6 times!!! The battles of this film is
amazing, like no others with Saving Private Ryan coming very close. I am
obsessed!!! I actually cried at the end of the movie which is weird. If you
have not seen this movie, you better damn well see it. I love you Lord of
the Rings, you'll never go away from me. Hats off to you and excellent job
Peter Jackson and J.R.R Tolkien making this a brilliant brilliant
film.
10/10!!!Favorite Film, Actually I'd give it a 100/10!!!
Beautiful
Date: 27 April 2004
Summary: Classic!
To say that this is an epic movie might be an understatement,
especially in a time when movies such as Armageddon, Independence
Day,
and The Hulk are considered to be "epic" movies. True epic movies,
you
see, have not only bombast and pomp but also portend Great
Importance.
An epic movie is one that establishes a tone of deep meaning,
not
harmless fluff.
And so it is with all three of the Lord of the Rings movies. In
The
Fellowship of the Ring (2001), we learn of a bad of nine
travelers
with the task of returning the One Ring to the fires of Mount
Doom,
from which the adornment was made. In The Two Towers (2002), we
follow
their travails as some of the members split up, with returning
the
ring still the ultimate goal. Now, with The Return of the King, we
see
their tales told in full. Will Frodo and Sam make it to Mount
Doom,
past the gigantic army of orcs, without the Lidless Eye spotting
them?
Will Aragorn (the King of the title) be able to rally enough troops
to
forestall the orc attacks? Will any of the original Fellowship
fall
along the way, to be forgotten except in hobbit songs evermore?
The story thread picks up right where The Two Towers left off.
Frodo
(bearing the ring) and Sam are now separated from the rest of
their
crew and are on a singular mission to return the ring to its
foundry.
With them is Gollum, a former hobbit whose long possession of the
One
Ring has driven him completely mad and has transformed his
appearance
into that of some underground netherworld creature, rather than
a
jolly hobbit.
Meanwhile, Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, and Leglolas arrive at
Orthanc,
the tower formerly held by Saruman (the evil wizard). Saruman's
been
deposed by the Ents, a race of sentient trees headed by
Treebeard.
With Treebeard are two more of the original Fellowship: the
hobbits
Merry and Pippin.
Doom is approaching. Sauron's minions are assembling massive
orc
armies to overrun the entire area, hoping to bring about the end
of
the Age of Man. It's up to Aragorn and the gang to save the
day.
Each of the three movies has been an absolute joy to watch. Even
if
one has never read one word of J.R.R. Tolkien, one is very
quickly
drawn into the story, into the world of Middle-Earth. Even if
one
cannot tell an orc from a Balrog, one can follow the sometimes
complicated storylines. This is because director Peter Jackson does
an
incredible job of explaining things without getting bogged down in
the
myriad details that Tolkien's epic book (or books) provided.
As with most epic movies, this one grabs you in two distinct
places:
the heart and the mind. The audience is properly mesmerized as
the
soldiers of Gondar race to the aid of those of Rohan, as the
orc
legions attack the castle at Minas Trith. All of the scenes, from
the
quiet, underplayed exchanges between Sam and Frodo to the
wild,
chaotic war, were suitably jam-packed with emotion. You'd have to
be
quite the zombie not to fall completely under the spell of
these
movies, especially these characters.
While Jackson took a few liberties with the plot (as he did in The
Two
Towers), none of the changes detracted from the movie itself.
Because
Tolkien's fantasy epic was so chock full of nuance, it was
inherently
necessary to chop some of them from the movie. Film as a medium
is
more conducive to images than to facts and other details.
This was not a movie that one could simply watch and cheer the
good
guys on lustily. This movie drew one in so deeply that you lived
and
breathed as the characters lived and breathed. When Frodo is
attacked
by the spider Shelob, you jump with him. You feel it when
he's
injected with her poison. When the orcs are attacking the castle
with
their war machines and their oliphaunts (think mastadons), you
cringe
with the denizens of the city of kings. As an audience, you never
feel
detached from the action.
But in addition to all the mesmerizing, eye-popping action, there
were
a great many tearful scenes. I mean scenes so powerful that only
the
most robotic among us could look away without shedding a tear.
There
were plenty of sniffles and tears in our theater the other
day.
Fantastic evocative performances by everyone in the cast,
especially
Sean Astin as Sam, Billy Boyd as Pippin, David Wenham as Faramir,
Hugo
Weaving as Elrond, and Miranda Otto as Eowyn. Oh, and definitely
the
great Ian McKellen as Gandalf.
Not a dry eye in the place. The sweet, gentle ending was as
poignant
an ending as I've ever seen in a movie. The ending, by the way,
ties
everything up nicely - but not too nicely. And, it's important
to
note, it ends just as the book does.
The movie is as close to perfection as possible, with the two tales
of
Frodo and Sam and the orc attacks neatly dovetailing, then
culminating
at the same time. And the editing is never jarring, even though
quite
a bit had to be cut in order for the film to be released - and
it's
still nearly 3.5 hours long!
The Return of the King is a beautiful masterpiece, a pinnacle
of
moviemaking. It will certainly be up for a few Oscars come March,
and
I wouldn't be surprised if it were listed in the National
Film
Registry some year as one of the greatest American films of all
time.
Date: 26 April 2004
Summary: Great Story and Adaptation, Pretty Good Delivery (Beware...Spoilers)
The first time i saw The Fellowship of the Ring, i hated it. Then again, i
have never read the books and i thought Isengard was a person and Sauruman
and Sauron were the same person. After watching it on DVD, with subtitles
(due to people in the room not being able to be quiet), i fell in love with
it. The Two Towers was also a masterpiece. It was no better or worse than
Fellowship, it was its equal, just on a bigger scale. Every frame of the
first two were masterfully crafted. The actors were seemingly born to play
their parts. Although both movies clocked in well over three hours a piece,
i felt none of it dragged (there are hour and a half movies that have more
dragging moments). Peter Jackson was quoted in saying that "The third movie
is his favorite," and "this is the reason why you make the first two
movies." So you could imagine how high my expectations were for Return of
the King.
Then the lights in the theater dim. The opening Gollum scene was
beautifully shot. Especailly the sounds you here when Smeagol is gradually
transforming into whom we know now as Gollum. The "then we forgot the taste
of bread" shot was absolutely jaw-dropping. However, The Two Towers
involves Gollum much more and felt it should have belonged there. It just
seems like Peter Jackson is still dwelling on the issue of Gollum's insanity
which was clearly stated in The Two Towers. Given it's an introduction, but
it seems to linger on the second movie as opposed to starting a new one
(which Peter Jackson claims is the reason why he took out Sauruman).
Once the movie got underway, i was beyond impressed with Mordor and how
Frodo and Sam walk through a barren land led by Gollum. It really gives a
sense of darkness and that there is nothing that grows as they get closer to
Mordor. My hope started to gradually dwindle at this starting point no more
than 10 minutes into the movie. The celebration at Edoras was reminiscent
of the party scene at The Green Dragon in the Extended Edition DVD of
Fellowship and was quite the unwinder after Helm's Deep. The acting in this
one is quite up-to-par, if not overshadowing, the acting of the first two
movies...for the most part. Aragorn and Gandalf steal this movie along with
Sam. Their facial expressions throughout the 3 and a half hour ordeal made
me p****d off that no one was nominated for Best Actor or Supporting Actor
(guess the Academy wanted to play fair for all the other nominees). I
understand that due to pacing and runtimes, Gimli and Legolas have taken a
backseat compared to the first two movies. That's not my real quarrel with
Return of the King.
In terms of directing style, this one seems distant from the first two. Th
e camera angles of the first two are much more artistic. In this one, there
are many centralized shots of the characters and many close-ups. It's a
good concept to capture feelings and emotion but doesn't look as good on
screen. What was so magic about the first two movies is that while you feel
the emotion, the camera angles are just right to catch what's going on
around the characters. That plays a big part in the sense that you feel
like you're actually there with Gandalf and Aragorn or Frodo and Sam, not
just watching them from a movie theater seat. There are lots of shots where
you can catch the beauty of Middle Earth and all but there are just way too
many close-ups. When close-ups are not used, extremely wide sweeping shots
were used. This was a really effective tactic used when Gandalf and Pippin
were first riding through Minas Tirith (a scene which put my jaw on the
floor), but there was too much of it in the battle scenes. Helm's Deep had
an epic scale, but was a better shot battle in the sense that there were
many little individual battles going on. The Siege of Minas Tirith and The
Battle of the Pelennor Fields featured mostly wide sweeping shots. The hour
long battle of Middle Earth was seemingly a compilation of sweeping shots.
Given, it is much more grand than Helm's Deep, but the emotion and sympathy
are no longer present. I felt that The Battle at the Black Gate seemed
rushed that also Gollum was on Frodo's back for too long a time and made the
scene look comical. The endings, although they got many complaints were
great to me (except for the overly mushy scene with Frodo on the bed. The
fellowship could have been reunited in a better fashion) and the Grey Haven
scene was one of the most beautiful shots of the whole Trilogy.
The Return of the King, flaws aside, is a fitting close to a legendary
Trilogy. The story and acting is just as good, if not better, than the
first two movies building up to it. In terms of directing, it seems as if
Peter Jackson was hard-pressed for time and lost a little (very little) of
the magic he presented in the winters of 2001 and 2002. Don't get me wrong,
i'm still buying it on DVD and i still run through the IMDB forums hoping to
find news on The Extended DVD. There is no such thing as a perfect movie
let alone a perfect Trilogy, but Peter Jackson has brought us as close as
one could possibly be.
Date: 24 April 2004
Summary: One of the greatest movies ever made!
I've been a fantasy and Tolkien fan for many years. Lord of the Rings
Return
of the King may be the best piece of cinematic art i've ever witnessed.
LordoftheRings.net has a great deal of info about the movie. I have also
been an avid rpg'er and play quite a lot of Lord of the Rings Risk at home
and online, there's tons of similarities to the movies in the game. A lot
of
times, the battles that are fought in the game, happen very closely to how
they happened in the movie. Great site for it at LordoftheRingsRisk.com .
Overall, this movie was incredible!!! Thank you's and congrat's go out to
all those that were involved in the making of all of them....and of course
the other ones weren't bad either.
Date: 26 April 2004
Summary: But for the last half hour, I would give it a ten...
The last 30 or 40 minutes of this film were abominable.
Jackson had made so many alterations to the story throughout the trilogy
that were
unnecessary, that I can't believe he didn't make the necessary alteration of
editing out
the last two chapters of the novel.
That's a bit extreme, but as a film the logical post-climax conclusion of
the movie would
have been the coronation of Aragorn. From here he could have had a brief
montage of
Shire events, then a nice visually stunning ending of Elven ships sailing
away at the very
end.
5 minutes, not 30.
If he was going to cut something it should have been the painfully boring
ending, and
NOT
TOM
BOMBADIL
!!!!
-Other than that, best movie of the year, best trilogy ever, best fantasy
film ever, best
story to film adaptation ever, best use of CGI yet, great performances, etc.
etc. etc.
Date: 23 April 2004
Summary: the phenomenal powers of lord of the rings
those of you who have not seen or read lord of the rings are bigger nerds
than those who actually try and speak elvish. "Cough, nerd, cough cough!"
all three movies were each in turn better than the last and they have been
the most highly praised since decades! jackson brought know nothing actors
out of their hidey-holes and into the limelight of a majestical fantasy.
upon clouds he raised the standards of the next great movies with his
conviction, imagination, and purified talent. he has shown the world of a
greater magic than in harry potter, a stronger love than kepburn and
tracey,
and such a true belief that all fantasy characters and beings are real
outstrips Oh God numerously! so if you don't want to stay there listening
to
one among millions write how lotr truly affected them, GO AND RENT THE
DVD!
here is a list of things you will find that appeal to all sorts of people
who go into a foggy theatre of blank minds and walked out with all of
earth's knowledge, many questions, save religios ones, answered. so go
ahead
and read why kids, adults, boyfriends, girlfriends, prents, giggly teens,
jocks, goths, and even celebritie, those whom we see as spectacular
beings,
all came to this recorded message of ancient times:
fantasy
magic
romance
adventure
war
gore
betrayals
bonds of friendships
life
death
honor
valour
fame for the underdog
truth
happy times
evil times
faith
love triangles
good overcoming evil
humor/comedy
chick flick
man movie
and most of all
HOPE
i really hope that you don't cheat yourself and that you go and see this
miracle on film!
Date: 23 April 2004
Summary: Completely Awesome!
I think Lord of the Rings is the best. It is the most exciting movie in my
life not to mention favorite... I play the video game a lot and every
single
day I can't stop thinking about Lord Of The Rings.The third part of the
trilogy is the best, although I wouldn't understand it if I didn't see the
first two. My favorite character is Craig Parker(Haldir), he's totally
amazing even if he's not a main character. Most girls like Legolas though,
but I think Haldir is better(thats just MY opiion so don't get mad) and my
brother thinks Im a Lord Of The Rings geek. I've watched Lord Of The Rings
Return Of The King 3 times in theaters and will probably watch it everyday
if I get it on DVD I'm lucky cause I dont get to watch movies very often.
I
keep on thinking if Isildir (I dont know if I spelled his name right) just
tossed the ring into Mount Doom then it wouldve been over.gee.. what a
short
movie that would be. J.R.R. Tolkien did a splendid job
on his book but I like the film better. Peter Jackson is a brilliant
director, it made the film come to life. I think he should create the
Hobbit
and other stories... I dont think there should be a sequel, it might ruin
the name Lord Of The Rings and it might be horrible. (except maybe if
Peter
Jackson does it)I don't want Lord Of The Rings to end at the 3rd film
though... I want it to continue. What about you?
Date: 23 April 2004
Summary: you're either for us or with the orcs...
Adding to the 2000+ reviews here may seem a bit redundant,
but I've taken a vow to process every film I see. Hopefully
people can look at other films I've seen and enjoyed and
take cues from some of the lesser known ones.
Coming clean, as a 12-year old boy, I tried reading
'The Hobbit,' a couple of times actually, and just seem
to
lack the D&D in my DNA to make it past 50 pages.
I have now seen all three of these films, and by far preferred
the first, then this, and lastly the second film. Much of
the
character development comes in the first installment, and
more small scale skirmishes happen there as well (hiding
under logs away from roving bands of orcs is a lot more
terrifying than CGI blobs bobbing away on the screen.)
Plus there was genuine espirt du corps as the ragtag
team came together.
As a popcorn movie/lunch box delivery system this is a
fine
product. Certainly much effort was put forth, and seeing this
on
the big screen would be well worth it. Ideally, seeing it
with
a better sound system (or fresher print?) than what the
Milpitas Supersaver Cinemas offered. Many times I just
could not make out what was said (I verified my friend
had
a similar problem afterwards.) I'm not reading many, if
any, other comments regarding that here, so I *assume*
it was just our problem.
But it was a big one.
As for the story itself, it is hard for me to see it in
pure
fantasy isolation. Just as in The Two Towers I thought
about suicide bombers, here I was drawn towards more
general thoughts about war. There did seem to be a
leit motif suggesting that in war everyone needs to be
united
against the common evil. Then can be no doubters, no
deserters, and one must call for all the help one can.
No matter how many repeated scenes of fires atop
mountains it takes. Were there no parity checks back
then, or did an attacker just have to send out a scouting
party to take one in the chain out, and thus isolate a
kingdom for the killing??
Back to that leit motif, as a result the amnesty army was
fascinating here, and pivotal in winning the war. The
ghoul-green graphics for that army seem to suggest the
NetApp servers were running out of disk space in comparison
to earlier critters and castles.
Again small scale battles work best, I'm hard pressed
to remember much about the march of 'oliphaunts'
(except I strongly hoped for the humor of Legolas
knocking out many a la dominoes by tipping one to
its side). However the details of the spider cave, with
its
classic horror manipulation (we see what Frodo does not)
were quite memorable and suspenseful. The Denethor
subplot was also interesting...again it underscored
the foul fate of those who do not entirely join the cause.
Samwise, or should I say Samwise-wise, the film does
well, Sean Astin did a great job. But other characters
here were disappointingly going through the [e]motions
set up from previous episodes. Notably Aragorn and
Gandalf. The romance of the former that was built to
such smoldering before, it pretty much flames out here.
Meanwhile, Gandalf has preciousssss little interaction
with
characters, although there was some with Pippin and the
"Death is just another path" speech.
As a charismatic agnostic I don't believe that, any more
than
I believe there will be a fourth chapter to this trilogy.
This
is the end...and that is what makes the carnage that flies
by (or crawls by in sloooow-mo) seem all the more senseless
to me. I don't think I was supposed to identify with the
men
of the mountain, but...
Well if I lack the belief, or faith, in such an obvious
good-versus-evil fight, I have greater concern about less
clearcut battles here on top earth. After the film, I half
joked
with my friend that I hoped the inevitable DVD dynamo would
include an Orc's eye-view of the war.
One last reflection here. Despite obvious complaints about
the repeat curtain calls at the end of this film, editing
all
three movies must have been an incredible task. Living
in
a rushed society where film-lengths in general are diminishing,
and we get Idiot's guides to Idiot's guides, clearly tons
of
dialog, grimaces and maybe even one shot of a
fire atop a mountain must have fallen before the mighty
sword of the fellowship of the editors. Interesting that
each
installment had a different set of editors.
7/10 6/10 + 1/10 for the sheer spectacle of it all
Date: 22 April 2004
Summary: movie of the millennia
Peter Jackson has definitely done it again and hasn't let his fans down in
any way shape or form. ROTK keeps you at the edge of the seat throughout
the movie, while tugging at your heart in several places. All characters
are more developed and you really can see how each of them have grown -
this
is especially true of Sam, Aragorn and Frodo.
The action scenes leave you in awe and wanting more.
(I am aware some people may think this is geeky, but...) After seeing the
movie 5 times, i still cried at each moving part and still needed my
Kleenex
as "The End" popped up in the familiar font that we all know and love...ah
well...I'm just looking forward to the extended edition now which will be
10
times better because more emotion will be seen.
Date: 22 April 2004
Summary: One of the best movies ever made
Forget the Passion of the Christ. Religion seems to cause more harm than
good and a guy being whipped pales into insignificance to the number of
people mutilated, tortured, shot, stabbed and dismembered in the name of
God
and Allah!
Now the LOTR shows the goodness in the face of adversity, it shows real
faith and the rewards it can bring. It shows the human spirit at it's
best.
How people of difference races, religions can pull together in a time of
need and how this is a far greater reward of some being that we have
limited
evidence exists, Even if he does the bravery, the selfless actions and the
support would be worthy of God and Allah.
LOTR shows more about how humanity should act than Passion of Christ, all
it
shows is we should feel guilt becuase God sent his son to die for us. To
date I am waiting on Humanity to change their behavior as a result. I feel
more inspired by the actions of the characters in LOTR than any of the
murderous, corrupt indivduals in Passion of Christ (with the exception of
Christ of course).
Anyway had my say.
Date: 21 April 2004
Summary: The worst imaginable adaptation of an excellent book... Spoilers
The problems of this film start right at the beginning, when Peter Jackson
establishes Smeagol's murderous nature as a major theme in the film. In a
flashback we witness how one look at The One Ring turns Smeagol into a
cold-blooded murderer. Well, after Frodo carries the thing for 13 months
he
just suffers from minor exhaustion. The mission to dramatise the power of
the ring has failed, and we're only in the first minute.
I can't think of one good reason why Return of the King can't start with
Shelob's Lair. Instead of proceeding the action where we left off at the
end
of The Two Towers, which was with Gollum sharing his evil plans with the
audience, we get Gollum's entire development all over again. There's
numerous fights between Sam and Frodo over whether or not to trust Gollum
(I've lost count), there's another Gollum/Smeagol argument where his evil
intentions are laid bare another time (half a dozen now), and there's
another instance where Gollum has to save Frodo by pulling him back from
evil (I think it's the fourth). Maybe Peter Jackson should learn what 'the
power of suggestion' means. We've seen this all before, it adds no
dramatic
value whatsoever. When Frodo finally faces Shelob after 110 minutes, well,
that's pretty much where we were supposed to be at the beginning of Return
of the King.
Peter Jackson proved unwilling to accept that Gollum is supposed to be a
supporting character who tags along with Frodo and Sam, a guide with a
hidden agenda. Instead, Peter Jackson turns him into a walking cliché, a
villain who tells the audience exactly what he's going to do on every
occasion. It's striking to see how this storyline falters when Gollum
disappears. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin struggle with cheesy lines to
convince the audience how much trouble they have getting the ring up Mount
Doom. Gollum trying to drive the hobbits apart is far more convincingly
played and written than anything between Frodo and Sam. Peter Jackson
doesn't make Sam's decision to leave Frodo at the whims of Gollum very
acceptable. He knows Gollum poisoned him against Frodo, but what's even
worse; He knows Gollum will try to kill Frodo so he can take the Ring.
The Cirith Ungol sequence is the part where Jackson's storytelling fails
the
most, and that's saying something. With all the repetition in Gollum's
actions, Jackson discards a major possibility for drama; Sam trying to
find
Frodo. Within 150 seconds, Sam is able to get to Cirith Ungol, climb the
tower, kill three Orcs, deliver the lamest lines imaginable (This is for
Frodo! The Shire! My old gaffer!), find Frodo, give Frodo back his ring,
descend Cirith Ungol and walk to the point where they can witness Mount
Doom
dressed up as Orcs. The way Peter Jackson rushes this memorable sequence
from the book is unforgivable.
Peter Jackson also struggles to get the story going in this segment, as he
doesn't seem to know how to separate his characters after they just
reunited. Cue: The Aragorn/Gandalf sequence starts with one big
accumulation
of plot-holes.
For some reason, Theoden and his huge Rohirrim army can't join Gandalf
when
he rides to Minas Tirith to warn Gondor and help their defences. Peter
Jackson left the impression in The Two Towers that Theoden couldn't count
on
any more men than we saw during Helm's Deep, Theoden King stood alone. In
Return of the King, this has changed, apparently. When Gandalf and Pippin
reach Minas Tirith, Pippin has to go through all kinds of troubles to
light
a beacon. A chain reaction is set, and the signal reaches Edoras. Aragorn,
of course, is the first one to see it, though nothing stops him from
commencing his little quest. Anyway, now Theoden and his army can ride to
Gondor. Let's hope they'll make it in time.
On their way to Gondor, Aragorn happens to stumble upon the Paths of the
Dead without any build-up (except Gandalf's vague little remark). These
Paths are inhabited by a ghost army that's capable of wiping out Sauron's
army in a matter of minutes. That in itself, is remarkable to say the
least.
A sword called Narsil allows complete control over this army, Aragorn, of
course, doesn't have it. Out of nowhere, Elrond shows up to bring Aragorn
a
gift. It's Narsil. What a coincidence.
The most inconsistent character of the film is Denethor. He's angry at
Faramir for not defending Osgiliath, yet he hasn't prepared any Gondorian
army for battle himself. He willingly sends Faramir into certain death,
yet
when he actually dies he's obviously upset. He doesn't want Rohan to come
to
Gondor because Aragorn would take over the throne, yet when he witnesses
Sauron's army he feels betrayed by Rohan. This man hasn't made up his mind
about, well, anything. Fortunately, when the battle for Minas Tirith is
about to begin, Gandalf punches Denethor with his staff and immediately
takes over command over the Gondorian defence system. Which has been
prepared, apparently. Instead, we get an endless collection of shots that
are either wide miniature shots where you can't see our hero's actions, or
shaky set footage where nothing is ever achieved. Gandalf repeatedly barks
orders at no-one in particular, yet they're always followed. There's never
a
sense that the Gondorians realise what's outside these walls, since
nothing
that happens inside them is ever consistent with the numbers suggested by
Peter Jackson. This is where the huge wide-shots and the recorded footage
cancel each other out. We've got 200,000 soldiers, Trolls, wargs,
battering
rams and catapults. Once the wall is breached, there seems to be nothing
Gondor can do to stop this force. Yet Minas Tirith stands at the end of
the
battle, despite the fact that none of Gandalf and his army's actions made
this plausible. There's another major editing goof to be found here;
Denethor is about to set himself and Faramir on fire, Pippin is pushed out
of the room. A hobbit situated on the highest level of Minas Tirith has to
find Gandalf, situated on the first level. Apparently, Pippin needs
Gandalf
to help him prevent Faramir from being burned alive. Are none of the
Gondorians willing to help him save their hero? Anyway, I'd say it would
take him hours to get down, but when he finds Gandalf and they get back at
the top, Denethor has been a gentlemen to wait for these two so they can
stop him. After the little piece of CGI flame jumps off the pyre (a.k.a.
Denethor's suicide), Gandalf doesn't need to command Gondor's soldiers
anymore. He sits down and gives a life-affirming speech to Pippin, even
though a troll tries to smash in the gate right next to him. The scene
with
Gandalf isn't concluded, nor is the battle for Minas Tirith. Peter Jackson
thinks his audience cares more about his computer-generated battles than
his
main characters, Gandalf and Pippin. The next time we meet Gandalf, he's
found Aragorn. The next time we see Pippin, he's found Merry. How
convenient.
The Battle at Pellenor Fields begins. Every wide-shot with the Rohirrim
army
and the Army of the Dead looks like a computer game. Like the Nazgul
being
the highlight of the previous 'battle', the Mumakil manage to steal the
show
in the field. Once again, the massive wide-shots seem completely
disconnected from what's happening in the close-ups.
The green fog arrives and this part of the story is over. Apparently, only
our heroes survived the battle, because there's not a Gondorian or
Rohirrim
soldier in sight. Take note; during a 70 minute battle scene, Peter
Jackson
hasn't managed to create one instance where it's clear whether the good
guys
are winning or losing. Another major goof; when Aragorn is crowned he
tells
his people it's time to rebuild the city. Yet the previous wide-shot
revealed Minas Tirith to be completely intact. The battle has had
absolutely
no consequence.
After the battle for Pellenor Fields is 'concluded', there's not one
instance for either the Frodo storyline or the Aragorn one where the
dialogue isn't needlessly explaining the plot or the character's emotions.
Take Legolas' "A diversion...", Gimli's "Let him stay there, let him rot.
Why should we care..." or Gandalf's "Sauron will expect a trap. He will
not
take the bait...". The 'Last Debate' sequence is a new low for Peter 'Mr.
Exposition' Jackson, Aragorn's 'rousing' speech at the Black Gate doesn't
help matters. The Frodo storyline is even worse. Again, Peter Jackson only
reserves about 2 minutes for one of the most memorable parts of the book,
the walk over Gorgoroth. He uses this time to turn Frodo from a relatively
fresh hobbit into a mumbling wreck, without success. Dialogue like "No,
Sam.
I can't recall the taste of food, nor the sound of water, nor the touch of
grass. I'm naked in the dark. There's nothing--no veil between me and the
wheel of fire. I can see him with my waking eyes." or "I can't carry it
for
you frodo, but I can carry you!!!" is laughable when Frodo proves able to
run into Mount Doom the next minute.
It's a shame Peter Jackson intercuts this sequence with the fight in front
of the Black Gate. The Rohirrim and Gondorian soldiers magically
reappeared.
Tolkien had trust in his readers' ability to connect two storylines in
their
heads. Peter Jackson doesn't hold his audience in such high esteem. He
needs
to show how Sauron seeing Aragorn allows Frodo a clear passage, and how
Aragorn is saved from an evil troll by the ring's destruction.
Although the dialogue during the climactic scenes was horrendous, there
doesn't seem to be much written for the endings at all. Frodo is lying in
bed when all the members of the Fellowship walk in. Smiling, laughing and
kissing ensues. Slow-motion and a serene look can't disguise that this
scene
is hopelessly sentimental. The same goes Aragorn's coronation and the
goodbye scene at the Grey havens. When Sam finally closes the door of his
Hobbiton residence, the trilogy ends with mixed emotions.
Date: 20 April 2004
Summary: Bit disappointed
After the first two films I expected more from this last episode. There
are
a lot of boring parts, then it becomes interesting for a while to finish
boringly. The great battle wasn't that great at all, the fight with Shelob
uninspiring, the fight against the Nazgul not that heroic, etc. I even
fell
asleep when I watched it the second time.
Perhaps it is also because I've read the third book again a month before
watching it. There is just too much unfinished business and too much stuff
that doesn't go right. Perhaps the extended DVD will be better. (I've
already got the first two extended DVD's, those were pretty
good)
Date: 22 April 2004
Summary: LOTR 3: The Video Game
Many critics cite the 1952 film "The Greatest Show of Earth" as the poorest
Best Picture selection in Academy history. That dubious distinction should
now go to "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," which makes DeMille's
circus epic seem like the greatest show on earth in comparison. It was not
only the Academy, but also the once-relevant New York Film Critics Circle
that chose this film as the year's best. It's a wonder that the ghost of
Pauline Kael didn't use her after-life influence with the All Mighty to
strike the entire group dead.
This video game-like film goes from one chase scene to the next with little
in the way of plot development. I've seen all three films and don't have a
clue what the fellowship of the ring is, or the significance of the two
towers, nor where the king was returning from. Director Jackson failed to
include much in the way of plot exposition in nine plus hours of film!
The computer-generated Gollum was the most interesting character in the
film; at least he wanted to kill off those annoying hobbits. Ian McKellen
is distinguished in his knightly role and added a touch of class to the
otherwise endless stream of special effects.
The female stars of the film, Tyler and Blanchett, have so little screen
time that it doesn't make sense to even have them in the film. Apparently
Tyler's character is present merely to suggest that Mortensen's character is
heterosexual. Why Blanchett has such an annoying smile on her face each
fifteen seconds she is on screen is a mystery to me.
Date: 19 April 2004
Summary: The Lord of the Rings is the best film of all time.
Minor Spoilers...
One word can be used to summarize this movie:
Perfect.
Well, at least it was perfect for me. Some people complain about an overly
long ending, others complain about there being no Saruman, and the list
goes
on.
I, however, basically had no problems with those things and most of the
other complaints people have had, which aren't many. Most people loved
this
film. I am no different.
This film deserved every Oscar it won. The movie was simply amazing.
Everything from the beautiful battle scenes, the acting, and the story
were
top notch. I really don't think anyone can ask for a better conclusion to
a
trilogy and not be insane.
I loved how the subject of friendship was used. Sam's willingness to go
until death for Frodo was just amazing. I don't know one person who didn't
feel incredible emotion when Sam says, "I can't carry it for you, Mr.
Frodo,
but I can carry you!" Howard Shore's "Into the West" score combined with
this already emotional scene just makes one weep. In fact, Shore's score
for
this entire film was amazing.
I also really loved the ending. Why? Wasn't it too long? Absolutely not. I
felt that this was a perfect ending to a trilogy. We're not just ending
one
film here, but three films(or one very long film). There's much more to
conclude than just saying, "Ok, the battle's won so let's all go home now.
The End." That just wouldn't be good enough. It's imperative that we see
Frodo re-unite with the Fellowship. It's imperative that we see the
celebration at Minis Tirith. It's imperative that we follow up on Frodo
and
Sam's lives after all that's happened to them, especially the Grey Havens
since the subject of people having to go to the Grey Havens to leave
Middle
Earth has been referred to throughout all three films. And, for fans of
the
books, this film could not have ended without Sam saying, "Well, I'm
back."
The ending was an ending for every main character who was in possession
of,
tempted by, or involved with the One Ring. It was an ending to the
Fellowship. So we must deal with every character in some way, some more
than
others(like Frodo and Sam). In my opinion it is ONE ending, because it
deals
with everyone involved with the ONE Ring.
That, and every scene in the ending was just absolutely beautiful. And I
think once people watch it on DVD, a medium in which one can take breaks,
then the people who didn't like the ending will grow more fond of it. Most
people were just tired of sitting in the theater for three hours straight
that they were ready to get out of there, despite the fact that this
ending
was needed. I think these films really need an intermission half way
through
when viewed in a theater.
[SIDE BAR]
The absence of Saruman is something I do sorely miss. However, the way the
scene is filmed where the "Voice of Saruman" chapter WOULD be is true to
the
book. But now, from rumors I'm hearing that we'll actually see Saruman get
killed in the Extended Edition, I'm leaning towards the way the theatrical
cut has this scene. The reason being because if we see Saruman actually
die,
then it's a completely different ending to Saruman's story. In the
theatrical cut, from what we observe, he's locked in his tower to rot and
wither away over time with no real confrontation from Gandalf, Legolas,
Gimli, etc. "And there he must remain...He's no power anymore" to quote
Gandalf. That's exactly the opposite of what happens in the Extended
Editions(if what I've heard is true). Sure, it'll be great to see Saruman
in
ROTK. But a totally different ending for him?
The reason I'm bringing this up is because the Extended Editions of the
first two films only enhanced the story. It didn't change it. The plot was
still the same throughout. Sure, there were different scenes replacing
theatrical cut scenes here and there, but the outcome of the plot was the
same. The Extended Editions should only enhance the plot, not change it.
I'll learn to live with it just for the sake of seeing Saruman, but I
don't
think that's the best way to go about it. As of right now, I don't have a
problem with Saruman missing from ROTK.
[END SIDE BAR]
One minor flaw in this film was the demise of the Witch King. I really
don't
think the idea that only a woman could kill him was emphasized enough,
because they say in the film that "No man can kill him." But referring to
"man" could imply mankind. I don't know if there's any good way that this
could've been said without ruining the surprise of Eowyn killing him.
Maybe
it could've been worded a different way. The dialogue could go something
like this[referencing the book]: "It was prophecied [by the elves?] that
no
man can kill him. But I [Gandalf] have hope that perhaps someday someONE
will." Because the way it comes off is like some girl power thing. I'll
live
with it, but I just thought the idea of it all could've been described and
executed better.
The other plot line involving the Witch King was the one where the
Sloth-looking orc asks him, "What of the Wizard[Gandalf]?" Then the Witch
King says, "I will break him." But then we never see any confrontation
whatsoever. The Extended Edition will cover this since there was a
confrontation filmed. It was actually in the theatrical trailer. The way
it
is now technically works. We just assume the Witch King either never got
around to it, or it happens off screen. But ultimately this is a bad edit,
and they should've just left out that little bit of dialogue between the
orc
and the Witch King, and just have it be apart of the Extended Edition
along
with the actual confrontation.
Minor (and very few) flaws aside, this film is beautiful, emotional, and
ultimately the best film I have ever seen. Actually, I really should say
that The Lord of the Rings is the best film I have ever seen, because ROTK
is only the conclusion to one long movie split into three parts which were
all excellent. Nothing has ever been done quite like it, and it's
something
that will be treasured for generations to come.
Date: 18 April 2004
Summary: The hype will die down
The conclusion to what has been a seriously overhyped trilogy. As of the
time of writing, this movie was rated #4 in IMDB's top 250. However, I
suspect that much of that rating is due to overexcited fanboys (I hate
that
word but couldn't think of a substitute), and the film will slip a
considerable number of places in subsequent years.
Return of the King is probably the second best of the three films,
surpassing the lackluster "Two Towers" but nowhere near as good as "The
Fellowship". I enjoyed the first half of the film considerably and was
prepared to accept it as a good final installment.
Unfortunately, like "The Two Towers", the film moves from the sublime to
the
ridiculous with the introduction of the battle scene.
I'm afraid I am not a fan of CG animation in live films. While the
character of Gollum was well produced, the CG in the battles in lackluster
and obvious. It is like being slapped in the face whenever it
appears.
Even leaving out the CG however, the biggest insult I find is that the
main
characters have to do everything. This was a particular problem in "The
Two
Towers", where the three heroes held off a whole army of orcs, but it is
also prevalent in the battle in this movie.
Sure, I've heard of suspension of disbelief, but it can only go so
far.
Unlike most people, I didn't mind the long ending with Sam and Frodo but
the
film had already been ruined for me before that.
Date: 16 April 2004
Summary: i love the film~i'm going to buy its DVD when it comes up
i think the lord of the rings: the return of the king is a well perfomed
movie. the productor and the actors spent seven years in order to finish
it.
after the see the first set of the lord of the rings, i can't wait to see
the next two. Now the return of the kings is finished, i like the film. i
think this is one of the few the films that i feel excited to see and
wanted
to see it again after i saw it. however, out of the three sets of the lord
of the rings, i love the second one the most. i think the background of
the
return of the king is a bit too dark and i feel it is too heavy to watch
it.
this makes me feel that the film is a bit too long to watch . however,
this
is a well-produced film. i like it
Date: 15 April 2004
Summary: Questions for LOTR fans * Spoiler *
1) What is your favorite Character in the ROTK ?
for me it is ....... SAM
2) What is your favorite moment in the movie ?
for me it is ....... When Aragon bows down to the
hobbits
3) Will there be a movie in the near future that is a continuing soga for
Lord of the Rings 3 ?
4) At the ending of ROTK when Froto decides to go with the elfs, where
exactly is he going. I know it is some forever place. But does any one
know
any more about the place he is going to ?
5) In ORDER, put the 3 LOTR movies from best to worst in your
prospective...
for me its ........ Number 3 than Number 1 than Number
2
Date: 14 April 2004
Summary: The Greatest Trilogy Of All Time
Extremely Minor Spoilers
Wow and wow. 2003 has seen the endings of two very successful trilogies,
The
Matrix Revolutions and The Return Of The King. However where as the Matrix
ended in dissapointing fashion, The Lord Of The Rings brings it's story to
an exciting and satisfying close, crowning itself one of the greatest
endings to a trilogy ever. Of course you probably already knew that. The
main reason that the last two movies in the trilogy didn't slip into
mediocrity would be the fact that this was one entire story broken into
three parts. Not the usual trilogy where one is written and then others
are
made after to capitalize on it's success. This is one movie, one story,
broken into three parts. And since Tolkien has created such an amazing
world
and array of characters these films virtually couldn't and shouldn't have
dissappointed. Never has such an amazing story been shown in films, an
imagination so great and a vision so fully realized.The third installment
in
the saga, The Return Of The King, brings the long journey to an end. Frodo
and Sam are on the verge of reaching Mount Doom and Aragorn will fullfill
his destiny in becoming king. The acting in this movie is simply
wonderful.
You've all seen the first two unless you've been living in a hole, and the
same quality, same character is evident in ROTK. The visuals themselves
are
unbelievable. The battles in ROTK make Helms Deep seem as though it was a
minor bar brawl. Peter Jackson is an amazing director who knows how to
blend
the wonderful computer effects with the live actors. Seeing the Riders Of
Rohan flank the army of Sauron and then do battle with the monstrous
Elephonts is quite a site, and the visuals manage to make everything real
and convincing and bear no sense of looking fake. Scenes such as Gandalf
riding through Minas Tirith beautifully blend the CG and the real as I
mentioned above. Considering Peter Jackson only really directed comedic
horror movies before taking the the helm in directing LOTR makes him that
much more impressive. The landscapes continue to be visually stunning, the
great city of Minas Tirith is extremely impressive. And even the real
landscapes are beautiful, a tribute to New Zealand. Never has a movie
before
made me want to travel to the place where it was filmed as ROTK has. Some
may say with a running time of 3 hours and 30 minutes that you'll be
squirming in your seat, but that's false. This movie needed to be that
length and none of it's sequences ever slip into boredom. Even with it's
long running time I found myself wishing it would never end. Of course
fans
of the book will be a little dissapointed about some aspects that have
been
changed. Such as Sauramon not even being in the movie, but all this can
and
should be forgiven. The final fact is that the Return of The King and the
Lord Of The Rings trilogy are a cinematic acheivement that brings a
classic
story to the screen with satisfying results. I myself will not choose a
favorite of the trilogy because I enjoyed them all and like to think of
them
as part of the story more then individual films. But I will say this The
Return of the King is unmatched by any other films that have come out this
year, and The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy is possibly the greatest of all
time.
Verdict: *****
Can't wait for the 4 hour + extended edition
Comments index for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
See the next 20 comments,
there are 2186 in total.
|
|
|
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.