[doughy white]

I hate to say this, but after having seen it last night I felt the 3rd part of the Trilogy was an absolute anti-climax! I had the feeling that PJ couldn't really decide which parts to leave in the movie and which ones to cut out. I thought starting the film as it did was a complete mistake. I'm normally quite emotional but I can't say that anyone moved me to tears in the film. What PJ absolutely mastered was getting Weta to bring Alan Lee's landscapes to life and directing monumentary battle scenes. Minas Tirith and the Pelennor Fields battle were definitely breath-taking. Pity, that Legolas and Eowyn had to spoil the latter in an action-like Hollywood manner.
I was probably too high on expectations. In hindsight the 1st part was the best one.

[Zygomaticus]

I too didn't have as much of a tear-jerker as I expected.

The only time I got anywhere close to tears in my eyes was:

Spoiler:

When Denethor tells Faramir that he wishes he were dead and Boromir alive. What a thing for a son to hear! As a minor still fully dependant on my parents, I admire them very much. If I were told such a thing (even though I don't have an older brother) it would break me. Completely. :cry:

Anyway, I too thought the...

Spoiler:

Legolas taking down the Oliphaunt was a little silly. The ease with which he does everything reduces not only its believability but also its credibility. It stops being such a great achievement once it's so easy. I really liked the Ghost army though. The way they run through the battlefield taking everything down was somewhat of an anticlimactic finish to a great battle, but oh well. 'twas cool nonetheless.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

No body has mentioned this yet, but I heard some critics bitch about the 'weak' acting of the Frodo feller, when he was masterful, actually. He behaves, gestures and emotes just like a self-doubting, introspective, idealistic youth should.

Also, he looks stupid, annoying, and boring, exactly like the Frodo in the books.
I liked the LOTR movies, but considering them as anything more than an expensive looking distraction is an insult to the really good movies out there, IMO.

[James]

I cried when

Spoiler:

when Aragorn recieved Narsil from Elrond - "become who you were born to be."
At the Ride of Rohan - "Fear no darkness", Theoden.
The coronation scene
pippins song
when sam carries frodo
the grey havens

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by Blah...

Also, he looks stupid, annoying, and boring, exactly like the Frodo in the books.
I liked the LOTR movies, but considering them as anything more than an expensive looking distraction is an insult to the really good movies out there, IMO.

I have a penchant for making pretentious derisive statements - and am amused when other people do - but that quote up there is a steamin' crock of shit. The fondness I have for the Ring books and The Hobbit (the same kind of feeling I have for The Little Prince, I, Claudius and The Fox and the Hound) is ever so deftly drawn from me by these movies. In as so much The Lord of the Rings movies have succeeded, and that makes them really good movies out there, IMO.

As far as the Frodo expletive goes, I guess you've never known anyone as stupid, annoying, and boring as Frodo. I have a fair share of friends who are like that, stupid, annoying, and boring - or rather self-doubting, introspective, idealistic, as I have put it a tad more justly. Theirs is the ONLY ilk of folk I would venture with no qualms to label as 'The Good People'.

[Igor]

Originally Posted by Henke

I don't agree. In fact, I don't agree at all.

Well, ain't that a shame?

[redhotray]

*LOL* It's been a week now since I've seen Return of the King, and I still cannot get some of the beautiful imagery and poigniant scenes out of my mind. I would tell you which scenes I most enjoyed or that touched me the most, but I'm unsure how to do the spoiler address, and I wouldn't want to give anything away. It wouldn't be right .

What I will say about this film is that it may not have intentionally have been put together to mean something to somebody, maybe it wasn't Tolkein's aim to make you sit there and relate to the things he wrote, but you do. For me at least, this film will go down as one of my favorites of all time. Why? Because I am STILL thinking about it one week removed from seeing it in the cinema! Any film that can physically overpower you like that, deserves a place in anyone's heart!

As for Frodo's acting, I found Elijah Wood very believable in the role of a happy go lucky hobbit, who slowly becomes twisted by the very thing he has set out to destroy! I don't think the role of Frodo was boring at all, in fact, I found it one of the most moving and emotional roles I've ever bore witness too. You cannot help but to feel for Frodo as he undertakes this bold, and seemingly incompleteable quest to destroy pure evil! How could you not relate to that? How can you not, in the least moderately respect, someone willing to stand up and fight for tranquility and eternal harmony in the face of insurmountable odds!? Especially from someone who would seem so worthless a creature due to his size.

These films are pieces of art! Yes, there are scenes which were used as cash-in/hollywood type scenes, (Legolas and Eowyn as was previously mentioned), but so what? People say it's unbelievable, well have you ever seen an ork or a troll? Have you seen a Balrog, a demon from the ancient World?! Sure, they're like my next door neighbours, I borrow milk from them sometimes when I run out!

There will always be haters of everything that is ever manufactured or produced for whatever reason, and that's the reason these debates exist, so that we can all find out how to acheive a common perfection. I guess I just wish that there would be that unity, that everyone who sees this film, will feel touched by what it brings to the table, and not shoot it down with inconsistencies and flaws. Silly talk, I know, but a pleasant thought nonetheless.

I will boldly say that Return of the King is in my top five favorite films of all time, and I believe that when the extended DVD is released next year, King will become my favorite film ever made. It just fell shy of that acclaim, simply because I could tell which scenes were cut, and I saw loopholes in the plot which lost me for a bit. That, and for me, the film wasn't long enough

Make sure you see this film, in fact all of the films if you consider yourself a Tolkein fan, or a fan of fantasy! They are, true spectacles to behold!

[James]

amen to that.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

As far as the Frodo expletive goes, I guess you've never known anyone as stupid, annoying, and boring as Frodo. I have a fair share of friends who are like that, stupid, annoying, and boring - or rather self-doubting, introspective, idealistic, as I have put it a tad more justly. Theirs is the ONLY ilk of folk I would venture with no qualms to label as 'The Good People'.

Yes, self-doubting, introspective and idealistic people are 'The good people', but I never found out Frodo to have those qualities, nor have I ever found any of Tolkien's character to have any personality. That's why I'm really bored each time I try to reread the books.
And it's true that the movies recreate the books universe perfectly, but so what? Even if Tolkien had been a genius (I liked the books as a kid, but still I wouldn't call him that. That's besides the point, though), picturing a book perfectly is not an accomplishment I respect as much as drawing a new universe from a book, as Brazil did, for example. Or Dune.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

and that makes them really good movies out there, IMO.

If good means entertaining and money-making, sure they are. If it means expressing something personal besides blind devotion to a series of books, and trying to do something new and original, no they're not.

[Kingzjester]

Imagine if you will a cinematographer wanting to translate a book he loves and venerates into a movie. That guy would really want to alter the story just a little bit to facilitate the conversion to the screen - indeed - and he would want to keep the feeling of the books - which has been done - but ultimately he would not want to change much because, hey, he holds that book in high regard.

Originally Posted by blah

If good means entertaining and money-making, sure they are. If it means expressing something personal besides blind devotion to a series of books, and trying to do something new and original, no they're not.

If you want a perfect illustration for what you're saying, look at the Asterix movies (for LOTR does not fit in as well as you would want it to). Whoever made that pile of junk had no respect for the source material. In all, you are repeating yourself. Stop being a southern lady.

[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

Stop being a southern lady.

:eek:

[SamandMax]

It was a good movie, but they had about 9 endings too many,

[Curt]

I personally didn't have a problem with the amount of "endings" as they were essential to the story. I think the problem with them was that they all seemed too crammed together and uncontinuous - the last 20 minutes or so felt more to me like watching a trailer than the end to a film, skipping from one scene to another with little to connect the two.

The end of the film was badly affected by the fact that the Hobbits return to the shire was dealt with as an insignificant event in the story - the book deals with their return in much more detail and therefore "meats-out" the endings. It was also important in showing that the Shire was also affected by the evil that had spread across Middle Earth.

I agree with the comments about the over-the-top nature of some of the action elements. And I expected Shelobs' underbelly to be far bigger, danglier and jelly-like after reading the books. On the whole though the action was nothing short of breath-taking.

I'm hopeful that the extended edition will correct some of the issues I have with the film, just as the Two Towers extended version managed to make the film more complete and continuous and bringing characters such as Faramir more alive.

On the whole though, I've thoroughly enjoyed the trilogy and I think the Return of the King will grow on me the more I watch it, just as the Two Towers has.

[jaf]

Here is my review: I LOVE IT, yes it has some flaws, but it still managed to become the best epic/adventure/fantasy film ever.

[Ninja Dodo]

Loved it. Shame they left out the scene with Saruman though...

Also, I think a lot of people that say it's black & white are forgetting the human characters and how they are affected by the ring... plus Frodo and Gollum of course. While this is developed more in the book it's certainly still an important element in the films.

[Kolzig]

I just saw the movie today and it's FRIGGIN INCREDIBLE!!

Peter Jackson made a great ending to a great trilogy.

Now I have a great urge to read the whole book trilogy once more.

J.R.R. Tolkien=genious

Peter Jackson=genious

[Starflux]

First up:

And I expected Shelobs' underbelly to be far bigger, danglier and jelly-like after reading the books.

Curt, we are on the same train of thoughts. Shelob I had envisioned far more like... well, I thought she was too much like an ordinary Tarantula. While I expected her more as the spiders portrayed in Diablo 2:



Anyway, my view on the movie: I liked both Fellowship and Two Towers better than Return of the King. I will never doubt that all three belong to the finest movies of the highest quality, but in comparison, three falls short in my eyes. Someone mentioned something along the lines of "Liked Helm's Deep? Wait till you see Minas Tirith!". I saw Minas Tirith, and it was nóthing compared to the intimacy and epic and horrendous atmosphere Peter Jackson created in the battle for Helm's Deep.
Of course, my preference to the first two is also to be accounted to the fact that I already though RotK was the weakest in bookform. Mostly also because of the weak ending. In terms of narrative, the whole trilogy long, an enormous emphasis is being built on the fact that Aragorn is the only one who can save the world of men, so to speak. Everyone is hammering on him that he must return to his roots and rise to the challenge. What huge disappointment it is then, to see that Aragorns sole role in the entire epic is to rally a band of traiterous ghosts that fall over the armies of Mordor like a flood, ending the battle of Minas Tirith in a breeze. Aside from the fact then that there was only a mediocre hint at tention about that whole battle, it is also... let's put it this way: Aragorn would have been better suited with the name "McGuffin".

Hardly Peter Jackson's fault of course, but it doesn't make the trilogy any better. For all it's imaginitive strength; the movie could not beat my own imagination when it comes to dreaming up the ending. That's why I like the first two movies better.

[Starflux]

But of course, when it comes it my fondness of seeing corrupted men who lose their mind; Denethor was the real treat of the movie ^__^ I was already giddy about his appearance in the extra scene on the Extended Edition of The Two Towers (actually one of the best scenes in the movie now!), but his monumental savageness comes to full posture in The Return of the King. Wow.

[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by Flux

But of course, when it comes it my fondness of seeing corrupted men who lose their mind; Denethor was the real treat of the movie ^__^ I was already giddy about his appearance in the extra scene on the Extended Edition of The Two Towers (actually one of the best scenes in the movie now!), but his monumental savageness comes to full posture in The Return of the King. Wow.

Heh, he was a real crazy guy in the movie, quite a lot more than in the books. it was interesting, very interesting.