The Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King

[bonanzataz]

i think it's the best movie i've seen all year. including kill bill, which was a close second. well... maybe not that close.

[Vile5]

Now The Lord of the Rings is one of my favorites trilogies of all times

[Gold Trumpet]

Finally saw this. Went with my brother to see it and during the first half hour, I realized my reaction would be as negative as with the other ones. My brother had the same opinion. We almost left half hour into it but decided to make a bet out it. First one to crack and not be able to stand the movie and walk out would pay the other person $5.

The final movie adds no new grievances. Its just a return to what the other movies explored: battle after battle, heroic talk after heroic talk, this movie seems nearly the same in approach to content as the others. It held no place for drama at all. I tried following the movie and storyline but got lost immediately. The dialogue was drenched in detail after detail to this world that would be acknowledged and understood by those whole evaporated themselves into the finer points of this world. My ignorance to it does not at all say I missed a great film, but that the film based itself on the basis of arbiturary facts instead of drama. I would belly ache after every speech (dialogue for one person would extend so long each time that it became that) of detail to how something has to be saved and then the dialogue trying to save itself by having something dramatic spoken always at the end and then cut of scene. Cliche beyond cliche. The action scenes of one-on-one fighting always seemed to allow someone out of nowhere to come in to turn the tide of the fight. Cliche. The battles, yet again, would begin with the large number of men/mutants/elfs readying to fight and then go into a frenzy of intercutting shots where the fighting became shots of killing after killing and different shots of destruction. This became numbing because each battle extended so long. Appreciation of the largeness and scope of the battles were lost. Also, no one really was acting at all. Every character seemed already to incapuslate everything their character stood for just by their appearance and a few lines. For the characters with a heroic position, camera would swoop in and slow down for their entrance while the music turned dramatic to give them recognition of what they stood for. The dialogue they said strayed very little from battle prep talk. Also, emotion in their voice and movements seemed hardly existent. Each character seemed to carry that same drained fairy tale manner of talk that emotion was hardly there. Frodo, though, seemed to be the only one almost out of this shell of major limitations. Wood played his character with a vigor of movement that seemed to convey his strain in the midst of all the poor dialogue he was given. His face seeemed to bleed from emotion all the time.

What I think really dominated this movie were the special effects and again I was not impressed. The elephants and ghosts in battle were effective when I first saw them, but they soon lost flavour. My main reason for disliking the effects is quite general. The movie didn't occupy one realism, but two. Most of the combat battles were quite realistic  in brutality as we would see in a movie like Braveheart. The worlds and larger battles showing strange creatures were quite digital with their realism. The movie never occupied one tone of vision for me to be fully involved in this world. I would go from one realism to another just noticing the change and taken out of the realism I was following and just saying, "Well, that's done by computers." instead of continually being involved. The movie should have stuck with one realism and considering live action could never bring these special effects and the digital age isn't all that its cracked up to be in believability yet, I wish this film would have been done in traditional animation. It wouldn't be constricted to development of filmmaking special effects, but timeless already.

For the bet between my brother and I, no one won. We both agreed we had to get out of the movie during the beginning onslaughts of false endings. We couldn't take any more of this movie at all. After walking out, I quickly met the snobbery many people have who love the movie and think lowly of those who don't. A friend of mine who was also into movies saw me and asked what movie I saw and when I said LOTR, he asked what I thought. I told him I thought it was lame and he said if I thought it was lame, that I surely must not have seen many movies. I thought that was fine, but last year I had to explain to this person who Federico Fellini was.

[Gamblour.]

I'm honestly pretty speechless after reading your review, Gold Trumpet. My first thoughts are, how can someone hate this movie so much, I mean, what movies could possibly meet your standards? These thoughts aren't really fair because you can say what you want, you explained why you didn't like it. But I'll never, ever be able to truly understand what the hell you are talking about. Hope that doesn't sound scathing, but I'm honestly wondering if you do like any movies. I hope this doesn't sound rude, your review is just so harsh for a movie that I, and a lot of people, don't seem to have much of a problem with. Is it the fantasy genre that you don't like? I can understand that, I have a hard time with the dialogue and acting myself, but I look past it because the story and mythology are so engaging if you let yourself get into it. The cg does look like cg, but don't you see that if you get into the movie first, the cg becomes a part of the movie, just like any lighting or costuming or models would. And for cg, it's pretty damn good looking. Of course it's not perfect, but you can say that about a lot of special effects. Models, for example, I can always spot them, but when they look so good, I'm forgiving.

This isn't meant to be condescending in the slightest: how'd you get lost in the story? I haven't read the books, but found it to be easy to follow, though I have watched the dvds more than you have (you did say a while back that you would finally watch the two movies before you saw this one, right?).

[Gold Trumpet]

but I'm honestly wondering if you do like any movies. I hope this doesn't sound rude, your review is just so harsh for a movie that I, and a lot of people, don't seem to have much of a problem with.

Two parter: I love many movies and have a large movie collection to prove it. My main reason for highlighting the negative comments over the positive is because this is a discussion board. Enough people agree with the majority opinion on what films are good and all, so for discussion's sake, negative opinions are neccessary. Also, I think discussion usually is floundering here so I do what I can to push it.

For the second half, my venom against this movie may seem so high because I don't disagree with just with those who liked it, but disagree with and resent the acclaim it is getting by the media as being "high art". It isn't and if it goes on to dominate award shows, it will only make Hollywood a bigger tight wad on financing riskier projects. This film is mainstream to the core.

Is it the fantasy genre that you don't like?

Not at all. Princess Mononoke is one of my favorite movies.

The cg does look like cg, but don't you see that if you get into the movie first, the cg becomes a part of the movie, just like any lighting or costuming or models would. And for cg, it's pretty damn good looking. Of course it's not perfect, but you can say that about a lot of special effects. Models, for example, I can always spot them, but when they look so good, I'm forgiving.

I still disagree. Models and CG effects seem to hold distinct differences because models still aim to be realistic and I don't think you can spot all of them. Some models are complete failures, of course, but they hold more realistically than CGI, which,  still in its beginning stages, still looks very fake even when trying to be realistic. When only used on minimal levels does CGI really work for creating the realistic.

This isn't meant to be condescending in the slightest: how'd you get lost in the story? I haven't read the books, but found it to be easy to follow, though I have watched the dvds more than you have (you did say a while back that you would finally watch the two movies before you saw this one, right?).

It is prolly because you have watched the dvds since then. I tried last week to rewatch them, but I honestly couldn't bring myself to renting any of them. I think the long length of each extended edition was what I was thinking about and I really dreaded it. Also, the first two bored me equally anyways to where I lost interest in the finer points of the story so it was apparent I'd be lost in the third one beyond the very general story.

[Ghostboy]

Actually, you were far less hard on it than I thought you'd be. I still don't see why you torture yourself though...but then, I do the same thing.

[Gold Trumpet]

I still don't see why you torture yourself though...but then, I do the same thing.

Hah, its because I actually care very much about movies. if I didnt like any movies, I'd just dismiss all of them. I explode with all my frustations in reviews longer than casual reading.

[Find Your Magali]

For the second half, my venom against this movie may seem so high because I don't disagree with just with those who liked it, but disagree with and resent the acclaim it is getting by the media as being "high art". It isn't and if it goes on to dominate award shows, it will only make Hollywood a bigger tight wad on financing riskier projects. This film is mainstream to the core.

But mainstream movies ALWAYS win the awards. When was the last time "high art" swept the Oscars? ... If a mainstream film is going to take home the big prizes, it may as well be ROTK. And maybe that Oscar haul will lead to somebody getting $15 million to make a "risky" fantasy film that is more in tune with your cinematic tastes.

The alternative is another mainstream film, maybe Cold Mountain, sweeping the Oscars simply because the Weinsteins pumped so much money into the advertising and campaigning.

In a world in which the Oscars always go mainstream, I don't see why or how ROTK is any more offensive than any other studio pick.

[Gamblour.]

Also, I think discussion usually is floundering here so I do what I can to push it.

Well done, I think my reply to your first post is the longest one I've written, heh.

For the second half, my venom against this movie may seem so high because I don't disagree with just with those who liked it, but disagree with and resent the acclaim it is getting by the media as being "high art".

Your pessimism about the movies does ring true with a voice in the back of my head that wants to agree with you. But looking at the trilogy as a whole, I go back and say that they have done something great in creating this universe. The movies are, um, thick with layers that add to middle-earth, the music, the look, the dialogue (which is cheesy at times, I agree, but it does have to compensate for the amount of story, and I do wish at times they'd stopped and had some good quality character motivated events, but for a plot-driven movie, it's pretty good). But I do think some critics are a little overzealous with their praise.

I still disagree. Models and CG effects seem to hold distinct differences because models still aim to be realistic and I don't think you can spot all of them. Some models are complete failures, of course, but they hold more realistically than CGI, which,  still in its beginning stages, still looks very fake even when trying to be realistic. When only used on minimal levels does CGI really work for creating the realistic.

Models do have a great history (2001, Star Wars, Blade Runner are all amazing). But there is no other way to make these films aside from animation as you said, but this has already been done. You can't make a vast army or a flying nazgul with models or without spending tons of money and time, cg is the only way to go. The use of cg will always look fake, but by using it, the filmmakers recognize this and they do one hell of a job trying to prove otherwise. Some of the cg looks amazing (that one closeup of Gollum talking in his sleep, the dead army), it's all a great achievement. CG is trying to create something that couldn't be real otherwise, but because it's not real, when it's used in the forefront as much as it is in LOTR, of course it will look fake, though it's trying to be realistic. Even makeup up close will look fake, so will models. Fake is fake, and cg is an amazing tool that is very fake.

It is prolly because you have watched the dvds since then. I tried last week to rewatch them, but I honestly couldn't bring myself to renting any of them. I think the long length of each extended edition was what I was thinking about and I really dreaded it. Also, the first two bored me equally anyways to where I lost interest in the finer points of the story so it was apparent I'd be lost in the third one beyond the very general story.

I'm not going to suggest seeing ROTK again, I don't want you to go on a murderous rampage as a result of that, heh. But letting yourself sink into the world a little more really does help, watch the behind the scenes of the extended dvd, then watch the films, listen to commentaries, emerse yourself, it gets you in the mood, like foreplay.

[modage]

I still disagree. Models and CG effects seem to hold distinct differences because models still aim to be realistic and I don't think you can spot all of them. Some models are complete failures, of course, but they hold more realistically than CGI, which,  still in its beginning stages, still looks very fake even when trying to be realistic. When only used on minimal levels does CGI really work for creating the realistic.

i completely agree with this.

The use of cg will always look fake.

but not this.  cg is still in its infancy.  it is used frequently when it should not be as an 'easy out' when the filmmakers can find no other way to do something.  it is not always the best way.  sometimes is, not always.  a million different ways to do 'special effects', a plethora of different solutions to those problems.  filmmakers seem to be lazily relying on cg sometimes when it isnt the right tool for the job.  (not pointing out LOTR, just movies now in general).  cg will probably eventually become a much more efficient and realistic tool than it is now.  so for now, small doses, not overloads.

[Ghostboy]

I think the only real reason CG became so suddenly prevalent is because of the malleability of it...it's like working with physical objects with the ability to bend the laws of phyiscs, and that opens up a lot of opportunities. Having just started to skirt around the edges of using it myself, I've developed a massive new appreciation for it, but I also wonder why sometimes filmmakers rely so heavily on it. I guess they figure if it's out of sight, it's out of mind, and they can just leave it up to the CG artists.

That said, I'm blown away by most of the CGI in LOTR. There are plenty of shots that don't work completely, especially in the third one (daylight shots are tough), but they're plenty impressive nonetheless.

[Gamblour.]

The use of cg will always look fake.

but not this.  cg is still in its infancy.  it is used frequently when it should not be as an 'easy out' when the filmmakers can find no other way to do something.  it is not always the best way.  sometimes is, not always.  a million different ways to do 'special effects', a plethora of different solutions to those problems.  filmmakers seem to be lazily relying on cg sometimes when it isnt the right tool for the job.  (not pointing out LOTR, just movies now in general).  cg will probably eventually become a much more efficient and realistic tool than it is now.  so for now, small doses, not overloads.

My statement was a little too exaggerated. Of course cg is good in small ways, but films like LOTR are paving the way so they can be done better in the future by trying to make them look better now. There are some people who use it when it shouldn't be used (George Lucas, that pompous fuck), but Peter Jackson is trying to make incredible cinema and advance it at the same time. Looking at FOTR and then looking at ROTK, their use of cg is already improving (granted, they had more money and equipment). I think films like the Hulk and Spiderman are doing damage to cg by using it too much and not making it look good at all.

[brockly]

Seeing it in three hours. Man, I'm psyched! If it's half as good as Two Towers, I'll be pleased.

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

CG in the future, will look so incredibly realistic and it will be so attainable, that I believe, many films of the future will be interlaced with so much CGI you will never be able to tell the difference.

CG will no longer be used for just unimaginable moves or actions that a character may make, but CG will be used for common shots, pick up shots, ect. Also, I believe this goes for Indie films also.


20 years from now, its going to be interesting to see if there is a nostalgia around these non believeable CGI films that run rampant in our movie theatres...


chris

[Filmfan-2]

I think that the CGI in ROTK was pretty top notch. Granted there are a few scenes where it is obviously CGI, but for the bulk of the movie, it looks stunning, and there will be shots containing CGI that you probably aren't aware of.

PJ should be commended at not overusing such a tool, and instead, making as much of it as "real" as possible.