The Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

True, but ROTK is a far worst choice to sweep the Oscars because unlike the usual candidates to winning Oscars, ROTK is in high competition to setting box office records. Projects that are over blown and over zealous in pleasing the audience (like ROTK) may be given unwarranted credibility with Oscar approval also Hollywood may be more focused on giant epics that are really just cash cows. Studios would focus more on these films in every avenue of promotion and become even stuffier to smaller films.

Even makeup up close will look fake, so will models. Fake is fake, and cg is an amazing tool that is very fake.

Fake is fake, but I think models and make up (when done well) look very believable in realism to a point where it can be intercut into regular movies. CGI, on minimal levels, can too. CGI is an amazing tool that is very fake, but I'd argue that if the entire movie was going to slam so much use of it, that it should be totally made up in CGI to be tonally whole in one realism.

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.

Now there's a statement that may be hard to back up.

[Gamblour.]

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.

Now there's a statement that may be hard to back up.

Well, it worked for me. After I got the extended FOTR, I was near obsessed with the movies. After TTT extended, I got really excited to see ROTK, where before I didn't even care.

[Ghostboy]

many films of the future will be interlaced with so much CGI you will never be able to tell the difference.

We're already at that point. There was a bit on the Attack Of The Clones DVD showing all these CG elements in shots that you would never in a guess were fake....stuff like Ewan McGregor hugging that alien. Of course, you don't look for things like that in movies like Star Wars, since there are so many other noticeable special effects in every shot. Once effects like these start getting integrated into small scale films, that's when it will really get impressive.

[mister mister]

Got out of it last night at 12:30 feeling emmensely satisfied.

I really enjoyed the way humour was laced throughout the battle + long dialogue scenes.

Pippin-kicks-arse.

Never one for analysing the production value, the characters won out in the end for me. I believed in these characters, Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf, and think that the feelings expressed by all of them were universal.

Stupidly, I waited for Leg-less and Aragorn to get it 'awn, but lucked out on that one.

I could write a PHD on the homo-erotic themes in LOTR. Esp. ROTK.

Sam and Frodo: Best-fucking-love-story-ever.

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

Thecowgoooesmooo wrote:
many films of the future will be interlaced with so much CGI you will never be able to tell the difference.



We're already at that point. There was a bit on the Attack Of The Clones DVD showing all these CG elements in shots that you would never in a guess were fake....stuff like Ewan McGregor hugging that alien. Of course, you don't look for things like that in movies like Star Wars, since there are so many other noticeable special effects in every shot. Once effects like these start getting integrated into small scale films, that's when it will really get impressive.

Yes thats very true.

But in the future, it will be amazing because young teenagers will be able to shoot their own indie films, take it home, capture it onto Final Cut 300000 and then with ease, add CG effects that match Lord of the Rings or any current film that uses CG. The production value achieved at low costs in the future, will be mind boggling.


chris

[Banky]

I was watching the Wrong Turn DVD and there are things that are cg in the background that i never would have guessed

[Pozer]

one of the things I loved most about this movie was the pacing. The camera just MOVED throughout the film, through the battle scenes, when  Gandalf takes Pippin on the horse to quickly go to Minas Tirith etc.
and the helicopter shots really helped this in certain spots.
IT JUST MOVED MAN!

[Ravi]

While I definitely think the film is a remarkable feat of visual artistry, the LOTR trilogy didn't involve me emotionally.  There were a few moments in the third film that were gripping, such as the cremation scene, but I admired the technical wizardry more than the characters or story.

[Slick Shoes]

I saw this on Christmas with my family. We decided to go at the last minute, so by the time we got there all the good seats were taken. We ended up sitting in the front row, something I swore I'd never do. Next day I had a kink in my neck the magnitude of which I hadn't experienced since the time I slept in a rowboat.

[The Silver Bullet]

The more individual opinions I read, both here at Xixax and elsewhere, the more I begin to understand what the major difference between the books and films is [and as it's a fairly major one, it's interesting to note how the story has become popular in both its forms].  

Tolkien makes no effort to engage the emotions. His is a trilogy of history textbooks, more concerned with the events [and the languages] than with the characters.

Jackson is all about the emotions. His is a trilogy of cinematic epics, trying to be concerned with both the events and the emotional depth of the characters. A movie audience needs to connect with those on screen. And this is why, ultimately, there are going to be those that hate the films.

Jackson has adapted a mammoth work of fantastical history that had very little emotional subtext to begin with, and tried to add some while still remaining faithful. It's not easy, and he doesn't always pull it off. The films are melodramatic and sentimental, which will work for some and not for others.

It's odd that people didn't pull Tolkien up on it in the first place and say, "You know, man, you're really fucking shallow."

Would have made it a whole lot easier [from a story point of view, at least] to adapt the thing...

[thedog]

EDIT: sounded a bit too insulting.

After reading Gold Trumpets review of the movie, the first word that comes to mind...

Shallow.

Seriously, I don't have anything personal against you or anything. But after watching the best movie of a trilogy that is, without a doubt, one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of cinema - and then coming home and reading that review, it really is the first word that comes to mind.

I could say a lot on your review and how much I disagree with it (one thing I could say, I guess, is that I hate it when people have the nerve to walk out of a movie), but right now I'd just like to touch upon one thing.

The "cliches" you list aren't really cliches, you might as well point out that tracking shots and dialogue are cliches, too. They are just common filmmaking techniques to get an emotion or idea across to the viewer, to be able to use them correctly is the mark of a great filmmaker. But when someone lists them as cliches, it's different. Either the person has some extraordinary vision or they have a stick up their ass.

Now unless you come out with an amazing film that doesn't use any "cliches" (note the quotation marks), I don't think anybody should take your advice on what are cliches and what aren't.

No offense, though.  

[©brad]

alright gt, it's been a while since u and i have had at it. (whilst it may seem that this reply is fueled w/ anger and frustration (actually, it is) i must say that i don't hate gt and i wish not to attack him. there was a time, yes, when he and i argued w/ one another frequently, and my rage was overpowering, leading me to say things that were insulting and just plain rude. i'm happy to say that i have grown since then and even enjoy reading gt's posts. but this, this fucking post just got to me, and i had to respond. so enjoy.)

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.

are you kidding me? u see, i really can't take any of ur review seriously after hearing this. i just can't understand how someone who is as film literate as u are could be so bored w/ the first 30 minutes of this movie-- meanwhile, you can sit through a many of fellini films that are much more tiresome. i can't see stanley kauffman (ur mentor, yes?) making bets w/ his little brother as to who will walk out during the first 30 minutes simply out of spite.  

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'm not sure i'm understanding what your saying here, nevermind the fact that you just said "based on the basis." your saying that the film wasn't dramatic and was simply reiterating fact after fact from the book? i think your stubbornness is having too much an affect on your movie reviews. u go into it knowing you're going to hate it, and during your viewing w/ your little brother you're looking for faults (all of which are either false or completely incoherent, i must say) to validate your already negative opinion when in fact, what you should do is let the film wash over you, w/o any preconceived notion that it will be bad or any cynicism towards the trilogy. you then may be able to see the drama that is very much there.  

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.

1. the only thing more overused in film reviews than the word "pretentious" is "cliché."
2.  if those battle scenes/battle speeches didn't make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up straight, something is wrong with you. this inability to connect on an emotional level to not just this film but to many further perpetuates the common held belief that you are in fact not human; rather, part of you is indeed some sort of malfunctioning robot that doesn't know how to love.
3. Emotion in their voice/movements seemed hardly existent? u see, i question your ability to even recognize true emotion in a film.

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.

i'm really confused here. two realisms? it's fantasy dude. have you read the books? you are aware that this film/book/world is composed of humans, hobbits, elves, dwarfs, and many other powerful, wonderfully different types of living creatures. i'm not understanding your beef here.

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.

you walked out?!? enough said.

[kotte]

Love you, brad. Spot on.

[analogzombie]

First off I would like to say that i love the LOTR trilogy, and agree that it is an achievement in film that is unrivaled. i say this, not to qualify what i am about to say, i say it just to make sure we are on the same page.

i loved ROTK, thought is was grand and amazing. But after watching all three films I only have a few minor bones of contention.

First) How many times did we get left on the cliffhanger "is that character dead"? I would really like to watch all three and count how many times the story brought us to that question. I know, I know, it was developed to add to the emotional depth and character development. Also, it's just one of those techniques to transfer the books into films. So i can forgive it, no big deal really, but when watching all three I did get a little tired of it. Although it didn't make me think any less of the movies.

Second) How many endings can you tack on to ROTK? I counted 5. I know they are in the books, but I just got the feeling that Jackson didn't really wanna end the film. He was tying up loose ends forever. And no matter what anyone says, there was too much slow-mo on the scene of Frodo laughing at the end. And how long do you have to hold on Ian McKellen's face? i seriously started to laugh b/c it went on too long and brought me out of the movie emotionally. So I know all the ending stuff is in the book, but I don't know why they couldn't use a Galdriel narration to sum it up. I mean the movie started with one, and there was one in the middle of TTT. it would have been a nice way to bookend the trilogy in my opinion.

At any rate these things add up to mere petty arguments with these amazing movies. If this is all I could come up with, then I am doing well. can't wait for the extended  ROTK!

ps-- how about that direct homage to the Return of the Jedi Luke/Vader reconciliation scene with the Eowyn /Theodyn post-witch king battle scene. HA! Loved it! Or maybe Lucas took it from the books, whichever, it was great. "Let me save you." (Luke/Eowyn) "You already have." (Vader/Theodyn)

[Gold Trumpet]

i just can't understand how someone who is as film literate as u are could be so bored w/ the first 30 minutes of this movie-- meanwhile, you can sit through a many of fellini films that are much more tiresome.

I'm actually tougher on Fellini than you think. Ask SoNowThen about my opinion on Satyricon (if he remembers) cause I think its one of his favorites by Fellini though I wrenched the film when last speaking about it.

u go into it knowing you're going to hate it, and during your viewing w/ your little brother you're looking for faults (all of which are either false or completely incoherent, i must say) to validate your already negative opinion when in fact, what you should do is let the film wash over you, w/o any preconceived notion that it will be bad or any cynicism towards the trilogy.

Actually, if that was correct, I'd be able to have seen the light and would have loved Fellowship because I did think that it would be great when I originally saw it. I expected better from the second and didn't get it and going into the third, expected it to be bad on one hand but expected it to be better than the first two due to the large amount of buzz from everyone.

3. Emotion in their voice/movements seemed hardly existent? u see, i question your ability to even recognize true emotion in a film.

Look at the main actors. For Viggo, Bloom, and Mckellen, their facial movements hardly change and neither their expressions. Even in a war speech or heartfelt confession, they vary little from the drained talk most of the characters inhabit. During battle scenes, they are second rate emotions any other actor could bring. The costumes and make up they all wear are an example of the art of suggestion because they, alone, ask you to really believe these actors inhabit their characters. Nothing in any of the performances are beyond the bare minimum expected in usual fairy tale hoakiness.

'm really confused here. two realisms? it's fantasy dude.

You missunderstood. By two realisms, I mean the digital realism (larger battle scenes involving fairy tale creatures) and the Braveheart-esque realism (combat of people slicing each other up). Tonally, it doesn't work for me. I'll spend time watching the combat scenes and then go to all the fairy tale creatures being involved and see how texturally different they are in believability. I didn't just see the story of humans versus monsters, but humans verus computer created monsters. This didn't allow me to really get involved in the battle scenes that much because I was aware of the technical difference. If this film was animated, every creature, effect, landscape, and emotion would be on equal ground.

Also, this wasn't an argument. It was me just reiterating my already stated beliefs. Cbr, as much as you were trying to hold back on cussing me out, you just basically told me I was "wrong" for not liking the movie. The only point of argument was the second one I quoted.