A mere plebian reviews ROTK

[groudon]

:D :D :D :mad: :D :D :D

That's not a smiley face rating; I'm just happy I just saw ROTK.

Critics said: "This movie was too long, bud"

Hey: This movie was long. It was more than long. It was looooong. It was more than loooooooong, it was intricate, sinusoid and harrowing. But in a good way, as with having a multiple orgasm. Damn, this movie was long. But you leave the movie theatre totally satisfied. And by Jiminy, sometimes, you just have to do it, do it, do it 'til you're satisfied.

Critics said: "This movie was too complicated"

Hey: It was complicated. My brain was clicking and clacking like the switch relays at the power plant. I felt stimulated and exhausted at the end, and I watched it to the very very end. It was complicated, but in a good way, like driving for 18 hours on a busy interstate to have sex with your honey. At the very end of a long road, you feel very very satisfied. Or, heh, at least I do, or, did.

Critics said: "So and so didn't do a convincing job acting"

Hey: All the performances were brief-seeming but meaningful. They seem brief because the scope of the film is gargantuan. This is less of a film that exists to carry one actor, than a film that is something that has actors to convey the whole.

Critics said: "The special effects are cheesy in these places or it was reminiscent of that other movie blockbuster."

Hey: The special effects were not cheesy. Some reach the limit of credibility but in the scope of the movie, the errors are insignificant.

Critics said: "Blah blah blah Jackson's inferior horror oeuvre, blah blah blah disappointing blah fakish decor blah blah, blah, where are the real characters in development, blah blah.

Hey: That's rubbish. ROTK was three.5 hours of roaring emotion. And NO, the end was not disposable or made of "multiple endings", it was a single continuation of the ending, the last passage of a symphony reminscent of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful.

Groudon's rating: This movie is S U P E R C O L O S S A L

SEE IT NOW!! WHY ARE YOU SITTING THERE READING THIS???!! ARE YOU CRAZY???@@!!! RUN, OUT AND SEE IT NOW FOR CHRISSAKES!!!!!

Thank you.

[saccharine]

damn straight groudon!

the movie seemed relatively short to me honestly haha. but then i did the trilogy tuesday thing and after being there since 11:45 that morning when 10 PM finally rolled around the 3.5 hours seemed like a breeze.

i need to see this again. by the time ROTK started my brain was a puddle of mush. LOTR is a shitload to take in 12 or so hours.

are there some inconsistencies? sure.

do i care? no.

can we all just stop comparing this to the book? yeah we can, but there's an amazing amount of purist assholes out there. what can ya do?

will the extended edition rip us all a new asshole? i'd be disappointed with anything less. wouldnt you?

will they release said edition earlier than november of next year? yeah cuz you know they're gonna do a monster set for christmas. and they cant do that anywhere near each other. new lines marketing machine is about the only one i can stand. and damn are they good. i think theyre the only studio hitting dead on the fuckin nose for dvd's nowadays.

ok i go now. but jumpin jesus on a pogo stick could eowyn kick anymore ass? i dont see how. i am smitten.

[Ricky Retardo]

I'm not one who goes off shooting loads over a lot of commercial film blockbusters, but this movie is indeed the shit. It's all the cliche superlatives and much, much, MUCH more.

[Dr Creep]

Are there any critics out there with enough sanity to resist the powerful urge to run lemming-like off the cliff off wild overpraise for this movie? Cliff Morris wrote that it's hard to find a flaw with this movie, any flaw. That guy saw a different movie than me, although I think his review had more to do with the weird fanboy obsession with knocking George Lucas than with ROTK. I mean, what do you think Mr. Morris would have said if Lucas had punctuated the grand arena battle in AOTC with a bad, incongruous new age song sang by Padme? There'd be fanboy bedlam if Lucas had included something that tacky! But strangely, I've yet to read a review that mentions that hokey moment. Maybe Mr. Morris had a bathroom break during that scene, because that was a glaring flaw, noticed by at least some of the people around me, judging from the muttering I heard.

Another thing, the ghost army was just awful. Jackson played the Battle For Helms Deep perfectly (and all of Two Towers for that matter). Now we get Helms Deep II, with some cave trolls and Imperial Walkers, umm, Oliphonts, thrown in. The fight was spectacular, with some truly great moments (like Legolas taking on an Oliphont by himself) but ultimately empty. The battle is robbed of any drama it may have had, the bad guys are routed by an amorphous green blob which looked like an escapee from the dreadful Matrix sequels (acutally, close up they looked like they belonged in the Frighteners. Pete, I'm a huge fan of your movies going way back, but if you were going to rip off one of your movies, did it have to be THAT one?). Those dead guys had nothing to do with anything we had seen in this series so far. What a cheap and weak way to decide the fate of middle-earth.

Choice bit of dialogue from ROTK: "None who venture there return. It is an evil mountain." Jesus Christ, as a SW fan it is hard to defend the dialogue in those movies, but next to nuggets like this Obi-Wan and Anakin sound like Mr. Brown and Mr. White discussing Madonna. I've never heard anyone call out LOTR for bad dialogue.

Now that I've dealt with the dialogue police, the lazy, donut eating racism police need an investigation as well. They are so quick to call SW racist, as if Jar-Jar in any way resembled any person who ever lived. If you look at Jar-Jar and see a Jamaican, I think you need to check yourself for racist tendencies, not Lucas. However, although I think there are way better ways to spend one's time than scouring fantasy epics for racial undertones, some of the guys driving those oliphonts won't exactly foster understanding between the east and west, post 9/11 and Iraq.

I could go on, but this is way too long already. Oh wait, I have to mention that the movie has a lethargic, depressing hobbit as its star. Fucking miserable to put up with for 3+ hours. OK, that's it.

All in all, this movie is only bad when measured against the incredibly high standards set by the first two movies. But if we were actually thankful to live in an era that brings us SW, Matrix and LOTR trilogies, whatever their flaws, internet message boards would be empty.

[groudon]

I completely disagree with the conclusions of your review. ROTK was awesome.

--

"
I don't like the sand.

It's coarse and rough and irritating -- Not like you.

You're soft and smooth.
"

[Bob Westal]

As an actual sometime FT critic (not sure if that makes me a plebian, or not a plebian), just thought I'd weigh in on the side of the really enthusiastic "yehs" (or is it "yeahs"?) for ROTK.

In a way, it's a bit silly to review it seprately from the other movies, since they really are of a piece. I mean, there was always the chance that a herd of cute little teddy bear critters would suddenly show, or everyone would start doing a bad impression of an unusually pointless Eric Rohmer film (that's you, Mr. Matrix Reloaded, I'm talking about) --- but it didn't, and therefore it was a continuation of a massively great film.

I mean, these things are always individual, but for myself I was awe inspired constantly (not easy to do folks -- usual special effects do almost nothing for me -- I actually like bad back-projection and flying saucers that look like plates! I'll never understand how people can trash an entire film just because a couple of shots look a bit fake -- here's news for you, folks, it's all fake -- so what if movies sometimes look that way. Fake is good!),

Anyhow, I cried, I laughed, I worried not about homoeroticism. (Well, I'm sure Ian McKellan was up to something, but I don't think that made it onscreen).

Great great movie. 5 thumbs up and 15,000 on the Westal scale!

[Peter_Lowry]

Dr Creep:

I submitted a review for 'Return Of The King' several days ago... and I expect it to be posted when everyone gets back from the holiday break. It basically bashed the film into limbo (2 out of 5 stars), attacking dialogue (which was pitiful) as well as the action's lack of passion and the green blob army that basically cheapened what could have been a great battle scene.

Not only do I think ROTK is overrated, I also consider it to be one of the biggest and flattest disappointments of 2003. Fellowship of the Ring will in my books forever be the best of the trilogy, as it was the total package that just seemed to have everything going for it. Despite the flack I have taken from many people on other sites for being the lone critic to stand up and call the film what I honestly think it is... I'm just hoping that this overrated 'Best Of All Time' teeny bopper wave doesn't lead the film to win Oscar like another certain overrated film about a boat did in 1997.

I hope you like the review when posted, and I pretty much agree with your comments... most of them at least.

Later,

[Bongwater]

The ghost army should have been blue.

[truepictures]

The ghost army shouldn't have left so quickly. It was amazing. But, I guess I'd have to take that up with JRR.

[kahiti]

Ne, well I already wrote a response on the other ROTK thread, but yeah. In some ways ROTK fell a tiny bit short of my expectations, but only a tiny bit. And it probably had something to do with the fact I'd been watching the ext. editions of both FOTR and TTT beforehand. I have a feeling the extended edition of ROTK will put in a lot of what was taken out - at least it did a lot for the Two Towers.

As for bad dialogue - what else were they supposed to say? Okay, Legolas' lines have never really been gems...but turning simple lines into flowery prose or elusive metaphors can sometimes end up annoying or confusing for a story...

I don't remember the books that well, but I wasn't so sure about the part where we see a flaming Denethor running off the cliff at Minas Tirith.. However, some parts just took my breath away, like the torches of Gondor and the appearance of the Rohirrim at Pelennor Fields. I didn't like the ghost army though...looked a little too...eh, glowing green? I'd always imagined them a little darker, and a little less talkative..

The "multiple endings" confused me a little, but I think that had more to do with how many times (and for how long) the scenes faded to black. One guy in the audience I was with kept cheering every time the movie continued...

Even though ROTK wasn't my favorite (FOTR was) it still was pretty great as part of a whole trilogy. I'm really looking forward to the extended edition...

[Graham Rae]

and the battle scenes with the Oliphants were the best thing I've ever seen. And I'm not even a fan of JRR Tolkien or anything; never even read the books.

Pete Jackson is THE MAN.

As ever.

G.

[Pete Vonder Haar]

A lot of the opinions I've heard vary depending on how pissed off the reviewer is at Peter Jackson's lack of adherence to the source material.

Personally, I thought "RotK" was outstanding. "Fellowship" is still the high water mark, in my opinion, but "Return" and "The Two Towers" are a close second and third.

Jackson is, indeed, THE MAN.

[Bongwater]

I'm just wondering what a ghost army should look like.

[Pete Vonder Haar]

Is that a Warhammer question?

[Bongwater]

Nah, I'm just trying to figure out why they're considered cheesy. I would think they'd be considered MINTY. :D

I thought that sequence kicked several shades of ass, meself. Those that didn't, well, I'm thinking they wouldn't be hip to the notion of a ghost army no matter what they looked like. Not sure how that whole battle should have ended to make everybody happy.

[Pete Vonder Haar]

I liked the Paths of the Dead sequence, except for the whole, "None who have trod that path have ever returned" Scooby-Doo dialogue. The ghost army was damned effective, they just mopped the floor with the bad guys a lot faster than I was expecting.

And if I was Aragorn, I'd have told the ghost captain that marching on Mordor was part and parcel of the whole battle as well. 'Course, that might have ruined the dramatic tension at the end.

[groudon]

Stupid, hateful critics. You fill your swine-laden faces with girly touchy feely flicks where bitches whine about their period and eat fatty foods while waxing assholic about the misery of life while quoting shithead poetry. Porcinely you slather and creep in obsequious betrothenfulness to such sickening limp wristed crap. Then you turn your saggy buttocks in revolution and criticize a story based in myth for not being realistic enough in dialogue. There's not enough personal feelings. The mythic actions are too unrealistic. Lick my balls you sewage-breathing worm-erectors: keep your sequin-coated sperm guzzling opinions to the ROMANCE aisle of the video-tron. Try a new profession like professional macrame picker or nail artist anal pleasurer.

Warm regards,
groudon

[Bongwater]

A simple "you're wrong" would have sufficed.

[groudon]

Oh, dear me, yes. Right said.

[Hellion]

Just for the record, groudon did not write all that. :p You can generate insults like that over at insultmonger.com.

[groudon]

I did write all that, Nastey Hobbitses.

Although the catalyst was a midnight viewing of ROTK followed by an early morning viewing of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

[darth veda]

I was disappointed with ROTK on so many levels that I can't fully include them in this short post. But, I also know that ROTK-EE will be much better in terms of editing and content. Same thing with TT. In fact, TT-EE kind of made me angry at PJ for not including some of those scenes in the theatrical and cutting others. I don't know what he could have been smoking, or maybe, not have been smoking.

FOTR was great, everything that you'd imagined it would be if you'd read the books. But with TT and ROTK, the quality of the films gradually suffered, almost like they ran out of gas. Maybe that's the problem with making an epic movie all at once. Maybe Phillipa just got tried and just rushed through the last hundred pages of the screenplay.

I don't know. I can't complain, really. They did the best they could - but, and it's a big but, it coulda been much, much better.

[Dr Creep]

I think my problem with ROTK can be summed up with one sequence from the film. Gandalf leaves the good-guys to warn the wack-job in charge of Minas Tirith that the world is about to be destroyed, basically. That doesn't work, so he gets one of the Hobbits to sneakily light the beacon to call for help. Then we are treated to panoramic views of Middle-Earth mountains, blaring music and CGI flames leaping toward the sky, all rousing the Riders of Rohan and company to charge once more into the breach. Wow, fantastic, breathtaking stuff. Except that it's all empty and pointless. There's no GOOD reason why everyone didn't just accompany Gandalf in the first place. Everyone knows Sauron's armies are about lay siege to Minas-Tirith, we didn't need a bunch of bonfires to tell us that. Can you imagine Han Solo or Captain Kirk sitting on his ass waiting for a beacon giving him permission to save the universe? Hell, even Picard will disobey orders to attack the Borg. In this sequence Jackson resorts to something he never had to do in the other two films: artificially creating emotion, instead of just letting the story do so on its own. In a 3 1/2 hour movie you don't need crap like that bogging the story down.

[darth veda]

I thought the whole lighting of the beacons was ridiculous. Sure, beautiful panoramic views of New Zealand are awesome, but necessary to the story, no, I'm afraid not. And Aragorn just happens to be watching for the beacon... yeah, right. PJ really messed up there, and at more than a few other scenes as well. Such as....... the confrontation between Eowyn and the Witch King.

[El Duderino Diablo]

And if the scene hadn't been included I'm sure there would be people pissing and moaning for an explanation as to how the Rohirrim (?) would have known that their assistance was needed and desired.
:shrug:
I think it's hardly a scene worth getting one's panties in a twist over. :)

[Vxheous]

First of all, to the person that wrote about how the confrontation between Eoywn the the Witchking is wrong, there is nothing wrong there. READ the book. An elf named Glorfindel prophesized long ago that the Witchking cannot be killed by a man. THe sequence had to be, just as Eoywn is supposed to kill him, after hacking off the head of the fell beast, and Merry distracting him by stabbing him with the Sword. I enjoyed ROTK, and I am a HUGE Tolkien fan. Read the Trilogy over at least 20 times, read all the other books, including the Hobbit, Unfinished Tales, Silmarillion. ALthough they Peter Jackson AGAIN did not stick to the original plot, it was tastefully done, and the important parts were kept. Yes, I thought the dead showing up on the Fields of the Pelennor was stupid, but they were in the story, they just did not attack at Pelennor Fields. Also, Denethor, the Steward of Gondor was not a wacko, he was portrayed badly in the movie (Peter Jackson was smoking something) because there was a reason for his madness.

One more thing. The Rohirrim could not ride right away with Gandalf. Minas Tirith has held the Armies of Mordor for countless years, and only in the more dire cases does it call for aid. Unless Gondor calls for aid, Rohan, as a separate nation wouldn't come to help, they had enough troubles of their own. Also, the Rohirrim are spread over the entire country, and the armies have to be mustered, and that takes time. Anyways, that's enough of my ramblings

[darth veda]

My problem with the Eowyn fight with the Witch King is not due to the to the fact that it doesn't follow the book - Eowyn slays fell beast, hobbit stabs king behind knee, Eowyn slays king - but due to the fact of poor editing and awkward staging of the scene. Everyone please re-READ the book and see how the scene differs... much more drama in the book. Try and imagine how you would have filmed it.

PJ did an incredible job - no argument there, but all I'm offering is some criticism on how and why some scenes were done the way they were.

[bobafettbret]

I'm not a purist regarding translation of the novel to film (I don't consider either of them to be a trilogy. They are each one long piece). I didn't read Tolkein's book until after I saw the first installment of Jackson's movie. In that context, I thought Jackson's work was brilliant, particularly the visualization of Middle Earth. I thought he more than did justice to the novel in that regard, and by that I mean he took the spirit of the book and gave more and better detail than Tolkein (architecture, costume, weaponry, etc), which is appropriate since film is visual and that was his job as an adaptive director. I also understand that time and other filmic constraints necessitate the modification or deletion of characters, their dialog, or specific scenes or subplots, and occasionally the creation of something completely new. I have no problem with those types of changes. However, there is one type of change that I think has been made that I haven't heard anyone address directly.

It is best illustrated for me by the Ent plot: In the film, the Ents have a meeting where they decide whether to join with the other races of Middle Earth and engage in the war against Sauron. They vote no. Later, when they see that Sarumon has killed many trees, they vengefully change their mind and destroy Eisengard. This is all great, I loved the Ents, Eisengard, the battle, etc.

But in the book they vote to join the war. Everything else is the same. They have the meeting, they go to battle... but in between they vote differently. Why? The film reverses their noble, heroic, join-with-the-team attitude (which is the whole reason I like the book and the movie; they center around friendship, loyalty and courage. But as I'm saying, the movie didn't fully get it). In the film the Ents are not friendly, loyal or courageous, until someone hurts them, then they kick ass. I do not think it is "purism" to question this change. This is not a detail, this is about the fundamental concept behind the good and evil forces of Middle Earth.

Same with Faramir... I don't care that they changed details... I care that they changed THE POINT... the point again being friendship, loyalty and courage. In the book, Faramir distrusts Frodo, as he does in the film. But in the book, he's friendly (is polite and shares tea), loyal (lets Frodo go because they're both fighting the same enemy), and courageous (it takes courage to be friendly and loyal when you distrust someone). But it turns out ok, he helps Frodo and crew along, the side of good gets a boost. That passage in the book lifts my spirit and heart; I want to be like Faramir. In the movie, he's unfriendly, disloyal and cowardly. I hate that part of the movie; I want to smack Faramir.

There are other examples. But you get the idea. Overall, the movie took many opportunities where a character was showing incredible friendship, loyalty and/or courage, and diminished it somehow.

I don't care about changing details, and I again acknowledge it's unfair to compare the book and movie in many ways. If you don't consider the book, I think the movie is awesome (it's still about friendship, loyalty and courage, after all), and I'll be glad to own the extended ROTK dvd to complete my collection. If someone asks me if I love the movie, I'll say yes.

But if someone asks me whether Jackson got the core of Tolkein, I'll have to say no. Read the book.

But the movie still rocks. Watch it.

But the book is better. Read it.

Then tell me I'm wrong.

Here it comes!

[Peter_Lowry]

In response to all these book vs. Movie posts, I submit the following quote from William Shatner: "GET A LIFE!"

Peter

[bobafettbret]

Peter, you were lurking around the website and managed to wait little more than half an hour to post something non-responsive to my post. Which of us should be getting a life?

I personally think discussion of a movie's source material is a pretty good point to begin critical analysis, and I think I made a novel argument. Do you have any actual response?

[Bongwater]

What? Someone wrote a book? Unless they pass them out to you before going into the movie theatre, I'm not sure it matters that much.

Oh man, Return of the Living Thread. Let's go! :D

[Peter_Lowry]

My previous response basically sums up how I feel about the direciton of this threat. As for the lurking snipe... heaven forbid I should actually read the entries in question, or leave my desk to do various chores around the house while still logged in. I also like reading the posts while feeding my infant son, which means I can't respond to anything until I'm finished. So there could be a bundle of reasons for my lack of aciton despite my name being there. I also stand by my words. The film is almost two months old... get over it.

Peter

[El Duderino Diablo]

I still like cheese.







Oh, and it takes 15 minutes to half an hour for a user name to clear from their last clicked location, so, while it may appear someone is lingering in a thread they may actually be in a car on their way to your home to beat some sense into you with large, frozen trout. ;)

[Bongwater]

I admit I was lurking for a while because I was contemplating whether to resurrect a dead issue or not. But since Dude posted, I'll go ahead. :)

I disagreed with Peter over some stuff in his ROTK review, but I HOPE I never went as far as to attack his "lurking". That's kinda pathetic, really.

Anyway, I'll be here if you guys need anything.

[Peter_Lowry]

Originally posted by The Dude
I still like cheese.

I love cheese. Havarti and Spiced Gouda are my personal favorites.

Peter