Oi vey! Another reviewer provides a slanted ROTK review

[fraidykat]

There have been few negative reviews of ROTK in which the reviewer betrayed some kind of agenda in their invective. In this case, the reviewer seems distraut that a fantasy film could be included among his personal list of classics. Too many walking trees and such make the film too silly for him to love. It's sad when someone is unable to review a movie objectively because their own biases or agendas make their mind up before they even see it.

As for the movie itself, it was a bit long and a bit slow in parts. The reviewers ridiculous assertion that the CGI people ran out of money because he doesn't agree with the look for the armies of the dead doesn't hold, especially since Jackson used the same style for the "ghosts" in the dead marshes. Character development, another of the reviewers issues, is plainly seen in most of the characters. In fact, most of his problems with the movie are easily explained away by just watching it with open eyes, something he could not apparently do.



ps...my favorite part of the review is were he complains that the movie is too long and then also complains that it didn't take more time to develop characters.

[morrism]

I completely agree. Also I am one of those "sheep" that feels rotk is one of the best movies off all time (sorry but I'd rather watch Pluto Nash than citizen kane again) but to imply that my movie preferences are based on some kind of social peer pressure is really insulting.

It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to be sheep. If you want to watch movies that are considered by many professionals as the best of all time, try watching movies like '”Citizen Kane,” “The Godfather” or even “Casablanca.” The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, with its talking trees, wizardry and scary-looking creatures is just too silly to hold that type of rank, and it never will.

Also its rather interesting how the point of his review is that rotk is not an all time classic like "so many are trying to say it is" yet the above quote sounds like it could say: The only reason rotk won't be a classic like these films is cause its a fantasy and the only reason I don't like this movie is cause all you people do (lol, sorry).

Lastly, regarding his complaints about character development, i think he needs to re-watch the movie so he can pay more attention to the characters of Pippin, Sam and Frodo. Peter Jackson obviously paid more attention to them and you can't fairly give rotk a negative review when your main complaint is that characters from different movies (fotr & two towers) didn't receive enough attention in this movie.

[Bongwater]

Citizen Kane is better than Pluto Nash. Nobody references Pluto Nash in their movies. :p

[Shire Folk]

I was going to post a rather elaborate point-by-point talkback to your "review" I just saw this morning, not so much to try to make a convert out of a non-believer, but to answer to your non-sense criticism you have for ROTK, until I hit your second grammatical error, on top of another misspelling, not even halfway through your text, and I said to myself "What's the point?".

For a writer, doing something right up his alley, not to care or know enough to first run his own words through the criticism of a spellchecker before trying to pass judgement on someone else's work to the mass is simply ludicrous in my book.

"I really hate to be the one saying this," too, but allow me to paraphrase one of your lines, why anybody is running around and calling this flawed writing "a review" is shocking. It's one thing to have an opinion, but I'd keep it to myself when I can't even spell. And I'd also urge folks to try reading reviews by real professionals on movies like "Citizen Kane," "The Godfather," or even "Casablanca," too.

I do agree with you on one point, however: you are in the minority.

Your review, as it stands under my eyes about a third way through, is all jumbled words, without effects, and no substance.

Shire-folk

[Bongwater]

I've read real professional reviews dealing with Citizen Kane, Casablanca and The Godfather. They think they rock too. :confused:

Is Lord of the Rings the heir to the Star Wars throne? Perhaps. Remains to be seen as to how truly INFLUENTIAL it becomes. It may end up existing in its own insurmountable bubble while the rest of the industry tiptoes around it, not even taking a shot at going that big.

On par w/ Citizen Kane and such... uh.... No. Afraid not.

[groudon]

"
I don't like the sand.

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

You're soft and smooth, like ROSEBUDDD....
"

[Peter_Lowry]

I well aware of the fact that I'm in the minority with my opinion, but that won't change how I felt about the movie.

As for the grammar, Thanks for the feedback. I'll be sure take my time to weed as much out as I can with my next review. In my defense, however, I did write it really late into the night and probably shouldn't have sent it out without a few more rounds of proofing. So go ahead and bash it if you like, but I think the main points speak for themselves.

Thanks for reading it though. Your time is much appreciated.

Later,

Peter