First Review Of Return Of The King

dipfan writes "Newsweek has a first review of the third instalment of LOTR - and gives it two thumbs up: "Judging from a recent Newsweek screening in New Zealand, The Return Of The King is a sure contender for best picture. More than that, it could be the first franchise ever that didn't, at the end of the day, let audiences down--either because of laziness, pretension, greed or other phantom menaces. This is an especially poignant possibility at a time when we can all still smell the smoke from the wreckage of The Matrix." Fingers crossed. There's also an entertaining piece on LOTR gaffes with comments from Peter Jackson (such as 'Well, it's too late to fire anyone,' and 'We didn't think Elijah looked very good with pus')."

Comments

Except, of course, that he agreed to it.

[devphil]

Some of his published letters describe his feelings on the possibility of a movie. He didn't like the idea for the same reason that many of the die-hard fans don't -- it's impossible to translate everything onto the screen.

But he wasn't dead-set against the idea. He gave his reluctant permission. (Then got really disgusted at the screenplays.)

Re:SPOILER

[UserGoogol]

Yes, but they WILL have the Grey Havens, which, supposedly, should be shown with the proper degree of bittersweetness. Hopefully SOMETHING will have changed in the Shire, though.

Re:Secrets?

[Feral Bueller]

No so, Mr. Minh.

"Lord of the Rings" was the second best selling book in western literature (behind the Bible) for years.

Now I think it's averaging at #3 behind "Dianetics".

Too bad their movie ("Battlefield Earth") wasn't as good.

Re:SPOILER

[rendler]

I don't know if this was supposed to be a well crafted troll or a simple mistake. But it is very incorrect. From the foreward of LOTR:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. ......
The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a thread of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had be averted. It's souces are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.

Re:The matrix.

[EnderWiggnz]

try this

Re:Just suck it up

[Chmcginn]

It's the scouring of the shire, not the razing of it. It's not completely destroyed - really, only a few hobbits are actually killed - just messed up for a time while they're gone. And it doesn't change the "Good prevails over Evil" syndrome at all - by end of the story in the appendices, everything's better than it was before, Sam's the mayor, Merry the master of Buckland, and Pippin the head Took. (And Frodo gets to ride off into the sunset with Gandalf, Elrond, and the near-last of the elves.)

That was not a review.

[jbum]

>> Newsweek has a first review of the third instalment of LOTR - and gives it two thumbs up

#1. That was not a review. It was a promotional
article for the movie. Although the person writing the article appears to have seen the movie, he does not present his opinion about its quality.

#2. No where is the phrase "two thumbs up" used, this being something only done by Ebert & The Other Guy, who are not newsweek columnists.

#3. The word 'installment' has two Ls.