Slashdot Mirror
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')."
> when we can all still smell the smoke from the wreckage of The Matrix
Just my personnal opinion, but the problem people have with The Matrix ending is peace. War is so much more glamour these days...
J.
This is an especially poignant possibility at a time when we can all still smell the smoke from the wreckage of The Matrix"
I love it when the cool thing to do is bash popular movies, this dude will probably be the first person in line to say RotK sucks, whether it does or not.
Tolkien wrote his works for a narrow literate audience, wrote it alone based on his personal experiences, and the fact it wouldn't fit in just one book made it a trilogy.
The LOTR movie is based on that book. The others were based on merchandising.
What is the point of reading a review before watching a movie? Watch the movie first, form your OWN opinion (this way it won't be influenced by anyone else's), thats what i have decided anyway.
Only one other time has a trilogy of movies this good come out. Everyone wants to be suprised, which is why almost no one (the average Joe that is) is reading the books.
Movie reviews are traditionally done for the purpose of letting people decide if a movie is worth seeing. That obviously has to be done before you see the movie to not be pointless.
If you've already decided to see a movie, I agree with you.
I read TTT and RoTK right after seeing the TTT film, and quickly realized that they had WAY too much left to film to fit in one film. I wish they'd turn it into a 4 part series.
I mean, how can you cut the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman? Without this, do we cut the entire palantir subplot? Without the palantir, we don't see where Aragorn stares down Sauron.
I also wonder how much of 'The Scouring of the Shire' made it in. How much screen time would we need for the Saruman / Wormtongue confrontation?
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
There are more movies released in a single year than any one person (except a reviewer) should see. You don't have the option of seeing all the movies you could possibly see, so you have to pick and choose. Many of use find reviews a useful tool for making these decisions. What tools do you use to help you decide which movies to see?
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
BEWARE - SPOILER!
I don't like that there won't be (even on DVDs) Scouring of Shire. That's why I find LOTR so great - it's so bitter-sweet end that war has got consequences even in such an idylic places like Shire.
I agree totally. The part where Gandalf proves to now be the stronger wizard is one of the best parts of the book, plus it sets up the whole palantir story where Pippin uses it and makes Sauron think that Saruman has the ringbearer. I'd rather that PJ find something else to cut out of the movie instead of this scene. Of course I'm sure the numbnuts at New Line won't let him add the footage back in now even if he wanted to.
Tolkien sold the movie rights himself for 100K to settle a tax bill.
The first attempt to make it into a movie was a disaster, it was a disney style cartoon. I would have walked out if I hadn't been the projectionist.
Even if they read it later, the experience will have been forever ruined for them.
Oh please save us the sanctimonious claptrap. There are several hundred thousand books published each year and of those no more than two on average will be made into a big budget film. There is plenty of Tolkein left in its pristine unfilmed state, the Silymarilyn, book of lost tales that were found behind the dresser, etc.
Of course the only way those works are ever going to make it to a wider audience is if they are turned into films because Tolkein's attempt to immitate nordic sagas leads to tedious prose.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I was absolutely blown-away by how much better the extended edition of FOTR was compared to the already excellent theatrical version...the extra scenes added so much depth to the movie. In fact, I wasn't really all that excited when TTT came out in theaters. I will be watching the extended DVD of TTT with my geeky family this Thanksgiving holiday, for sure. In reading about the stuff that got cut, I'm already pretty pumped for the ROTK extended edition.
--- Where's my car, and why are these grass stains on my pants?
Sadly, the average Joe doesn't view reading as a recreational activity.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Starting sentences that read like: "I didn't like it cause it sucked", "I didn't like it cause it was lame", etc ... "I didn't like it cause I didn't like it".
I'm sorry people, but anyone who starts off an opinion piece with a remark like that for an opening sentence is effectively holding up a big, flashing neon sign saying "I am ignorant and my opinion deserves to be ignored"
When people simply say that the movie "sucked", it means just that, that they didn't like it. I have noticed that with a lot of Matrix fans in particular, expressing dislike for these movies is anathema, and that they treat it like a religion.
If you want people to explained to you why the movie "sucked" to them, you can politely ask. But to say that they are ignorant or sound ignorant is idiotic. Art is subjective, and sometimes, there are no clear ways to express why one dislikes a piece of art. In this case, the reasons are numerous, but why repeat them over and over. Saying "it sucks" it's enough, it communicates to you, that the writer didn't like the movie.
The defenses for this movie are just beyound ridiculous, the typical one is the "ignorant" and you "didn't get it" elitist charges, which are so pathetic, because you get the feeling that fans of these movies feel intellectually superior for a piece of work that pretends to be intellectual. It's amazing, what's so intellectual about leather clad people wacking each other like they're in a comic book, and pretending to regurgitate phylosophy 101 that doesn't advance the plot?
The original poster here has an even more amazing defense, people don't like the movie, because today they're INTO WAR!. Amazing, the insult is that if you don't like the movie, you must be some blood thristy war monger that can't appreaciate this sophisticated work.
Get a grip folks, and learn to respect other people's opinions. So you liked the movie, CLAP CLAP, good for you. But don't insult other people's intelligence because they don't share your same taste (or lack of it).
Enough.
- sigs are for wimps.
What's interesting is that I wasn't disappointed by the end of Revolutions, probably because it ended exactly as I had predicted it would.
It really couldn't have ended any other way, really. The machines couldn't have won, because then the entire thing would have been pointless. The humans couldn't have won, because the machines themselves weren't entirely evil. They couldn't have kept fighting, because it would have been unresolved. Peace was the only answer.
"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."
Perhaps that was a less than subtle hint that the submitter is disappointed with the Star Wars prequel trilogy?
Fundamental Dramatic Flaws in the last 2 Matrix movies:
+ The primary tension is between the "Smith Virus" and the "Matrix". The audience doesn't crap about either. The primary tension between Humans and Machines is sluffed off.
+ Neo becomes Superman. Superman is a terrible dramatic character, unless someone has Kryptonite (which nobody does in this movie).
+ Too much jawjacking AND too much buttkicking.
+ Long pointless playstation-style "quests" that the characters must complete for no good reason just to fill screen time.
+ Trinity is killed, brought back to life, sits around doing nothing for a while, and then is killed again. More time wasting.
+ A totally crap transition between the two movies.
Maybe you found something deeply interesting in the movies, but you have to admit that on a structural level, there were diarrhea designed to squeeze two box offices out of half an idea.
Overall I can say I am very satisfied with the Matrix trilogy, something most people would never admit.
/rant
Here here...
I think the biggest problem with the Matrix trilogy, is that the second 2 movies were different in scope to the original.
When I first saw 'The Matrix', I had no idea what to expect. The way they showed you what the matrix was, and how Neo came to wake up from it, was one of the most mind boggling scenes to ever grace the movie screen. After seeing the first one, and proclaiming my love for it, I heard that there were sequels in the making. At first I was expecting the same sort of jaw dropping 'OMFG!' reaction that I had to the first one, then I realized that there was no way that the W. Bros. would be able to pull off the same slight of hand as they did with the first one, because everyone already knew what the Matrix was and why it operated. That is the crux of my argument, when people saw the first one, they didn't know what the Matrix was, and were presented.. acctually make that thrust into, a fresh new fantasy world unlike any other in recent years.
The second and third movies, were different, in that they didn't start with a Mr. Anderson searching for answers, and in the end finding out he was the 'Chosen One', they began with the expectation that people knew what the Matrix was before they saw it. Hence, there was no easy way for the W. Bros. to present that same 'OMFG! the life he was leading wasn't real' kind of surprise. All they could really do was to use the dynamics developed in the first one, and apply them as a continuation of the same story.
I believe people were expecting the 'OMFG!' factor of the first to be common in all 3 films, and when that didn't happen they cried 'THIS MOVIE SUCKS!', because they were expecting to be blown away in the same fashion, when really, if they hadn't held that preconception they would see that all 3 are very good movies (IMHO), albiet in different ways.
5468652047616D65
Actually, the way that it all ends at Mount Doom really is unexpected for those who encounter it the first time. I mean, it's hard for me to remember, it was over 20 years ago that I read the trilogy (and I might have already seen Return of the King The Animation...), but I recall that I didn't expect the Quest to end like that. Oh, I knew the Ring would be destroyed... but wasn't it a close one? Tolkien layered a lot into that final set of moments... in a way, the whole point of the series was in those moments of interaction between Sam, Gollum, and Frodo. I hope the movie really captures those moments well.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
I haven't seen the FOTR:extended edition commentary, but I remember them saying, "We don't know what people are talking about...there's no car in this scene."
Let's see... why bring it up at all on the DVD if they were really trying to cover it up? I'll stake your life on it and say they were JOKING AROUND??
P.S. I need to check, but I think they even removed the car in the Oscar screener.
Do you honestly think they create a new Oscar screener DVD from the film transfer? I am guessing they take it straight from the original DVD.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Funny- but, you know what? Good story-telling means that knowing the ending doesn't matter.
Case and point- when Gandalf fell at the end of the first movie- you could have heard a pin drop in the theater, and I found it to be a very, very powerful scene. Nearly everyone in the audience knew damn well he was fine and would return -but the power of the imagery of the comrades loosing their leader and friend just grips you to the point that, even though you know otherwise(and if you were smart, you'd realize it takes more to bump off Gandalf)- you really feel like he just died.
I think the difference is that too many movies substitute "what's gonna happen next? Find out!" for a good story. That is, however, not to say that all mysteries are bad- quite the opposite, I love mysteries/suspense(not the slasher kind though). If you want a good example, pick up one of Le Carre's spy novels; I strongly recommend reading from the first, especially if you're reading any of his first half dozen books or so- some of them -are- chronologically important.
Another good example is, believe it or not- Marathon. That game came at a time when Doom was "the" game- you ran around blowing up monsters and that was pretty much it. In Marathon, you had a non-linear play, you could suddenly find yourself on any one of three sides(even mid-level, if I remember right!); you had to do a lot of searching and pay close attention to details. It was the best FPS plot-wise I've ever played. You can currently play the demo on any modern OS- search for Aleph One. You can get the demo files from bungie's site, and if you have the original CDs, you can play the entire game. I'm replaying the thing from scratch right now, as a matter of fact.
Please help metamoderate.
If the sequels had come out independently, no relation to the first film, they would have been OK Hollywood movies. The Matrix was not a brilliant film because of the philosophy, or because of the plot, it was successful because a lot of great actors put in a lot of really good performances, and, after 5 years of storyboarding, the filmmakers shot some amazing and affecting scenes.
The two later movies are thrown together by comparison. More actors with less talent basically do less. The background actors in the first movie stayed in the background and looked cool. The background actors in the sequels have to do stuff so the video game makes sense even though it detracts from the movie.
More to the point Laurence Fishburne is an amazing actor with great presence and delivery, and he made the first movie great. He was not allowed to make the sequels great, and Keanu, though good at looking lost and out of place, does not have the presence to play lead (Ted yes, pre-One Neo, yes, The ONE, no).
I don't think that there can be enough emphasis on how much the 5 years of feuding with the studios improved the original. The Wachowskis had to explain every scene dozens of times, get them drawn on paper, re-edit... They just weren't forced to make the same effort for the sequels. Limitations, like Keanu's injuries (limited the fight scenes), the cast's lack of martial art training (ditto), studio antipathy (forced them to work), and delays (gave them time to get it right) contributed to the greatness of the first film. Too much money, too much fame, too much power, too little thought, too much hubris dragged down the sequels.
Again, without the first movies the sequels would have been OK Hollywood movies, they just look real bad by comparison. I can watch scenes from the first movie over and over because they work, they have emotional impact, they look cool. I have no desire to see the other movies again because even the fight scenes are dull and go on too long. The first movie would probably have had long, limp fight scenes too, if Keanu had been healthy, and if Moss, Fishburne, Reeves et al really knew Kung fu. Limitations and suffering, not freedom and happiness, make art.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Well, I used to read Filthy's reviews, but he is no more. :(
For a while there, I only saw some really good movies. Too bad every "professional" critic is a shill.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I was really diassapointed with Peter Jackson's decision to change Faramir. The entire signifigance of Faramir in the book is that he is not Boromir. Where Boromir is unable to resist the pull of the ring, Faramir is unwilling to even consider taking the ring. "Not if I found this thing on the road would I take it up." Instead, his character is rolled in with every other power-grabber in the film, negating his only signifigant characterization in the narrative. He becomes irrelevant. There are too many important deviations to really go into, but the other one is the idea of Arwen giving Aragorn his sword. The whole trilogy is distorted by having a woman deliver Aragorn's power to him. He should have left Rivendell with it reforged, and should have been fighting with it all the way through the Trilogy, as in the books. Essentially, Arwen delivers Aragorn's manhood to him, when the whole point of the broken sword is his choice to eventuallu face his destiny and take his masculine role for himself. There was no need to change what they did, relating to the sword, other than to make women central to a narrative that is really intended to be about men, and not about women. Tolkien clearly did not intend Arwen to have control over Aragorn's masculinity.
Haven't seen it but let's recount some of this years movies:
* American Splendor
* City of God
* Lost in Translation
* Northfork
* Mystic River
* The Human Stain
* Whale Rider
A wide swath of interesting, compelling, accessible and memorable movies. Hell, most aren't even obscure art films. Got names like Clint Eastwood, Nicole Kidman, and Sophia Coppola on there. Other than being a welldone adaptation of a good book, RotK probably won't add anything to the catalogue of movies. I'd suggest any of the above to anyone. Seriously, there's som good stuff out there that doesn't involve 2 hours of gynormous fight scenes and CG.
What is music when you despise all sound?
I have been reading the Tolkien stuff for 30 years (I'm 42). Though I don't think the LOTR Trilogy is perfect (I missed Tom Bombadil...) it to me is obviously made with love for the story and characters and to me, true to the spirit of the story that I have spent so many hours in my life reading and imaginging! I have a three year old girl that I'm looking forward to reading the story to, and then watching the movie.
It is a tremendous achivement that Peter was able to make all three at once and the director's cuts of 1 & 2 are also tremendous. Thank you for bringing such a favorite story of mine to life! If only someone could do it with Dune...
I hope Peter Jackson is able to make The Hobbit with the same love and care as LOTR. I would love to see Smaug and the gold as seen by Peter and Co. Bring it on!!!
Bod
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Bullshit.. first off, only the first matrix had good writing.. and theres some rumors that they didnt write the first one
and second, they didnt just say "ok everyone, read the lord of the rings and act it out", they had to adapt it and write a screenplay (3 of em) that would work in movie format, they had to make decisions on what to add/remove/change, they started writing the script like in 1995 when it was 2 scripts for Miramax.. There is a lot of creative talent in these movies.
There was nothing creative about reloaded/revolutions. Reloaded was just a boiling pot of ripped off philosophy with no substance, and everyone assumed revolutions would add the substance and explain things but it turned out to be a mindnumbingly boring cliched action movie.
Ever commute to work? A large portion of the people who take trains to work read books during the ride.
Treebeard is not a tree. He is an ent, which is a race created by one of the Valar (Gods) to protect the trees of Middle Earth at the start of the First Age. It is hinted that Treebeard is really, really old, even by Elrond's standards (who is about 6500 years old). Fangorn Forest is actually named after Treebeard.
Now if ents really were as stupid as Jackson suggests, why weren't they destroyed or perverted in all those 7000+ years of existence?
That would have been too cheap. It's been done a million times, the "It was all a dream" ending.
- sigs are for wimps.
The first attempt to make it into a movie was a disaster, it was a disney style cartoon...
(snip...)
Remember also that this was at the time when the cult film Wizards was popular, an innovative and impressive film at the time, and with a similar theme. The animated take on LoTR might have been a hit, if done better and completed
If, by "the first attempt", you're speaking of the 1978 animated movie, it was directed by Ralph Bakshi, who also had done Wizards. Others more knowledgeable than I claim that Wizards was Bakshi's training wheels for LOTR. Don't know if it helped too much.
Also, Bakshi's take on LOTR you saw in 1978 was not supposed to be complete ; the first film ends, IIRC, right after Helm's Deep. A promised second-part never appeared, at least not by Bakshi's hand. A made-for-TV-something called "The Return of the King" did appear,a few years later (1980?/81?), done by Rankin and Bass (the folks behind the original animation of the Hobbit). I remember being just amazingly disappointed with it, especially considering the two had done a great adaptation of the Hobbit a few years earlier.
As a card-carrying member of the Tolkien lunatic fringe, I'm not thrilled by a few of the editorial liberties taken by Jackson, but overall it's a much more satisfying experience than the earlier attempts were. I do urge people I've talked to who have seen the movie to read the books, as they are much richer in experience than a 3-hour adaptation of each part could ever be. But Jackson' films definitely present the same aura of wonder, power and, for lack of a better phrase, the bigness of things the books projected as well. And that's nice to see visualized.
The real problem with this film is in the writing. Anything not uttered by Agent Smith was a bore. Particularly bad dialogue envelops entire scenes, such as Trinity's death, the Bane/Smith and Neo confrontation, and Mifune's dying speech.
Pretty much all the characters, and the work that went in to them over the course of the last two films are wasted wholesale in this movie: Morpheus is now a glorified grunt, Trinity becomes a crutch for Neo and then is killed off pointlessly and artlessly, the Merovingian gets to lose...again.
Crucial plot threads are ignored or harshly reshaped. Freeing mankind from living underground or trapped in the Matrix becomes saving the bits of Zion that haven't been obliterated yet. Neo's status as The One, you know, the guy that can basically solve everything, lead mankind to freedom and perhaps forge a peace with the Machines changes to that of a really good hacker who can fix a really bad recent glitch that he caused in the first place.
Speaking of which, everything's so irritably vague. It's never been properly established exactly how Smith is a threat to the Machine World - until Neo mentions it to the Source, I thought Smith was just bollixing up the Matrix real well. And how does Neo defeat it him? I've made some guesses, but I'm still pretty stumped. Not to mention his powers outside of the Matrix - the best we get is that he can do it. Swell.
One last thing, courtesy of Scott Kurtz. If EMP weapons work so well against the machines, how come they haven't delevoped the hell out of that technology? Why not place EMP generators willy-nilly along their line of retreat? Why not lob a few at the machine city/powerplant/whatever? All that farting about in the Matrix when they could be unleashing some serious firepower. Just a thought.
Basically, what it boils down to is that, philosophically, yeah, Revolutions is pretty sound. But technically? Coulda used a couple of rewrites.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Further: didn't he, at least in part, set out to write his 'Hobbit books' with the intention of providing England/Britain (in particular) with a 'new' mythology (as he thought society had lost too much or all of its original sagas and myths due to industrialism and its consequences and that this, in turn, created a mythological void that needed to be filled)? And wouldn't that at least imply that he wished/desired people to read and appreciate his books? Surely you would agree that a myth isn't just some esoteric little yarn known by a chosen few?!
I admit the 'personal experience' comment was a cheap shot I couldn't resist. However (in descending order of generality):
I think there exists, in general, a really misconceived notion of reading 'personal experience' and autobiographical details (and their meaning) of the author into works of fiction: works of fiction should primarily be seen works of fiction not works of self-analysis and metaphorical gossip; if we're lucky a work of fiction may provide enjoyment as well as insight into human nature and the human condition, but whether that insight is based on the author's personal experience or not is completely irrelevant: Othello isn't necessarily a worse play just because Shakespeare wasn't a Moor and hadn't strangled his wife;
I also think that people are prone to read far more into, in particular, LOTR than is actually there and even more than Tolkien might have wanted them to (cf. for instance, his saying that he didn't want people running around speaking elvish with people running around speaking elvish while arguing that they are the true keepers of the Tolkien heritage -- or at least they did in this SBS documentary which seemed just so sad); and
My argument concerned the LOTR trilogy, not Silmarillion nor unfinished works. (Which I have read so I really wouldn't know anything about them: I have tried to read Silmarillion, I really have, but I have failed. Miserably. It is just unreadable. Really.)
Finally and parenthetically: being a spell-check nazi and all, I will take this opportunity to cry mea culpa: I blush at my typos in the original post: I know fully well how to spell 'erroneously' and 'elves'. Really I do. OR at least my computer does.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
*begin rant*
I don't know about the rest of y'all giddy bastards drooling all over these movies, but I'm very disappointed with how the trillogy is turning out thus far. I liked the first movie lots, even though it should have had a few less shots of the scenerey and some more character development, but there was trouble even there. What the trouble was? Arwen/Liv Tyler. I'm as horny as the next guy and can appreciate the reasons for including at least one hottie actress in what was otherwise an all-boys show, but it shouldn't have happened, and it was only the sign of things to come.
Enter the second movie. Not only were there often substantial plot changes, but characters were fundamentally altered, which pissed me off. Faramir turned into a greedy asshole, Eowyn became a sighing wench, the hobbits got preachy and the Ents were cowards. The battle of Helm's Deep was ridiculous, and not just because of the mysterious arrival of the Elves or the fact that Rohan somehow spawned an army on horseback in the throneroom (Microsoft really ought to have patched that exploit) - watch the battle at the end of Army of Darkness and then watch Helm's Deep and you'll get a new appreciation for the silliness. I couldn't stand to watch it the second time around on DVD and I'm not looking forward to the third movie; if the trend continues, it will deviate even further from the books that I love (they are classics for a reason, eh?).
*Insert joke about harnessing the rotational energy of Tolkien's grave.*
The source material was as good as can get and was combined with some very good casting and awesome special effects, but Peter Jackson/Frances Walsh (did the screenplay) couldn't leave it well enough alone, could they? Bastards. If I wasn't so damn lazy or terrified of prison, I'd eat their children.
*end rant*
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
Watching a movie and reading a book have very similar levels of recreational activity.
Recreation == re-creation. It's not necessarily physical activity. And anyone who thinks watching a movie, in which the imagination is pre-packaged, and reading a book are on the same level re-creationally, is just plain daft.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Jackson already had the full script available from the start. Very little creative talent in the story area required.
ROTFLMAO! Have you ever written a screenplay? I thought not...
It'd be a little harder to forgive Jackson for messing up the plot of a movie when all he had to do was NOT change the given story.
Where do you guys come from? And why don't you all crawl back to wherever it was? If PJ did not change the given story, the three movies combined would have been at LEAST 48 hours long. You simply cannot film a movie identical to the book without ruining the movie.
To get LOTR down to 9+ hours, you need to do some serious cutting. First thing you do is cut 99% of the poetry. But even that pissed off some of the diehard fans. Next you cut stuff that doesn't progress the story. Like Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs. Piss off more people. You'll have to cut the Scouring of the Shire because you can't tack on an extra hour after the audience has sat through nine already. Piss off more people. You certainly don't have enough time to show the ents carefully and unhastily constructing a dam in order to flood Isengard, so you conveniently have one already built. Piss off more people. Etc, etc, etc.
Peter Jackson has done an admirable job on LOTR. Better than I could have done, that's for sure. I'm not so arrogant that I can't admit that.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I'm tired of fanatic movie fans who just can't accept it when others don't like their movies
:)
I hear you, brother (sister).
I've faithfully gone to see both LOTR movies so far, and will probably go to ROTK as well, but I have to admit: I just don't get it. For those who read the books, I'm sure it's nice to see it on the big screen. But for those like me who haven't, I honestly just don't see why these movies are being hailed as the second coming.
I didn't mind TTT as much, but it struck me as mostly mindless action. FOTR was a snooze fest. A bunch of action scenes intertwined with precisely what people hate about the Matrix: vagueness disguised as "deepness". The entire Liv Tyler thing went on for far too long, and didn't seem to have a point. The end was just abrupt; I dunno, guess everyone else saw it coming. And yes, I'm aware that "this is one 15 hour movie", or whatever the usual argument it against there being self-contained movies. I think I'm one of the few who honestly believe these movies could have been done at 2 hours each.
Not a troll at all, btw. The visuals were fantastic, except for the Ents looking a bit too CG for my tastes. But as far as movies go, I think I'm the only person on the planet who's been disappointed.
Now watch as your "fanatic movie fans" mod me down into oblivion
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.