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')."
... it was a crappy movie.
People didn't dislike the movie because it ended with "peace" between the machines and a handful of humans.
I'm tired of fanatic movie fans who just can't accept it when others don't like their movies. I didn't like the movie because I felt it didn't live up to the first one, and the 2 sequels added little if anything to what was an amazing story with a lot of potential.
Lots of popular movies end with a peaceful resolution at the end, or even a happy ending.
- sigs are for wimps.
Well just about at Middle Earth.
I am in Wellington, New Zealand and the whole city is getting ready for the World Premiere here next week. There is Lord of the Rings images, statues, effects all over the pace. An unknowing visitor at the airport would get a hell of a sock at the warriars and dragons etc. leering down at them.
Surely the first two films were evidence enough the Jackson can be trusted to transform the Return of the King into an excellent film. Like a lot of die-hard Tolkein fans I found some scenes in the first two movies a little disappointing, but these disappointments were completely overshadowed by the splendour of what are overall two fantastic movies. If you doubt Jackson at all then go and buy the special edition DVD and watch the behind the scenes footage where you see the passion and dedication that has gone into the making of these films.
The smoke [from the exhaust] and dust wasn't so bad because there was already lots of it around, but the bloody windshield was reflecting the sun back into the camera lens. So we erased it for the DVD.
I call shennanigans! 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." So he's now admitting that they not only removed the car, but they lied about doing so in the commentary track.
Shennanigans all around. :)
P.S. I need to check, but I think they even removed the car in the Oscar screener. Or at least in the Hong Kong version of it. :)
I thought it sucked. Not because it was cool to say so, but, in point of fact, because it sucked.
I recommended to many people that they not pay full price and go see a matinee instead.
But, hey, at least there weren't any Ewoks in it.
I am not a lawyer. This post does not constitute any form of legal advice.
I know people are tired of hearing about this... but if the movie is going to be so huge, and so successful, and make such enormous bank for the studio and for Jackson, then please just put in Christopher Lee's seven minutes of Saruman footage.
It's not going to break the damn film one way or the other. Christopher Lee is a screen legend and reads Lord of the Rings every year. This is the culmination of a lifelong dream for him, and frankly, the man does not have a wealth of years left to him. So many fans want to see it, and if Peter Jackson idolizes Christopher Lee so much he should do him the courtesy and the honor of letting him appear in what may well be the last great film he will appear in.
I am not confident that he will, but I really hope Jackson changes his mind on this at the last minute. Seven minutes out of three hours, out of nine or twelve plus hours of movie total -- what in the hell could it possibly hurt at this point?
Sorry to belabor this point, but reading the review led me to read some other Return of the King news, and how Christopher Lee will not be attending the premiere of Return of the King because he is so upset. After all that talk on the commentaries and documentary about what a close-knit bunch of friends they are, this seems like a cruel and unecessary snub to Mr. Lee.
I can't put my finger on how the Wachowskis screwed up. I know they did, because Reloaded was a major disappointment. Reading some of the better analysises of the film (the better sites discussing things like the allegory with genuine intelligence) I get the feeling the Wachowskis were trying to do too much with a single film. Every bloody aspect of the films means something on several levels. Neo is Christ, and refers to six different figures including a Christ, and his love interest is Trinity, who is also Neo, who... and the Matrix is a computer game, and a simulation, and Heaven, and and...
And the result, to some extent, while it works in the sense that anyone who watches all three who doesn't end up asking a lot of decent questions about the world we live in is, well, they've missed something, it also fails to be internally consistant when viewed as just a story. So much effort is put into making reality and simulation key issues, with so much effort made to make these apparently scientifically credible, that when the series is apparently inconsistant or suggests something scientifically impossible, it grates. The film is supposed to be an allegory, yet we're expected, to some extent, to believe that the messiah figure - the figure who is representing the messiah at the end of the film actually is the messiah. That's not allegorical.
Still, as I say in my journal, I really enjoyed Revolutions, and I loved the fact it left some questions unanswered. The more I've looked at it since though, the more unnecessarily loose ends it appears to have, and that's disappointing.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
J.J.R Tolkien not only witnessed the political build up to world-wide conflict, he had to personally face the horrors of war. He also understood the delicate balancing act that mankind performs within nature. Beyond all that, he truly understood and loved the many facets of human emotion. Many base humanistic truths shine in his story.
Not to take anything away from the exquisite acting, top-notched special effects, and perfect atmosphere of the films, but, Tolkien's story brings the movie to life - not the other way around.
...try time-travelling Elves.
We all know the inscription on the Doors of Durin: " blah blah blah, Lord of Moria, blah blah blah". And yes, it really does say "Moria," that's not just editorializing by Gandalf to entertain the Fellowship. The rest of the inscription says that the Doors were made by a famous Dwarf, and the inscription carved by a famous Elf, because the races got along okay at the time.
Except... moria is an insulting name. It means "Abyss" or (literally) "Black Pit." Nobody would have called the Kingdom of Khazad-Dum an abyss when it was at the height of its splendor. The name "Moria" was only earned long years later, after they woke the Balrog and abandoned the kingdom.
In any case, the Dwarves certainly wouldn't have let the Elves carve such an insulting name on the west entrance, and the Elves wouldn't have wanted to.
Oops. :-)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)