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')."
There's the hobbit blade Sting and, right next to it, two versions of the kingly sword known as Anduril, one shattered, one whole Frodo, you dont have to put up a red light, I'll send an S.O.S to the Shire, I'll send an S.O.S to the shire I hope that someone gets my, I hope that someone gets my, message in a bottle.....
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
We don't need a good review to know that this film is going to be good. The first two of this trilogy were so good that non-fantasy lovers are now buying Dragon Lance books. I mean, cmon.
Secrets of 'The King'. Can't break this hobbit: Will Frodo destroy the ring? Will Aragorn wear the crown?
Yes, those are well kept secrets.
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.
I can't help, but say that LOTR is definitely in a position to be one of the best trilogies ever created -- bar none. It's not just because of amazing acting, or directing, but primarly because this book created an environment that is literally, unbeatable. (no pun intended).
Tolkien spent such a huge portion of his life designing one of the best fantasy books ever created, and it's only right that he be rewarded with the respect that a movie created in his books name will be the best ever.
Star Wars (now a trilogy * 2) is still good, but I hate to say it -- the world that LOTR represents, immerses me more into something amazing than Star Wars could ever hope to do. I will be proud to walk in and out of that movie knowing that I spent my 7.50 USD well.
So, my 0.02 USD tells me: LOTR is poised to be the best trilogy ever.
"Just my personnal opinion, but the problem people have with The Matrix ending is peace. War is so much more glamour these days..."
Actually, the problem a lot of people had with The Matrix ending is that it sucked, much like the rest of the movie.
Let's not act like the W. brothers got very daring at the end, and didn't end it with a battle. The final hour was full of battles. The ending was nothing profound or gutsy, it was just lifeless, like the rest of the movie. The ending wasn't bad because they chose to have peace break out, it was bad because they decided that dialogue and characters wre unimportant.
My problem with it isn't peace... the 'both sides win' was a pretty ballsy move.
What I didn't like was (to paraphrase a great post I read here) that the last 2 movies used vaguesness to simulate depth, and did it poorly.
I enjoyed the action, but the constant allusions to some deeper meaning, which is rarely delivered, got old quick.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
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.
After getting Peter Jackson's comments on around ten different blunders in the movies, Jackson says "[ Pause ] You've got pages and pages there. And those are all mistakes they've spotted?"
Mr. Jackson, you must be new around here.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
... 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.
>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.
...
This dude is the Newsweek reviewer, and he said incredibly positive things about ROTK. OF course, don't let that get in the way of your point
I even had a date, with my wife's blessing
Where can I get a wife like that?!
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.
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.
More than that, it could be the first franchise ever that didn't, at the end of the day, let audiences down--.
Actually, I think the Debbie Does Dallas franchise did a pretty decent job of keeping its audience up.
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.
> What I didn't like was (to paraphrase a great post I read here) that the last 2 movies used vaguesness to simulate depth, and did it poorly.
Significance by obscurity?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
None of the Scouring of the Shire made it. Jackson has stated that he doesn't like that section, so it was never considered for inclusion in the films.
I'll admit right here, I think the films are decent, but I don't think they're a great adaptation of the books. They seem to focus more on the action scenes than the actual story.
Anyways, I think leaving out the Scouring is even more of a disappointment than leaving out Tom Bombadil. But that's just me.
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
What tools do you use to help you decide which movies to see?
A nickel.
Heads we see Daddy Day Care, tails we go home and pound nails through our hands.
> First franchise not to let fans down?
Great movie, but he was talking about franchises. When we see TMWWBK VII we can revisit this issue.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Before responding, I just read every one of the posts in this thread from various who responded to anyone admitting they liked the Matrix Trilogy, and I noticed a trend that keeps showing up on this subject. Starting sentences that read like: "I didn't like it cause it sucked", "I didn't like it cause it was lame", etc. Sure some people offered valid criticisms, such as claiming that the films pretend to explore philosophical depths that they don't really want to delve into beyond the shallows. But so many of the posts start off, in effect, with a null-semantic content opening; "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". Several of you go on to make points that show you deserve better than that. Sorry, but you're committing the equivalent of attending a fancy dress party with dog-poop on your high tops and bragging about how you're going to marry your cousin soon as she turns 15, and wondering why people can't get past the first impression. If I hadn't had some extra slack time, I would have never bothered to read past that first sentence, and I guarentee you are being marginalized by it.
Freuddot is doubtless generalizing too broadly in his post. I'm sure different people have different problems with the Matrix series ending. But he held my attention long enough to express his opinion, and I bet 95% or better of people who started his post finished it and a lot of those actually considered his opinion. My post is long, and a lot of people will drop out on the way, but I'll still bet better than half that start read the whole thing. The "It just is" posts are losing half their readers ten words into the post.
Who is John Cabal?
Did you ever stop to think that The Matrix IS deep, and that perhaps you just didn't understand it?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
"In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder."
(It's from the Poochie episode of the Simpsons, for anyone who didn't get it immediately.)
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
For the love of god, please, please, tails....
D'oh, damned dirty nickel!
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.
So what did you think of Gigli?
> his masterpeace hollywoodized for the consumption of the illiterate masses.
If LoTR was produced by the usual Hollywood crowd...
- Hobbit "Merry" would be a faggot with a penchant for saying things that made everyone else in the movie think he was "Gay", though the audience would know better.
- The ringwraiths would be top-secret robotic soldiers with lasers on their heads, taken over by a "hacker" (Sauron).
- The flight from the Shire to Rivendell would be a car chase.
- The barrow wights would be drug dealers, angry because the car chase crashed through the warehouse right when their big deal was going down.
- Strider would be a 6'1" Brazilian lesbian who wore a chainmail bikini and prefered kickboxing to broadswords. The camera would linger lovingly at the appropriate places, and she would give Arwen a hot kiss in the trailer.
- When the Hobbits first met Strider at Bree, there would be a pole dancer in the background while they talked.
- After the skirmish at weathertop, Elven paratroopers would drop in to rescue the heros just after they had driven off the ringwraiths and didn't need help anymore.
- At the Ford of Isen, the flash flood would be caused because one of the Bad Guys' Henchmen set off the charge and blew the dam a few seconds too late. The cars washed down the river by the flood would go over a waterfall and explode in mid air.
- There would be an enemy mole in the Fellowship, motivated by jealousy over somebody or another.
- The tentacled thingy outside the Gates of Moria would drag the mole to his death. Papers found on his body afterward would tip the Fellowship off that he had been a mole.
- The orcs in Moria would be more drug dealers, angry because the Fellowship interrupted another big deal. Or maybe terrorists planning an attack on the Shire, angry at being discovered before carrying out the plot. The Fellowship would kill about 900 in hand-to-hand combat before they had to flee.
- Ms. Strider would wrestle the balrog while the others fled, losing her top duing the fight but having it CGBra'd back on to preserve the film's rating.
- Lots of explosions in the Moria fight, even though everyone was fighting with knives and crowbars.
- Everyone would get laid at the visit to Galadriel's haven. (Except for Merry, who would spend the evening putting off the advances of a Gay Elven Warrior who came out of the closet due to Merry's charms.) Frodo and Strider would rate a threesome with Galadriel herself.
- Lembas would give the heros Amazing Powers, which would fade just when they needed it most.
- Boromir would break up the Fellowship by making a pass at Merry, never previously having a queer urge in his life. Merry's dignity would be saved by a timely Orc raid.
- ...
Somone else can take it from there...Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If it means not having to hang around 300 rabid Slashdot nerds in a dark theatre, you can add me to that list.
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.
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."
Not to mention the Indiana Jones franchise (although Indy 4 might be a bit dubious), or X-Men (so far).
And in the eyes of many, the original Star Wars trilogy still stands as a frnachise in it's own right. By this I mean that even though the new films are crap, it hasn't caused people to sour from the whole franchise. We still love the original films, and will still play the video games, hell - we even think that Darth Maul is one of the coolest villains ever (even if he only has about 3 lines - he just looked damn cool). My point being, the new films haven't soured the whole franchise the way the latter two Matrix films did with their series. They haven't, at the end of the day, caused the whole franchise to let fans/audiences down.
And we srill maintain hope for a SW4:ANH DVD where Han Solo shoots first.
try this
... hi bingo
>> 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.
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?
I guess this means that all RotK items are going to rehash The Matrix Re: sequels until RotK is released?
I mean, didn't the last RotK item also quickly degenerate into a debate on the merits of The Matrix sequels.
greed or other phantom menaces.
Freudian slip, intentiontional illusion, or sad irony? I pick all three. Damn Lucas to hell for his lack of faith.
As far as the final (pfah, yeah right. they'll likely make a second trilogy, because people will watch it! bastards) Matrix is concerned, I have no interest in seeing it after the second one fucked things up so severely. They completely abandoned any coherrence of plot or storytelling and replaced it with a shitload of jungfoo and bullshit special effects. From what I hear, that's what they did with the third as well.
Hollywood needs more directors like Jackson. Most directors seem to think that by cutting corners, they'll lower production costs, and thus have a higher return - which, naturally, will promise them further contracts with the studio. This is bullshit.
For example, look at LotR. It's not popular just because it's based off of Tolkien's world - it's popular because it's an awesome film, and stands on its own. I know of people that have watched the first two films, and have loved them - and they aren't fantasy fans in the least, and haven't even read the books.
Unfortunately, there simply aren't that many visionaries in Hollywood that are also good at managing people and directing well (which includes getting a good script, etc.). There are a few around nowadays: Quentin Tarantino, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, (possibly, given time) Troy Duffy, David Fincher (when he gets a decent script), and a couple others. Of course, there are other contributing factors to good film (good composers, actors, editors, and writers/storyboarders, mainly), and every director has his shortcomings and bad eggs, but these are some of the better ones out there, IMO. Anyone else have any directing favorites that I couldn't pull off the top?
I would have included Steven Spielberg and Lucas, but Spielburg seems a bit past his prime, at least in terms of quality film, and Lucas hasn't really done a damned thing of quality except for Star Wars - and it's debateable how much of that is really his, and how much of it is simply him falling into the seat of opportunity.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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.
...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)
I only have one thing to say about this...
*best Samwise impression* PO-TA-TOES!
Yes, you are The One.
Ade_
/
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck