Lord Of The Rings 3: The Return Of The King
Forum
So noones written anything in here yet... what did people think of it?
My friends said there was no emotional payoff being the last of the trilogy. And the movie didn't do much for me either.
The acting and battle sequences were probably the weakest parts for me. Re acting I think one of the main problems is this: I was listening to an interview and they were saying that many of the actors never read the book when they were younger, and even though they had finished filming, they *still* hadn't finished reading the book. So basically they weren't fans of the book, and probably found the book boring (can't blame them I did -- well I read the first few chapters and stopped anyway -- might give it another go later). Granted you have to cast profressional actors for movies, and the right looking/age/quality actor you want may not be a Tolkien fan. But what would have been good is to cast Tolkien fanantics (who were amateur actors) into the acting roles to really get some heart out of the movie. It could have been truely the best trilogy ever for everyone had the acting been passionate I reckon. The best actors in the whole thing is still the ones who played Bilbo Baggins, and Gollum.
As for the battle sequences. They looked awesome. But when it came to the fighting choreography, it wasn't well done or exciting at all. I thought The Last Samurai's battles were much better. Jackson still zooms too close up on the action still IMO. I can't see what's happening a lot of the time (well I found that in part 2 -- I think it was the same in 3). Anyway a lot of great costume and props were wasted. Blizzard the computer gamemaker of the Diablo/Warcraft series could have done a much better job with the fantasy aspect of things.
LOTR 3 cleaned up at the Academy Awards after being snubbed the previous two years. The question is, was part 3 so much better than 1 and 2 that it deserved 11 Oscars (an equal record haul tied with Titanic and Ben Hur)? Notice noone got nominated for best actor/actress from the movie though.
But there are good things about this movie. Besides unanimous 5 star ratings by critics in the papers and rottentomatoes.com, it has a great epic story, nice cinematography and wonderfully authentic costume.
>>By ftad (Thursday, 4 Mar 2004 21:23)
ok, i thought it was a great movie. i read the books before i saw the movies (well the last two anyways, after the first movie, i read all three). i dunno if i paid too much attention to all the little stuff like you did ftad, i just wanted to see a good movie and let what i read become a real thing for me, and i feel that that's what i got out of the movies. i just thought it was a really good movie. two thumbs up says me.
>>By SoulSlave (Saturday, 6 Mar 2004 07:33)
I think you have to bear in mind that Peter Jackson is principally an enthusiast of effects movies, if you look back at the movies he has done before LOTR. (Note that his next is King Kong, another effects based tale) Thus, even though he may be a great fan of LOTR: the book, I believe he was more focussed on the recreation of Middle-Earth than on the story-telling. As a book fan since 1965, I still enjoyed the movies, and I didn't mind the odd difference from the book, movies are not books and have different priorities. I did wonder who sat for so long at the tops of those rocky, foodless, fuel free, frozen peaks to be ready to light the beacons so quickly. I think NZ's Southern Alps are a bit higher than those in the story, LOL!
BTW, re the song, One funny thing, the words are a little bit wrong because it is called "Into the West, and you imagine it as by someone looking to the West as the ship leaves, right?. But it has the words "Across the sea, A pale moon rises". The moon rises in the East, just as the sun does, so you wouldn't see the moon rising looking to the West! LOL! I know, I know, it's Poetry, not Science, it's just something that came into my head the other day. If I remember the movie right, it had a sunset as the ship left, which would be right.
>>By flamencoprof (Sunday, 7 Mar 2004 18:02)
"My friends said there was no emotional payoff being the last of the trilogy. And the movie didn't do much for me either."
I truly do NOT understand this statement. No 'emotional payoff'?? The last 30 minutes was so full of emotion. The crowning of the King. His reunion with his beloved. Gollum finally getting his hands on his 'precious'. Frodo finally succumbing to the power of the ring. Sam's distress at nearly losing Frodo. His determination to (literally) pull him back from the brink. Sam & Frodo's exhaustion at the end of their task. Their obvious love for one another. The hobbits return to Hobbiton and Frodo's realisation that he must leave them behind. His setting off on the journey to the Undying Lands. How much more emotion do you want? The whole film (all 3 parts) was packed pull of emotion. It was so much more than battles and orcs, although winning through and overcoming them was obviously a vital part of the journey.
I think it was a truly magnificent film and deserved all 11 of it's Oscars. I don't think ONE person could be singled out for acting honours as they all played their part in making a great film. (Although I, personally, would have liked to see Sean Astin and Andy Serkis get a nomination at least). Anyway, for what it's worth - that's my two cents worth!!!
>>By sionnaigh (Monday, 22 Mar 2004 01:41)
better read the book and don't let the film disturb you...
>>By HY - (Monday, 22 Mar 2004 11:28)
If the ringwraiths are immortal, how did the captain die?
>>By Snik (Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004 22:56)
I don't know how the captain died, but i realy loved the movie.Great battles.
>>By BloodRayne (Wednesday, 31 Mar 2004 01:24)
y'all are thinking too much. just swallow it!
>>By eatengold (Wednesday, 31 Mar 2004 09:10)
not really a fan of this fantasy stuff but i thought the movie was okay
>>By *Vovin* (Thursday, 1 Apr 2004 18:03)
excellent point eatengold...
>>By HY - (Tuesday, 13 Apr 2004 21:08)
What's wrong with thinking? Good movies should make you think. There's nothing wrong with simple escapism, but I like it when a movie stirs my imagination. Half of the fun of a good movie is talking about it afterwards.
I only saw the first film of the trilogy. I liked it, but I enjoyed the book more.
>>By Mikey_Canuck (Wednesday, 14 Apr 2004 00:57)
well, i bet ROTK could really do much better than 11 Oscars. but they only nominated 11 so the movie won all what was nominated right? what more if they nominated 12 or if I say 14? there is still a chance they could get it. but the oscars for last year are over and now no more LOTR.... if only they is the fourth sequel for the movie. *sniffs*
>>By Pzycix_9 (Thursday, 15 Apr 2004 07:01)
I think taht HY_ i right. Read the books and look at the films their only a bad reproduction of non existing fantasy. Just read the books and don't let the fims disturb you.
I love you amélie
>>By jackass84 (Tuesday, 20 Apr 2004 10:29)
the books have good ideas - Tolkien [sp?] was brilliant at inventing fantasy worlds / languages (he was a linguistic genius too) but his talent was not in writing, sadly
i think that, since Peter Jackson is a better director than Tolkien was a writer, the films have to have some credibility
(if you don't believe Jackson is a genius, watch 'Braindead' )
>>By Gautama (Tuesday, 27 Apr 2004 11:59)
Peter Jackson tapped into the collective unconsious,to make a movie of great power and emotion. He really made the landscape part of the tale just like Tolkien did.Bit different to Birmingham and the surrounding area where the story was originally set.
>>By Penn (Tuesday, 25 May 2004 23:23)
Sorry, but tolkien is a genius... but so is Jackson... THis is to Gautama... You watched the movie first, then read the book, right?
No wonder you don't enjoy the books...
>>By DR_Rem (Monday, 31 May 2004 00:27)
i wish i was a hobbit...except that frodo was a wimp. my daddy always told me that if life gives you an evil ring that starts to suck away at the very fabric of your sanity, you hang up and leave the audience with a dial tone.
>>By orc (Monday, 31 May 2004 00:44)
I think that the third movie wasn't so good as the second and the first. In the thrid movie the battle sequences are the best, they are exciting, and have a great impuls on the viewer. The scenes when Rohan attacks are impressive. (love them). but.... I am not a great action-fan. I appreciate a movie after its story, or its actors. And the ROTK made fun out of the actors, or the actors made fun out of the movie. The story is a fantastic one (I read the book before the movies came out) but I think that the adaptasion to the movie wasn't a great one. (even though, the movie was awarded with an Oscar for best screenplay). Then again, the actors were not good... some exceptions do exist: Gollum is a really impressive figure, and a complex one, and Andy Serkis was great. Also I liked Theodens acting, and Sam's.
That's all...
>>By Teimo (Wednesday, 2 Jun 2004 14:09)
almost every fantasy movie i've ever seen was done poorly in comparison to what the imagination can conjure on its own. i will say that i enjoyed this movie if only for the fact that the director at least attempted to stay true to the fantasy aspect of it. if you ever watch dungeons and dragons the movie with jeremy irons, you'll know what i mean. knights and dragons and swords and....um...did i forget to mention guns?
>>By orc (Thursday, 3 Jun 2004 04:00)
the movie was very slow to me. i also like plot-based movies over action movies (and i say this in relation to the series as a whole), but who couldn't guess what was going to happen? good guys vs. bad guys in an epic story that lasts 3 movies long. the only real twist i saw was that frodo took off on the ship to go to never never land with his crazy uncle and some other people that should have died long before that point. that said...i'm just glad they didn't butcher the movie in other ways (i.e. computer animation, adding stupid things that had no business being in the movie, modernizing character lines, etc.)
>>By fazetwin (Friday, 4 Jun 2004 05:13)
i think the movie is gd i like all of them and i think i like it anyway
>>By underneath (Friday, 4 Jun 2004 15:50)
I almost started to cry in the end...you know when Aragorn become king and then they all say goodbey to Frodo...*sigh*
>>By Starchild (Sunday, 27 Jun 2004 04:52)
Rotk Kicked ass and Tolkien is a genius and i dare any1 to prove me wrong. the only thing that slightly and just slighty is that pj moves to far from the rotk book in the finally movie. Any1 that has read the book should know this , he made the last film no into a hardcore lotr fan movie but a normal movie going public movie with dramatic ending like frodo fighting gullum for ring which he never done and gullum throwing the lembas off the steps next to minas morgul ok i enjoyed these bits and that certain bit added a bit more to sams character but in the end could the real sence not of worked if he had worked on it, maybe we will never know now. But not moving on to an essay that pisses off all rotk fans the cutting out the scouring of the shire in rotk , he not even putting it in the extended which sucks but i hope apart from all the other new sences being put in that he shows us what Valinor looks like and the isle of avalone. the Extended is out in like 4 weeks 14th of Dec and i cant wait but i hope he remembers the real fans and not the noraml people, Give us what we want Pj.........
>>By zeromenace (Wednesday, 24 Nov 2004 12:47)
i dont want to upset those lord of the rings fan but i hate this kind of movie with goblins and strange creatures that dont exist maybe im just not sophisticated enough to understand it
>>By totsnot (Wednesday, 24 Nov 2004 21:03)
lord of the rings is a great story however you look at it!
>>By Bombadil (Friday, 26 Nov 2004 04:24)
totsnot why you have to go and say sumthing like that, lord of the rings is the greatest story ever written. God Bless tolkien and Pj
>>By zeromenace (Monday, 29 Nov 2004 16:51)
Was it just me, or did the ending seem to go on forever?? As in it should have cut it off a long time before that bloody samwise gamgee got married and had his kids or whatever... it's faded from my mind. At least when I get it on DVD i can skip that bit.
But on the whole, it was great.
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 30 Nov 2004 22:58)
Oh great. Listen to this:
Andy Serkis - the brilliant actor of Gollum, has gone down in the world.
From a multi-million dollar movie to ~~~~~~~~~
A cheap/crappy/stupid BBC television program based on M15 which has an interactive button by which you can pretend your a Spy called : Spooks.
Ha.
He was still a good actor though. Is rather - he better not have died yet.
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 30 Nov 2004 23:02)
its true wat you say about Andy but he is going to be doing king kong with Pj so he cant be doing to bad, and i have seen even better actors who has made lots of films and they are they never seen again after they make one bad one. lord of the rings was andy's first major film and lets say it probaly his only that i know off but its a good start and maybe he's doesnt want to destory his career by making a bad film after lotr and is waiting for the right moment like some actor do.
>>By zeromenace (Wednesday, 1 Dec 2004 12:57)
top film well done peter jackson
>>By trigger (Wednesday, 8 Dec 2004 14:53)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW MOVIES