TorilMUD Forums

LOTR anybody? Saw it last night, *I* thought it rocked.

I saw it last night, and received an email from a friend this morning.

Subject: SPOILER FREE review of Return of the King.

Message Body:

wow...

Ganna go see it at noon! Hopefully I get get in, do the 3 and a half hour movie thing and get to work before 4 :P I might be late tho cause im not missing the end!!!(insert 1!11!!!11!! here)
-g

got tired of seeing giant head/face shots about 30 minutes in.

the whole movie was like a collage of dirty bloody men crying

i did like it alot though.

it sucked when neo died though

kiryan wrote:it sucked when neo died though

wtf?

Werg wrote:

kiryan wrote:it sucked when neo died though

wtf?

hahahahahahahaha

i love you caz :p

100% without a doubt the greatest trilogy ever made,
Return of the king is quite possibly the best movie ever made,
I know its the best one that I have ever seen.

Definitlly going to be the defining movie of our time. I put it in the same calibur Star Wars, Titanic, and other movies that changed the way we expect movies to be made.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is the best Trilogy ever made. (mostly due of course to the CGI being the best at this time), StarWarsI,II (Most likely III) won't hold a candle to these.

The only "Minor" complaints I have with Return of The King is the fact he changed the spider scenes to RotK, instead of LotRs. Also, he for some reason didnt' have Sam use the Ring to get past the Orcs/Goblins to rescue Frodo.. Don't know why this was done, seems like a spot where using "Artistic Empression" didn't need to be done.

The last minor complaint I had with the movie was the movement of the Orc/Orge/Troll army and the speed/editing of the main fight. It felt rushed (Probably heavyly edited.. we will seem more I'm sure in the director's cut), and the Armies seemed to be just pop'ing from place to place. also they never explained on film how the Undead army took over the ships.. (Hope this is in the director's cut as well.) Well, since I'm on a roll.. They never had any scenes showing the relationship between Farimier(sp) and King Theodons(sp) niece... That was fairly important in the books..

Well, all I can say is I can't wait for the director's cut.. and I hope it's the WHOLE 6+ hrs..

My2Cents
Joras

i have suffered long, and even though i own copies - i have not watched the director's cut version of either of the first two movies

when i get the director's cut for the third - im gonna watch em all in one sitting and ill get to see it that way for the first time - god talk about hard to look through my collection and force my eyes to ignore those titles :P

My wife has a copy of Fellowship of the Ring, the bootleg version from Singapore. She got it about 2 months after the first movie came out in theaters, when her brother went to Asia. It's the most amazing thing in the history of the universe... it's in English, subtitled in Engrish. Fucking AMAZING.

BILBO BAGGINS! Do you think me for magician that pulls rabbit from hat at cheap party?!

(Do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks)

Start the flames cuz #3 sucked ass. Fellowship and Two towers were Movie difining films, well thought out and well done. I have watched them over and over and still never get tired of them.

Complaints i have with RotK:
Cheesy shots of Legolas on the elephant made it barely a b-rated film.

Emphisis and cheese and not on important events
EX: 15 min cheese of legolas on elephant (totaly pointless) and 30 sec on the Lord of the Nazgul dying. That was a tide turning even they just rushed passed.

Multiple endings, it kept going and going and going and going and going, movie should have ended when Frodo closed the book.

Epic battle of Minis Tirith (sp?) This fight was the epic battle of the 3 books and the movie really didnt show this, the battle of Helms deep seemed bigger at least in the movies and that wasnt even close to comparison.

There is more just cant think of em all right now..

I guess my thoughts are that it felt like they were all tired of the movie, even thier acting wasnt as good as first 2, like after 3 years lets just be done with this and move on. It seemed like the director wanted perfection in the first 2 and yet just didnt care in the 3rd. Over all i just think it was a cheesy rushed movie that was a big let down compared to the first 2.

Sucked Ass? I have to disagree...

The Cheesy shots of Legolas killing the Elephant, yea that was a bit of a stretch.. but just was portraying his inhuman dex.

Actually.. THe Lord of the Nazgul dying scene was just.. right in my opinion. Made the point, the CGI was good (Unlike the Elephant scene), and the acting was great. Death scene was good too.

There isn't 7 freakin endings.. there are LOTS of things that need to be tied up in the book.. I think he did a good job, and did't linger on any of them..

The Battle of Minis Tirth, was cramped and short.. (Hello Hollywood editing... Remember the FULL movie is OVER 6 hrs long)

Oh and as for the "Acting" being worse in the 3rd movie.. well they shot them ALL together.. There were scenes of RotK done before scenes of LotRs was finished.. so thats a mute point.

In the end the "Real" Lord of the Rings trilogy will be the 3 Director's cuts, and thats what I will judge in the end.. Hollywood has to many pre-set notions on how a movie should be made, shot, and edited.. esp.. how long a movie should and shouldn't be... Length or lack of it.. does not equal quality.

Joras

what's this talk about the real movie being 6 hours? You guys referring to Return of the King? I musta missed something, I didn't hear anything about that.

I didn't hear about 6 hours. However the first two were 2.5 hours long and the extended version dvds have an additional 40 minutes of kickass stuff, so I would expect the extended version of this one to be at least 4.5 hours.

AP: "Return of the King" is about 3 hours, 20 minutes long. Yet you cut a lot ...

JACKSON: We cut about an hour and 5 minutes. The books are so filled with detail and character, but we came to realize that even what we shot would be too long for what these theatrical cuts could sustain.

From here.

RotK is really 3:29, so add 1:05 and that puts the director's cut around 4:34. I can't wait. :D

I have to agree that the film editing seemed, um, hasty... which is a remarkable thing for a 3 1/2 hour movie and betrays what a great job Jackson actually did.

Mp

Mplor wrote:

RotK is really 3:29, so add 1:05 and that puts the director's cut around 4:34. I can't wait. :D
Mp

I just made a sticky goo mess in my panties.........

I still cant feel my ass... but you can feel my ass for me than :twisted:
The word Epic was created just for this movie... OMG it was great.
But... The underlining homosexual feelings between Frodo and Sam, Legolas and Gimily, should have been explored.

Lol I was perfectly fine with them just giving hugs.

It's too bad authentic male bonding is no longer considered masculine. As recently as Tolkien's time, a guy didn't have to always keep the thought in the back of his mind: "Will this make me seem gay?"

Now, all that's left of male bonding can be summed up by: DUDE, CHEKC OUT ARWEN!@ I'D HIT IT11one1one

Malia wrote:Multiple endings, it kept going and going and going and going and going, movie should have ended when Frodo closed the book.

Did you read the books?..there were even more endings.

Epic battle of Minis Tirith (sp?) This fight was the epic battle of the 3 books and the movie really didnt show this, the battle of Helms deep seemed bigger at least in the movies and that wasnt even close to comparison.

So much happens in return of the king its ridiculous, so a lot had to hit the cutting room floor. Better to cut bits of the battle in the theater and return them in dvd than cut bits of story and make the battle longer. I felt they did the latter in two towers, and was glad at the content of the directors cut.

I guess my thoughts are that it felt like they were all tired of the movie, even thier acting wasnt as good as first 2, like after 3 years lets just be done with this and move on. It seemed like the director wanted perfection in the first 2 and yet just didnt care in the 3rd. Over all i just think it was a cheesy rushed movie that was a big let down compared to the first 2.

You know movies are filmed out of sequence right

OMG, loved it, loved it, loved it.

Say what you will about what was left in and what was left out, I've read the entire trilogy no fewer than a dozen times, cover to cover, and they did SOOOOOOOO much better than I would have ever dreamed of. The parts that were altered or left out were surely done for movie cohesion, in order to keep the movie at a reasonable length, or throw a bone to an audience full of people that have never read the books, and I completely respect the lengths they went to in order to be as true as possible to the stories.

As for Legolas's scene on the elephant... DAMN. All I want for Christmas is Legolas in my stockings. I loved it, it was fun, and in such a dark movie a bit of fun is a big tension breaker... something that might be needed when the movie is over three hours long and the audience has been weaned on one hour movies with commercial breaks.

Now I'm ready to get the extended version!!! I'll watch Legolas on the elephants over and over and over again.

Ash have u seen him without his wig??

Ambar wrote:Ash have u seen him without his wig??

Eh, without the elven getup you can keep him. Give me the long, blonde hair, the pointed ears and that elven agility. Hubba hubba.

Mplor wrote:It's too bad authentic male bonding is no longer considered masculine. As recently as Tolkien's time, a guy didn't have to always keep the thought in the back of his mind: "Will this make me seem gay?"

Now, all that's left of male bonding can be summed up by: DUDE, CHEKC OUT ARWEN!@ I'D HIT IT11one1one

Seriously. I only got to watch it yesterday, and there were so many people telling me about the supposed homoeroticism. "Oh everyone's so gay" "Oh Sam and Frodo are fags"

And then I watched the movie.

And now I wonder what these people would think if they watched "Spartacus". It must be sad to be so fixated on something.

Yeah thats true.. watch Spartacus or Ben Hur or some of those old movies... probably would freak some people out now but its just how the movie is.

The movie was excellent. Although it did feel a bit rushed at times, but that's easily chalked up to editing. I am excited to see the extended version.

So, is it just me or did anyone sit there and shed a few tears, not because it was sad necessarily, but just because... god, I don't know. Because a book that you've read "no fewer than a dozen times, cover to cover" has been portrayed so much more brilliantly than you could have ever hoped or imagined?

Easily, this movie (these 3 movies) far removes any other from having the title "Epic".

8) Merry Christmas.

Eli

I felt that the definitive version of any of the three movies can only be from the extended edition of the DVDs. I just got done watching the Two Towers extended edition and it made a lot more sense, with additional scenes of Faramir and Boromir with their father, as well as a more drawn out conclusion after the arrival of Gandalf at Helm's Deep.

I haven't watched RotK yet, but I'll probably leave the cinemas longing for the extended DVD release next Christmas.

hehe Az, I havn't seen the extended version of the two towers. But I'm pretty sure I'm getting it for christmas, and I'm looking forward to that more than I am anything else. Ya got me drooling now.

All of the movies are great, in any format.. But... The extended versions are just "That much better".. Those few scenes that were cut for time or what ever.. help add flavor or explain things a lot better.

Like in RotK, where did Frodo get that Vial of Light, the Dirt in the Box, the Rope used for Golum.. in the regular versions.. they didn't explain it... But the extended version did it just right..

I can probably name 25 movies that were good in the theaters.. but were 100% better when you got to see the director's cut... Look how many movies later, some times years later put out a director's cut, and everyone marvels at how good a movie it was....

I think that should send a message to the movie makers of the world.. 1. the movie does NOT have to be 60-90 mins long, the movie does NOT have to be edited to the bare bone... Producers and Editors need to put what the director's vision on the movie screen.. not what they think should be there.

Joras

Joras wrote:Like in RotK, where did Frodo get that Vial of Light, the Dirt in the Box, the Rope used for Golum.. in the regular versions.. they didn't explain it... But the extended version did it just right..
Joras

Simply because I feel like nitpicking, he got the light in the very first movie, and they showed it in the theaters :P

Arilin Nydelahar wrote:

Joras wrote:Like in RotK, where did Frodo get that Vial of Light, the Dirt in the Box, the Rope used for Golum.. in the regular versions.. they didn't explain it... But the extended version did it just right..
Joras

Simply because I feel like nitpicking, he got the light in the very first movie, and they showed it in the theaters :P

Oh thats right they showed the vial.. but not the Rope, Hair or Dirt.. But you get my point.

Joras

Arilin Nydelahar wrote:

Joras wrote:Like in RotK, where did Frodo get that Vial of Light, the Dirt in the Box, the Rope used for Golum.. in the regular versions.. they didn't explain it... But the extended version did it just right..
Joras

Simply because I feel like nitpicking, he got the light in the very first movie, and they showed it in the theaters :P

But they didn't show the rope in the theaters, or anything about the cloaks, and I bet your average person who has never read the books was awfully confused about aspects of them. Why in the hell would rope burn Gollum, for example.

Ashiwi wrote:But they didn't show the rope in the theaters, or anything about the cloaks, and I bet your average person who has never read the books was awfully confused about aspects of them. Why in the hell would rope burn Gollum, for example.

Correct you are. But I didn't talk about them. I just talked about the light.

Arilin Nydelahar wrote:

Ashiwi wrote:But they didn't show the rope in the theaters, or anything about the cloaks, and I bet your average person who has never read the books was awfully confused about aspects of them. Why in the hell would rope burn Gollum, for example.

Correct you are. But I didn't talk about them. I just talked about the light.

Since we all know you're an expert on light... and loafers.

in the extended version of 'fellowship' it showed the hair, rope, cloaks, and dagger. But I don't remember anything about 'dirt'. Whats up with that? I also didn't get the thing about the rope burning Golem either. (no i havn't read the books, but plan to) explain these to me somebody? hehehe

The rope was explained fairly well. I hadn't read the books, and even I caught that it was some kind of elven rope that burned him to touch. The reason WHY it burned him was kind of irrelevant to the story, IMO. This is probably one of those things that dedicated fans see as a blatent omission that the general public fails to notice.

Werg wrote:in the extended version of 'fellowship' it showed the hair, rope, cloaks, and dagger. But I don't remember anything about 'dirt'. Whats up with that? I also didn't get the thing about the rope burning Golem either. (no i havn't read the books, but plan to) explain these to me somebody? hehehe

Well, for those that read the LotR's books.. You will remember that Glad...(I'm not going to try to spell her name.. hehe) gave Sam a small box of elven dirt that would aid him in his farming in the shire.. and the rope was a gift to the fellowship as a whole, not to really anyone person although Sam ended up with it.

Joras

PS.. Oh sorry forgot about the Rope.. It was elven (Good) made, and it burned golem I guess cause he was "Bad" they never got into details.. just a good vs bad thing.. I would look at it as something along the lines of holy water/vampire type thing.. also, elven bread tasted "bad" to golum as well. The gift giving portion of the movie had lots of small changes... dont' know why.. they really weren't needed.. but didn't really change the story.. so "Shrug" creative license...

Just wanted to say i loved the movie. I went in expecting things to be cut for the theaters, just like the last 2 movies lots will be put back in the extended version. The only part i really had a problem with was that it didnt show what happened with Saruman and Wormtounge(sp?) taking over the Shire. I know that would have made for a lot for work, but i loved that part in the books with the hobbits having to fight their own little war to get Hobbiton back.

ditto relnor :P

male bonding for me was when i was 14 years old cutting down trees and building tree houses with the guys out in the marshes in north carolina before we'd play old school dungeons and dragons - you know, where character sheets, dice, paper and pencil are all optional :P

i was upset at people focusing on the 'gay hobbits'
i mean fuck, i make fun of all the gay men, too - but this is tolkien god damn you, and its damn near blasphemous to smite his work with homophobic comments. they just dont belong.

also, anyone know of any plans to see the fountainhead or atlas shrugged done with modern filmmaking? me and anh-chi think that brad pitt would be a good howard roark, and nicole kidman would play a classy dominique. al pacino or tommy lee jones as gail wyand maybe?

Sir Ian McKellen made an interesting comment in one of the documentary on the FotR extended DVD where when Sam greeted Frodo when he woke up at Rivendell, he suggested to Peter Jackson that Sam should be holding Frodo's hand at the time. This is was due to the fact that Sir Ian McKellen was gay and he thought that it would be a somewhat appropriate thing to do from his gay perspective, but he also felt that it brought an additional dimension to the friendship of Sam and Frodo.

I'm not saying that they are homosexuals, it's just that some of the interaction between the male leads can be intrepreted in different ways.

if yuou have ever read the books then you know the entire thing is ridiculous

lets go back to talking about how badass the movie is and how the guys hate legolas now

It's extremely easy to figure out which character was my favorite. And it was a real rush to sit in the theater and watch RotK, since I had never read the book and had no idea how it was going to end. Excellent series of movies :)

I've always felt part of the story was these two boys (or hobbits = short men, kinda the same) coming into their own through struggles and hardship. They endured their great hardships through friendship and high constitution (that's a joke). They proved themselves as great men, or at least as great figures that men could take an example from. In any case, they were great fighters then.

By taking the scene out in the Shire I feel like it lost a dimension of how they've grown and what they've become. I was really looking forward to it. I've heard it is in the extended version, but I did want to see it in the theatres.

ragorn's favorite is obvious huh? i forget, who was the worst dressed in the movie? :P

I dunno, it was a pretty good flick. I liked the two towers better, it just seemed like everything in all the fight scenes was just a regurgitation of the 2nd movie. The battle for that human city was the same as the fight at helms deep; hordes of orcs break thru defenses 1 level at a time, when they get to the last line of defense and all hope is lost some insane army comes to the rescue and saves the day. Legolas rides a shield down a flight of stairs, Legolas slides down the elephant's nose as it crashes to the ground... It was just like the same thing over and over.

Honestly I was waiting for Luke Skywalker to appear and start snaring the elephant's legs with a rope from his cruiser:) That and I was waiting for Rudy to start making out with Mculley Culken's little brother there. There were just too many 5-10 second scenes of the two of them staring into each others' eyes from 6 inches away and neither one of them speaking, it was pretty obvious homosexual implications, whether you choose to recognize it or not, its right there:) Also the part when they break up and Rudy starts crying, he doesn't get pissed or take a swing at the little monkey guy, he just cries and runs away, wtf is that about? I guess he's the catcher?

Anyway it was a pretty good movie, but they could've done some things better. But what do I know? I almost got kicked out of the theatre cuz when Corey picked up Elajah wood on the volcano i started chanting "Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!" good times, good times.

I was waiting for Agent Smith to say... Mr. Frodo the Matrix has got you! It ends tonight!

I swear I couldnt watch that Agent Smith guy without thinking Keenu was going to pop out and kick his ass...

Kasula wrote:I was waiting for Agent Smith to say... Mr. Frodo the Matrix has got you! It ends tonight!

I swear I couldnt watch that Agent Smith guy without thinking Keenu was going to pop out and kick his ass...

After the last two trainwreck Matrixes I only associate that guy with lotr now.

Ashiwi wrote:

Arilin Nydelahar wrote:

Ashiwi wrote:But they didn't show the rope in the theaters, or anything about the cloaks, and I bet your average person who has never read the books was awfully confused about aspects of them. Why in the hell would rope burn Gollum, for example.

Correct you are. But I didn't talk about them. I just talked about the light.

Since we all know you're an expert on light... and loafers.

Arilin has SEEN THE LIGHT!

=P

Mostly what confused people that hadn't read the books was the Steward of Gondor's insistence on burning. I had to explain the whole palantir bit as best I could.

SPOILERS!

thanuk wrote:I dunno, it was a pretty good flick. I liked the two towers better, it just seemed like everything in all the fight scenes was just a regurgitation of the 2nd movie. The battle for that human city was the same as the fight at helms deep; hordes of orcs break thru defenses 1 level at a time, when they get to the last line of defense and all hope is lost some insane army comes to the rescue and saves the day. Legolas rides a shield down a flight of stairs, Legolas slides down the elephant's nose as it crashes to the ground... It was just like the same thing over and over.

The battle for Helms Deep was more intense, more action packed, and oddly enough appeared to be a greater (size wize) invading army because of how they shot it. Overall, it was more impressive battle. King T's mounted army was only supposed to be around 6k strong. The invading force was supposed to be 200k. I don't care how great your calvary is, you're not gonna trample that many freaking orcs before you fall.

For a 200k sized army, it sure was less then impressive.

The undead legion of toxic green radiated ooze warriors was LAME! They coulda juiced that up and really made it creepy cool. Pirates of the Carribean did undead better and that was an action comedy :P After watching a bunch of little kids play the X-box version of the 3rd movie, I thought there was going to be some kind of CONFLICT between Aragorn and the leader of the undead legion, boy was that a dissappointment! :P

The Witch-King fight coulda been a lot better and more dramatic. She coulda atleast chopped his head off.

So with no Gandalf, or Faromir, the capital of Gondor has no other interesting or powerful figures and is just gonna CRUMBLE? Wtf?

I hope the extended DVD has a lot of cut out scenes that make the movie more dramatic.

I didn't appreciate the 30 min Akira-style ending either.

Not enough Gimly humor. :(

Sesexe wrote:I didn't appreciate the 30 min Akira-style ending either.

This Akira?



It ends like....quickly o.0