Mooters' RotK reviews

[azalea]

I went ahead and unstuck this, since it hasn't had a reply in over two weeks, and I assume we've all posted our reviews at this point. Just wanted to let you know in case you were wondering where it went, and of course anyone can still use it for reviews (ie, newbies).

[Christiana]

k, saw it for a fourth time
actors reviews


Hugo Weaving: still looks a little like Agent Smith in a wig with pointy ears. I have to admit, though, that he totally redeamed himself in the end. His line "the sea calls me home" probably would have made me cry, cept i was already bawling!

Cate Blanchett: once again, one of the biggest dissapointments. got a little too much of the flashy stuff: in the book galadriel's power was much more subtle. Also, am I the only one who noticed that that grin she gave Frodo when he was hallucinating in Shelob's lair looked like a sharks?

John Noble: Ok, but i think he gave Denethor a bit too much of a senile cast. Clearly he ignored the line"nay my lord, when you are a dotard you will die."

Eomer: very good, can't complain, but wish he had been cast with a stronger "presense"

Eowyn: also good, she was portrayed just like I imagined.

Theoden: Wonderfully cast. Bernard Hill really portrayed him well. I particularly liked his speech berfore the Battle of the Pelenor.

Faramir: nice job. David did a great job of showing how he was always trying to win his father's respect. Liked his reaction when he learns that his father wished him dead and Boromir alive.

Billy Boyd and Dominic Monagham: both very into the spirit of their characters. Hope that they have bigger parts in EE

John Rhys-Davis: very good. Liked how he portrayed the dwarf's steadfast loyalty to his friends. Liked the way his friendship with Legolas continued to develop.

Orlando Bloom: Really got into the "elfishness" of Legolas. Liked how he knocked the palantir from Aragorn's grasp after Aragorn had wrenched it from Pippin.

Andy Serkis: very nice job playing little schizophrenic dude.

Ian McKellan: very good. Thought that he was a bit to serious to the hobbits sometimes though. I look forward to the Witch-King confrontation.

Liv Tyler: Not quite sure about her whole dying thing, but that was the scriptwriters' fault, not hers. LOVED her vision of Eldarion:so sad! Also loved the line "but there is also life." I had wondered if she had forgotten that in TTT, what with all of Elrond's lectures.

Elijah Wood: Wonderful. I really thought that he was Frodo. he portrayed him so well, showing how desparing he was. he showed how far he wnt: from cheerful hobbit to basically being stripped of all who he was. Elijah did the Havens scene awsomly. When he kissed Sam! I was crying so hard.

Sean Austin: he settled into sam's role very quietly, so quietly that many people often forget what an essential part he plays. "I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you!" so eloquent. He did one of the bet job's of any of the actors, and that's saying a lot.

Viggo Mortensen: OMG!!!!!!! He was SUCH a great Aragorn! His speech, Elendil's song, the paths of the dead, the coronation! Where can I begin? I could really see the tranformation over the course of the movies. He went from ranger, to leader of men, to war hero, and finally to king. he made Aragorn seem a very human person. He's a hero, sure, but he also has doubts and fears just like everyone else. fantastic job!

Shadowfax: Best of em all!

[Gerbil]

Oddly enough I too saw it for the fourth time last night - last time I'll see it on the big screen I should imagine since I've no need now.

Apart from really annoying people behind who talked all the way through (apparently the 'mum' of the group didn't know sod all and was constantly asking questions), I enjoyed it.

The start was fantastic - we missed most of it (something I abhor doing generally, but since I HATE the start of RotK, this actually improved it for me!)

Must have mellowed with age - I was able to watch Sam leaving and Legolas' party tricks with barely a wince. Denethor, however, still annoys me incredibly - I wonder how good Noble would have been had he actually been given the 'real' Denethor to play - much better I think.

This is the first time that I've seen it that people haven't been getting impatient through the endings too - possibly simply statistics because the cinema wasn't that full, but I was able to tolerate them myself without getting itchy, even if the final final ending annoys me.

Still love the battles, although there appears to be a bit of a discrepency about exactly how big the forces of Mordor on the Pelannor Fields are - seems to vary from place to place. This is also true of the Rohirrim though - they are about 15 rows or so deep when the camera first pans above them at sunrise, yet when they charge they are twice that or more.

Am having fun spotting inconsistencies too - the dark clouds above Mordor are a case in point - sometimes it's pitch black, other times (Sam and Frodo drinking water in gorgoroth) it actually looks like a pretty bright sunny place! Gollum's waving hair that never reacts to wind is easy to spot (and a stupid oversight).

Aside from technical stuff - the same bits still affect me - Gandalf saving the retreat from Osgiliath (odd 'cos it's actually quite badly done - the spotlight thing is so annoying - so glad PJ didn't get carried away and use it elsewhere Must be the combination of story music and book knowledge kicking in). The Rohirrim leaving Dunharrow, and Theoden's speech before the battle. Grey Havens are good (music again I think, since it's Scary Camp Smile location otherwise, from both Galadriel and Frodo).

All in all, a film more defined by what's not in it (see the trailer and work out how much of it ISN'T in the damn film), than what's in it I feel.

Anyway, this is the end of my association with RotK in the cinema, it's DVD only for me from now on. Roll on the EE and while we'll still get a bad screenplay, at least then PJ's 'vision' might in some sence be coherent.

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Personally, I think what you think of Return of the King will depend on what made you love the books to begin with.

I have always loved them for their sadness, and for the passing away of things that we will never see again, and the symbolism of the West, the Sea, and everything else. I love it for the hobbits, for Merry and Pippin finding responsibility and courage, for Sam bringing out the qualities we all wished we had, and for the fallen hero, Frodo Baggins.

If that's why you love the books, the movies should be right down your lane. They are filled with a pemeating sadness that fills everything in the movie, yet everything is also laced with hope. I've heard endless complaints about the ends. But for me, and apperently for Peter Jackson as well, that is what the books are about. Tolkien served in WWI and he saw people come back and never again fit into life. We see that in the return to the Shire and Frodo's haunting voiceover. The Grey Havens, Gandalf's speech to Pippin about life and death, and many other things make this movie radiate what, for me, is the spirit of J.R.R. Tolkien's work. But, it all depends on the individual.

Katie

[azalea]

Heck, WE know the endings are the least of what he could have done! I think the problem there lies with the two long fade outs -- the first at Mt. Doom, when they are lying on the rock, and esp. the one after the Havens. That one makes the audience (non-bookers) think it's over, but then you have Sam's return, and they don't understand why it hadn't ended. If he hadn't done such a long fade out there, and done a quicker jump, maybe from the three turning away to go home or something, it would have been smoother for the non-book audience. I just warn people to be prepared that it won't be the very end until Sam says "Well, I'm back." That way they know if they haven't heard it, it isn't over yet.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, I agree about the sadness and loss themes.

It would have been easier to do a conventional happy ending, so we should be grateful.

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Originally posted by azalea
I think the problem there lies with the two long fade outs -- the first at Mt. Doom, when they are lying on the rock, and esp. the one after the Havens. That one makes the audience (non-bookers) think it's over, but then you have Sam's return, and they don't understand why it hadn't ended. If he hadn't done such a long fade out there, and done a quicker jump, maybe from the three turning away to go home or something, it would have been smoother for the non-book audience.

I definitely see where you're coming from there. But that was probably more of an editing move by Jamie Selkirk than a directing one by Peter Jackson.

Plus, I remember reading somewhere that Jackson added those scences to the end for the book audience to appreciate because they are more farmiliar with Tolkien's work.

Katie

[Gerbil]

Plus, I remember reading somewhere that Jackson added those scences to the end for the book audience to appreciate because they are more farmiliar with Tolkien's work.

Yes - a last ditch attempt to remind people that it had anything to do with the book

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Lol, Gerbil
But remember...these movies caused book sales to multiply by eleven.

Katie

[Gerbil]

Ah but can you now imagine how many confused people there'll be who wonder why the book isn't the same as the film?
Who IS this Tom Bombadil, and why isn't Aragorn a coward?
The cheek, to change the story from the film.
And nary a burp or fart for comic relief

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Originally posted by Gerbil

And nary a burp or fart for comic relief

Haha, give the world some credit. One of my good friends saw Fellowship of the Ring and then went out and read all of the books and now she loves both. At the very least, the movies made Tolkien more well known and made more people go out and introduce themselves to the world of Tolkien. (You would have been proud of my friend though...a couple days after she started reading she was complaining about Tom Bombadil too )

Katie

[Nurvingiel]

This is certainly is a excellent point in favour of the movies. They did make the books more accessible to people. (This doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of needless changes, but it does make up for them a bit.)

Food for thought:

"[The scriptwriter has added] a great many Eagles, not to mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic... He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights..."
-J.R.R. Tolkien, commenting on M.G. Zimmerman's
(thankfully unproduced) film treatment of Lord of the Rings
(Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #210).

An excellent review of Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings", found here, made me think of interesting parallel's between Bakshi and Jackson's versions, such as a tendency to rely on battles to carry the movie, and issues with character development.