*** Official THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Benson R]

I think I found the most negative review yet for Return of the King, and probably the most poorly written professional review also.

NJ Star Ledger - Stephen Witty's review

New Jersey's largest paper, the Star Ledger gave King two and a half stars out of four, which is not terrible, but the review is mostly baseless criticisms. First he says that only die hard fans will not be confused by not having a recap, people who saw the last part a year ago will be completely lost. He also has problems with the lack of women characters. But what really got me is he implies there is a racist subtext to the fact that villians are from "the south" and ride elephants, and the heroes are from "the west." I have no problem with critics disagreeing with me but I have been reading this guys reviews for years, and its as if he doesnt even like movies. With this review he seems to have actively tried to find fault with a film just for the sake of having a different opinion than the other critics. I hope people start writing to the paper to complain, so that they might replace him. I probably would just let it go, its just a movie, but the race issue pushed me over the edge.

 

[Timothy Alexander]

Just got myself four 12:10am tickets. Jesus, I can't believe this three year ride will be all over tonight.

 

[Ralph Summa]

Amen.

Everyone who wants to see this movie should read Robert's review. Although he did make my 25 hr wait even more difficult.

 

[DustinLC]

Does the witch king speaks in the movie?

I have midnight ticket and I'm afraid my expectation might be too high at this point. Let just say it can't be any higher. I'm actually searching for negative reviews to bring me back to earth .

 

[Chris Farmer]

Yeah, taht first negative review was just stupid. First he claims that Jackson castrated the story and what he put up was not Tolkien, then proceeds to criticize stuff straight out of the book. Ah well, such is life.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Dustin:

The Witch King does speak, indeed. He has about 4 or 5 lines, if I remember right

 

[BryanZ]

There will be a negative review up there soon.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...s_1c16lord.html

I read that review. From what I gathered it seemed as if the reviewer wasn't familiar with the book. Some quotes from the review:

"Back in a multiplex for No. 3, I felt blitz-bombed again."

Spoken like someone who doesn't enjoy movie theatres in general anymore.

"Jackson really thinks we needed such touches as the episode with a huge spider worthy of a '50s monster film ..."

Perhaps because Shelob was a prominent minority character in the book? Couldn't be that or is it too obvious an answer?

"How come good guys are essentially defined by ears (usually pointed) and bad guys by teeth (nearly all grotesque)?"

Read the books.

"Why is hero Frodo (Elijah Wood) often so wan and floppy, as if in need of smelling salts? Why is he so slow to notice that creepy mini-nudist Gollum is no friend? And his pal Sam (Sean Astin) calling him "Mr. Frodo" starts to seem like a joke."

As I'm growing angrier at his ignorance: Read the books.

"Why does the villainy, though large, lack stature? With evil Saruman not back again (and Christopher Lee is mad as blazes about it), we're stuck with Sauron, nearly as dark and abstract as the monolith in "2001," plus gruesome Orcs and medieval mammoths."

Spoilers for those who haven't heard the commentary nor read the books: He will be in the DVD. However, Saruman plays a much reduced role in the book after the fall of Isengard anyways so why the complaint here?

"Why, in these many realms, are the only viable occupations warfare, sorcery, music and carousing? Who built and sustains these mountain-scaling keeps (perhaps Merlin, the original digitalizer)?"

I don't know. Perhaps because it is assumed other occupations such as farming (Hobbits), barkeeping (Prancing Pony), candle making, glass blowing, ironworking, inn keeping (aforementioned), stable keeping (TTT & Bill the Pony), ship building (mentioned in FOTR or TTT with the Elves sailing west), artistry (muerel - sp? - in FOTR), architectures (too many to count), and seamstresses are all taken for granted?

"How come women are only saucy flirts or radiant emblems of civilian vulnerability? Finally, perhaps pinched by feminism, Jackson lets fair Eowyn (Miranda Otto) flail a sword and hack off a monster's head."

The book had few female characters in there and Jackson held fairly true to the book. It is also established in TTT women of Rohan can fight.

"Sir Ian McKellen acts very well as noble Gandalf, but lines about heart, courage and fate make him Lord Fortune Cookie."

As he is a wizard and so much more. Oddly enough the same lines that make him noble make him 'Lord Fortune Cookie'.

"Jackson has achieved not Tolkien."

Nor tried to. It is well documented it is Jackson's intrepretation of the book but you'ld have to have read the book to know the story, something the reviewer, from all appearences, hasn't done.

""Lord" is All Epic, All the Time."

Ya think? Couldn't be because the book is epic?

"If the climax battle this time is more overpowering than the Helm's Deep boggler in "Two Towers," does it truly deepen the story?"

He is holding true to the book as Helm's Deep is not as big a battle.

"Impressively mounted, technically dazzling, the series also italicizes in neon every feeling, while some characters (like a gloomy, inept king) function as filler."

And in all of us is some aspect of the character, be it Gollum's doublemindedness and betraying nature, the courage of Sam, or wisdom of Gandolf.

"So, the war to end all wars (which didn't) inspired the franchise to end all franchises (which won't)."

Seems to me like he missed the point completely and was lacking in a way to end the review.

 

[Jeremy:L]

I can tell you without even opening the link that it is by David Elliot (SignOnSanDiego.com is the site for the San Diego UT). The guy is a perfect barometer for which movies are good, only it's the opposite of what he says. Many times, it seems that if the buzz is good, he hates it. If the movie is dismissed, he rants and raves about how artsy and deep it is. He fancies himself an intellectual, and it shows. But them, he'll give a good review to Analyze This. Whatever. For crying out loud, I can see from some of the quotes from his review how much he had to reach to find stuff to nitpick in this movie.

Resist the temptation to be disappointed about a negative review, this is really good news! If Elliot liked it, I would have been worried. Seriously. He's that bad.

[edited to remove some heat-of-the-moment hyperbole]

 

[Shea]

I'll be there at 12:05am tonight and again at 2:40 tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Craig S]

I'm not worried about a few negative reviews at this point. There will always be dissenters (Jeffrey Wells, anyone). And as has been pointed out, this particular review is poorly reasoned & self-contradictory.

It will hit the Tomatometer and bring it down from 100, but that was to be expected eventually. BTW, I checked out this chucklehead's review history at RottenTomatoes and Jeremy is right on - he has given a lot of bad reviews to a lot of good films.

Hey, head on over to The Digital Bits and check out their special Trilogy Tuesday logo...

 

[JohnE]

Three years? How about seven! I've been following these suckers since they were first announced. I'm honestly going to feel lost without these movies to speculate over and look forward to. :frowning:

 

[Scotty_McW]

In all honesty, I have never been a fan of the books. I can't even get through Fellowship, and I love fantasy books. However, these movies are amazing and I am so excited to finally see how it all ends, even if it is different from the books. I just wish I didn't have to wait until thursday to do so.:frowning:

 

[Steve_Tk]

By the time I see this Thursday afternoon some of you will have seen it 3 times.

 

[Dalton]

Going at 10:20 am tommorow morning. Just hope my wife doesn't go into labor during the movie! The baby can wait say...3hr20min can't it?

 

[Shea]

Witty's review was posted in the cream of the crop section at Rotten Tomatoes..so no mo 100%. Course you know a negative review would hit it eventually.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Seeing it at midnight tonight with a half-dozen friends. You would think that because I've already seen the movie that I wouldn't be all that psyched.

You'd be wrong.

Have a great time everyone!

Maybe we can have a little chat session after the midnight shows.

 

[Peter Kim]

Sounds good...I have a feeling that after this film, residue adrenalin will have me pumped for the remainder of the morning.

 

[MikeRR]

Seeing this with three friends at 12:01. The theater I'm going to (Valley View, OH Cinemark) has four sold-out midnight showings. That's over a thousand people . This is going to be nuts. It hasn't even hit me yet, but I'm sure it will soon. Half the fun tonight is going to be talking to fellow fans and experiencing their reactions during the movie. We'll be going, as Jon Stewart says it best, bat-shit insane

 

[Peter Kim]

How early are folks who are seeing the 12:01 showing tonight going?

Up here in Minnesota, I'm not sure if I want to brave the cold so long if they don't open the doors early.

 

[JohnE]

I'm lucky. About a hundred yards from the theatre there's a cozy little bar were we are meeting up for a couple of pints and some food before the show starts. Should help keep us warm and out the chilly rain while waiting for the doors to open.

The anticipation is slowly building to dangerous levels right now. I'm so anxious I feel like heading out to the bar to start waiting right now. Of course if I do that I'll be drunk as a skunk by the time the movie starts. Only another few hours.