DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (1 Viewer)

[oscar_merkx]

I will be waiting for the 4 disc edition

 

[Devin_C]

...and then the reviewer gives it a whirl for a bit as personal preference. At least it's honest opinion, and not 'you should agree with me, I'm a big film snob' like some other reviewers.

I was glad to read positive things about the transfer; for something of that length I was a bit worried. The audio feedback as well is good news. I've heard the same pans on the extras, particularly since a number of them were available elsewhere (Supertrailer with the limited edition soundtrack, web featurettes). That's one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the Extendeds - it's easy to say "oh, it'll all be made up with that edition", but there's probably a fair number of folks who will only buy the theatricals. 'course, they probably didn't buy the limited edition soundtrack or hit the web site for these featurettes, so I guess it evens out. :p)

 

[Lou Sytsma]

To be fair though M&C has the advantage of using CGI to duplicate real world items. Such items will not stand out as much - if they are competently handled - as they are part of an established frame of reference for the audience.

LOTR was using CGI to create things that don't and never will exist. That automatically makes such shots stand out more and subject to greater scrutiny.


The points about no acting noms proves that the Academy still has more growing to do. Also, the size of the cast and the ensemble nature of the story really preclude any award from being given. It's not that kind of a story.

Good review, personal preferences aside, and glad that the technical aspects were examined with an objective eye.

 

[Sven Lorenz]

Same here.

Another thing is the use of forced-perspective - after I've seen how it's done in the documentaries it doesn't work for me anymore.

When rewatching Fellowship I now always see that they're not sitting next to each other on the wagon or at the same table.

 

[James Lambert]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gangs of New York (cited in the review) use quite a bit of CGI? I know that they built massive sets, but for the many establishing long shots wasn't CGI used to extend the background? It might be another case of when you don't know it's CGI you don't mind. (edit; after rereading the review I realise this isn't the case as you certainly notice the CGI in Minority Report)

Sorry, I wouldn't normally bring anybody up on a review just because the opinion differs vastly from my own experience, as that's only natural. It just seems that films (to paraphrase badly) aren't what they used to be seems to be rather dismissive of it's own merits. I think I just need to calm down as I read this review just after seeing DVDFILE call West Wing Season 2 a "polished turd" because talky drama has been done before and better in the past.

 

[soop.spoon]

That is one hell of an assertion. Care to elaborate on the "very flawed" portion?

When I hear "very flawed" I think of The Hulk or Wing Commander or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Here we go!

 

[Todd_N]

Glad to hear that the video looks good despite the whole movie being on one disc. At what point in the movie did they put the layer switch?

 

[KylePete]

I have to disagree. Real world items displayed through the use of CGI will be much more noticeable than something that we as humans never seen before. Case in point…..those dragon-like creatures can seem much more realistic because we have nothing to compare them to. We can’t say, “Hey, those dragons don’t quite fly like the dragons I’ve seen.”

It is when CGI is used for humans, fire (who wouldn’t be able to tell when computer fire was used in LOTR?), and animals (like horses) that it becomes strikingly apparent.

I had a big problem with some of the CGI in the LOTR movies, but I still think it goes without saying that it is still some of the best CGI work to date. The scene where a fell beast swoops down and knocks out some riders and horses coming right towards the camera is amazing. I still can’t pick out the computer horses when it’s played in real time. And the blending of the miniature work into the different landscapes is very good.

If you go to www.alias.com they have a small featurette on Return of the King (WETA used Maya for some of their shots). I think one of the workers describes that it’s hard to create real-world objects (horses in this case) because everyone knows what they look like.

Great movie, though.



Kyle

 

[Holadem]

Meh.

CGI is a tool that has been overused, but also used the great effect in many movies. The impression I get from the review is that had all those effects been achieved somehow miraculously through conventional FX means, the movie would have been better. I understand not liking the movie, but I find the reasons very sketchy. There is much more to these movies than the CGI.

The CGI == BAD rethoric is really getting old.

--
H

 

[Lou Sytsma]

If someone sees a familar object represented in a believable manner they don't focus their attention on it. OTOH a fantastical object - no more how well rendered - will draw more attention to it. It's outside the viewer's life experience and will bear more scrutiny.

I'm talking about objects, landscape, etc - animating living things is another ball game.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Couple of things.

1) Michael is the reviewer. He's welcome to share his opinion on the film he is reviewing. No big whoop.

2) I have to disagree as well, Lou. Existing real world CGI should be easier to spot than fantasy CGI, with the exception of living creatures. Our eye knows what to look for when it sees something that could exist. Some fantasy elements get a pass. Just my take. As an example, Pearl Harbor had great CG models of the planes. Some of the movements were clearly Hollywood, though.

3) CGI is just a tool. Good directors use it effectively. Bad directors don't. I don't blame ILM for Van Helsing. They always turn out shoddy work for Sommers. He seems to care more for quantity than quality. That's his choice. Don't blame the workmen.

Thanks for the review. I only cared about the audio and video. I expect little from the extras, and I know what the film is about

Take care,
Chuck

 

[DaveJJ]

Thanks for review michael, but I going to wait for special edition expected in November.


DaveJJ

 

[Jonathan White]

 

[Jefferson Morris]

I appreciate the review (even if I'm somewhat baffled by it). My copy of this disc is supposedly going to ship around Friday, and I can't wait.

James Lambert wrote:
I believe it did, for large establishing shots of the city and things like ships in harbors.

In my opinion, the LOTR trilogy marks the best, most judicious use of CGI (if not special effects in general) to date in cinema history.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[David_SG]

Uh - didn't the film win the SAG Best Emsemble Award? And some of the individual actors were widely recognized for their performances in this movie, albeit not from the Academy. Stating that the acting wasn't recognized or widely discussed is simply an uninformed statement.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

I thought the acting was great in this series. Aside from Liv Tyler (who I've never cared for), I can't think of one actor that didn't bring their character to life beatifully. All of the Fellowship were great, especially Sean Astin and Ian McKellan. Bernard Hill as Theoden was fantastic. Christopher Lee was as menacing as ever. Cate Blanchett was mesmerizing. I could go on.

I understand being predisposed against a film because of massive hype, and I myself can fall victim to it. But LOTR is just a magical experience, and for those who like fantasy I don't see how you could not get drawn in emotionally with the characters. I agree with the previous poster who stated that while non-CGI effects may have made some things more believable, the movie is still great regardless.

Can't wait to get this and the extended version.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Thanks for the review Michael. It is clear that you put a lot of thought and effort into your evaluation.

I respect your CGI view as I occasionally feel that way myself, but as Ernst and others point out, this is just one more tool in the filmmaker’s belt. And some of these tools are (and have been) more obvious than others or become obvious in specific films. Hitchcock for example, never seemed particularly concerned that using rear projection to simulate driving a car through the countryside was not at all believable. One just learns to suspend their disbelief (or not) in order to properly enjoy the movie. So it is with me with most CGI and specifically the CGI used in this movie.

I do suggest that the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy should not necessarily draw your ire in this regard, however. For a film of this era, I thought that there was a considerable use of models, miniatures and other physical devices to suggest Middle Earth and its inhabitants.

 

[Tim Glover]

Michael is certainly in his right to give his opinion just as we do on the REVIEW threads etc...

Since we've debated, praised, criticized, and 100% of everything else related to ROTK...all that's left for me was hearing about the image/sound on the dvd like Chuck said.

From the reviews, the sound appears to be stellar. Can't wait.

Would have been nice to have the Annie Lennox video though.

 

[Kami]

Well, I respect your opinion but not sure if I agree on your problem with CGI.

For such an epic fantasy CGI is required. Can you imagine how underwhelming a live action LOTR would be in the 80s or early 90s? There would be no scale to it.

LOTR also only used CGI when necessary. A huge amount was done with miniatures, scale doubles, forced perspective, etc. Lots of matte paintings too and movies have been using those for decades.

As someone else said a few posts above, LOTR was the most "smart" use of CGI in cinema history.

But thanks for the review - I am sure everyone is glad to hear the transfer is up to snuff.