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

[Michael Harris]

AMPAS should take a page from the SAG awards and create an ensemble catagory.

 

[DavidPla]

Ian McKellen did get an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor in "The Fellowship of the Ring". I think he and Sean Astin should've both been nominated as well for "Return of the King".

 

[Ernest Rister]

Spectacle was identified as one of the key ingredients in the theatrical arts thousands of years ago, and yet, it has earned a bad name because it is easier to set fire to a set than it is to write compelling charcaters and dialogue. There is nothing wrong with spectacle, as long as it doesn't overwhelm the human element.

Peter Jackson's films thrive on spectacle (with the exception of Heavenly Creatures) - his films are terrific, fun eye candy - even the zombie films. With Lord of the Rings, he is adapting a story loaded with spectacle but grounded in humanity. Tolkien was smart enough and *gifted* enough to tell a story about war in mythical land from the point of view of small, gentle, almost child-like creatures that readers could relate to.

That's why Fellowship works so well for me, and why I chose it as the best film of 2001 - the film never, ever loses sight of its human element. Sure, it is loaded with spectacle, but with a few exceptions, it is usually spectacle as seen and as felt by the hobbit characters. It is one thing to read about Frodo's grief over the loss of Gandalf, quite another to see a beautifully choreographed and heart-rending shot of Frodo turning to the camera as a single tear rolls down his devastated face. Jackson succeeded in bringing the book to life, and Boyens and Walsh were smart enough to give the film two complete character arcs...Aragorn renounces power, Frodo chooses to accept the responsibility of the quest on his own.

The trouble is, if you don't connect with the hobbits, or if you don't believe in their world, then you're going to have a rotten time watching these movies. When someone says "the movie is deeply flawed", he means that the movie is flawed *from his own point of view*, not from yours, or anyone else's. Again, not trying to put words in the HTF critic's mouth, but perhaps he simply never engaged with the characters, or the stakes of the story, or the world the story is set in. If you don't, then all you have left is spectacle and action, and that's a pretty hollow experience for anybody, no matter what the movie is. That's why films like Tron have such a hard time winning fans to this day -- incredible spectacle, but some people just don't like they story, or believe in the characters or situations.

 

[david*mt]

How does the video quality on ROTK compare to that of the extended versions of the FOTR and TTT? I wouldn't expect it to be as good considering its 201 minute running time.

 

[Ernest Rister]

/ Read the review.

 

[Dannie]

i havent had any luck finding any easter eggs on this dvd either

 

[Steve Christou]

Wow! A luke-warm Lord of the Rings dvd review, don't see one of these very often. Michael, first I appreciate your honest remarks concerning this particular title, and you're certainly entitled to your opinions, but I can't understand why you of all people were picked to review Return of the King when you've already admitted to not being a fan of the first two.
Thats like getting me to review a batch of Woody Allen films when I can't even stand the blighter or his films.

So ROTK doesn't even merit a Recommended, oh well, I'll still be all over this like a rash when it arrives.

 

[Nick Sievers]

Wouldn't it be that Michael is assigned to New Line releases?

 

[Lew Crippen]

IIRC each HTF reviewer is assigned a studio, not specific movies.

I’d add, at least for me, the last thing I want to see a review by a fan. Where you are almost guaranteed a review without critical comment.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"I can't understand why you of all people were picked to review Return of the King when you've already admitted to not being a fan of the first two."

Film Criticism is Opinion Journalism. What would be the point of reading a review if you knew the writer was required to like what he was discussing, so as not to ruffle feathers?

It's good to have some feathers ruffled. Shakes out the dust, and sometimes, the truth.

 

[Michael Elliott]

First of all I'd like to say that I appreciate the feedback and I thank all of you for letting me voice my opinion. I debated whether I should post a somewhat negative review after all the praise reviews but then I remembered that the members here were very respectful of one another and allow one to voice their opinions of a film, transfer or whatever else. I was rather worried of being beaten to death over saying anything negative so I think it speaks highly of the members here since my opinions, while not popular, didn't lead to fights or anything of that nature. It's good when people can debate without name calling and all of that stuff. So, thanks again for letting me voice my opinion of the film.

I'll try to answer some of the questions asked.




I guess this too is up to the viewer. Personally, I mentioned a few older films in the review, which I find a lot more effective and mind blowing than anything in the LOTR trilogy. I still believe Buster Keaton is the greatest action star of all time and I firmly believe that the effects in THE GENERAL are ten times better than the greatest action scene. I also find THE BIRTH OF A NATION to stand up to the war films of today. Of course, the use of "better" effects and CGI are nice but the realism captured back then is still better IMO. In the sci-fi/fantasy genre, I'd say Kubrick's 2001 is miles ahead of anything before it or after. I think the effects in that film are a lot more realistic than LOTR, PEARL HARBOR or any other film released the past few years.

I had the pleasure of watching SUNRISE last year and it's another film that I believe looks better than anything being released today. I mentioned the make up used to turn Karloff into Frankenstein's monster. I think the make up effects of a Lon Chaney still rank higher than what I see today. I'd even say the gore effects in something like the original F13 turned out a lot more realistic than say FREDDY VS JASON or I'd also take the original TCM over the remake.

However, like others have mentioned, this is just one opinion and the reason I prefer the effects in 2001 might be why someone else prefers the effects in ID4. When it comes to the LOTR trilogy, I'm glad I spent the 10+ hours watching it but I'm afraid I didn't enjoy it as much as the majority of people who feel it's one of the greatest films ever made. There's no right or wrong here, just different opinions, which can lead to wonderful discussions.

 

[ClaytonMG]

First off, to me, the CGI was bad in this film because I noticed it. You're not supposed to notice CGI. If you do notice it, the people doing the CGI did a bad job. Second, when you have a fan of the LOTR series write a review for the film, chances are they'd see no flaws in any of the films. To the die hard fans of LOTR, these films cannot be beat by anything. I personally didn't like Return of the King, I agree with the whole style thing and how there was more style and not enough story. I felt the film was empty, and some scenes were poorly done. Maybe it was just Elijah Wood or something but the slow motion reunion at the end bothered me because I felt no emotion.
I felt this movie just went on and on which made me bored and angry at the film. Anyway, I liked The Two Towers better. As for the cast, I felt the acting was so-so, some actors were alright, but then there were some that were just not good.

Clayton

 

[Steve Christou]

Good post Michael.



Good for you. But you still decided to check the dvd review?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Michael, I just wanted to commend you on an interesting review. I appreciate your honesty, especially in light of the fact that the film in question IS indeed highly regarded.

I have not seen any of these films, but a good friend of mine swears by them. I have stayed away thus far only because I'm not much on STAR WARS or these types of fantasy films - and especially the newer type, utilizing CGI effects. I rarely, if ever, respond well to them and - like yourself - it takes me out of the film when I sort of know the actors are acting against a blue screen, or talking to a creature that's not really there.

Still, I hope to give this film (and the others) a chance one day. Keep up the great work.

 

[Jack _Webster]

Why don't you try to make realistic looking giant spiders, trolls, and nazgul steeds? At this point, CGI can't get ANY better. Besides, I'm of the belief that if a film has a great story, CGI becomes unimportant. Heck, there were moments during the film (specifically during the Mount Doom climax) that I forgot Gollum was CG, because I was so wrapped up in the story.

I guess I never really expected that the sfx would look 100 % realistic. What I liked about LotR's computer effects and matte paintings, etc. were that they looked like beautiful artwork as oppossed to cartoons (like Attack of the Clones).

In years to come, CGI will improve and the effects in LotR will age somewhat - but it won't matter. It is (IMHO), as the first trailer for FotR said - "The Greatest Story Ever Told".

 

[ClaytonMG]

See, this is why I don't debate The Lord of the Rings. People feel personally offended if you say you didn't like the movies. Anyway, the Giant Spider didn't bother me, it was the elephants at the end and Orlando Bloom riding them, it just looked so rubbery and fake to me that it took me out of the movie. It's not my job to create CGI, I don't know much about it, but that doesn't mean that I can't have my own opinion on how the film looked.

Clayton

 

[Ernest Rister]

"It is (IMHO), as the first trailer for FotR said - 'The Greatest Story Ever Told'."

Yup. Tolkien did a great job. I only hope, in years to come, the books do not become an appendage to the movies. As good as the movies are, the books are even better.

 

[Jack _Webster]

Hence, the rest of my post. I was so involved in the story, the effects don't matter to me.

 

[ClaytonMG]

Story wise there wasn't much going on during that scene though.

Clayton

 

[Ken Kool]

there is. Gimli insists the kill only counts as one!