Return of the King [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums


View Full Version : Return of the King

12-16-2003, 07:31 AM
I know I'm not the only one going to see it in 13 hours and 45 minutes

12-16-2003, 02:36 PM
ah, but are you going to the marathon of extended editions? today they are playing the extended editions of fellowship and 2 towers and ROTC first screenings at around 10ish i think. was a lil much for me, am gonna watch two towers tonight and go to the show tomorrow!


12-17-2003, 11:12 AM
And not withstanding the usual Bermuda theater BS (i'll get to that later), it was an exceptional movie. Great story, wonderful emotional depth from all the characters. At the end of it, I was saddened by the fact that there wouldn't be another next year.

If Legolas's Oliphant escapade doesn't go down as one of the great moments in movie history, I don't know what will!

And just to show you how much I liked this movie, I still enjoyed it despite the following aforementioned Bermuda Theater BS:

1) Lights in theater left on for first 20 minutes
2) First 10 minutes of audio so low as to be almost intelligible
3) No surround sound during first hour of movie
4) When the surround sound finally kicked in (Osgiliath, wherever the Nasguls live) it was so loud it hurt my ears, then it was turned way down again, and then up again and then a middle ground was found.
5) When the reel changed, the screen went blank for 30 seconds and the surround went out again.
6)Surround came back intermittenetly - sometimes there, sometimes not until the final battle, where it stopped altogether and just got sound from the front speakers.
7) Surround blipped back on for a few minutes so loud as to deafen you and then so quiet as to almost not here the rocks exploding against the wall of Minis Tirith (wherever the humans lived)
8)In the final climactic scene, the sound again cuts down so low that you can't actually tell they are in a volcano! Consequently you can't really here the exchange between Frodo and Sam
9) Some of the most uncomfortable movie seating ever - left over from 1970, I am sure.

Is it any wonder that I rarely go to movies and spend a lot of money on DVD's and home theater equipment!

And in spite of it all, I still thought it was a fantastic cinematic achievement and would go see it again. But not in Bermuda...

Run, don't walk. And any Academy voters out there - This had better win best picture of the year!

12-17-2003, 01:36 PM
...according to one local idiot who always comes up with a screwy analysis. Can you believe this bozo gave it just 1.5 stars? Read it and see if you think the guy's got a screw loose!

Try to figure out this logic: it shares many of the same flaws that made the first two films such enormous hits.

Here's his "faint praise": Even so, the movie is somewhat less objectionable than the previous two, because more of it makes sense and the editing isn't so frantic.

Rumour has it, he's also one of the brain-dead types who believes that Saddam is a good guy and Bush is pure evil! Figures!

12-17-2003, 09:19 PM
Absolutly amazing,thats all there is to say about this movie.Its so rare for a film to actually follow through on a good thing(Matrix).I guess it has the benifit of excellent writing to begin with.I cannot give Peter Jackson and his crew enough credit,and the cast is one of the best ever.

Stop reading this and go see it now,be a part of movie history.

12-17-2003, 09:25 PM
loved it and definitely a good final chapter. am not sure what they were thinking with the ending though. i understand they have to have an ending to the previous 11 hours, but a 40min+ ending dragged just a lil too much imho. they wrapped up all the storielines but they coulda done it at 4 times the pace and still had a 3+ hour movie.
great emotion, great acting, great story, great looking movie. just a long ending i thought.


12-17-2003, 11:33 PM
I work with a guy who is a big fan of the books and movies. He saw it today and he thought it was incredible. In his opinion it lived up to the hype and then some. I can't wait to see it this weekend!

12-18-2003, 06:01 AM
I truly enjoyed it and can't imagine another director doing a better job than what Peter Jackson did. He got everything right. Sure, he took out one major scene (and most fans of the books know which one it is) but it is understood why he did it. The ending does seem long but it is true to the book, for the most part. I do not see how he could have ended the film any other way and kept those whom have read the book happy. Shelob was incredible, amongst many other things. I can easily understand why this is beginning to be called the film of the year and would encourage everyone to go see it. Another thing I would say is if you have cell phones, turn 'em off! Little kids? Leave them at home. (However, I did see a few kids around 8 - 9 there but didn't hear word one out of them. Then again, they weren't sitting near me.) In closing, on a scale of 1 - 10 I would rank ROTK between 9.5 - 9.75. This is a film that can and will touch your heart unless you have a hard of stone.

12-18-2003, 07:39 AM
Thanks Bryan! I can hardly wait to see it this weekend. I've been waiting anxiously for this flick to come out ever since I heard Peter say that the final battle scene in ROTK would make the one in the Two Towers look like a mere skirmish...and I thought the battle in Two Towers was incredible.

12-18-2003, 11:11 AM
Fabulous. One of the best films I've ever seen, period (by 'film,' I mean both ROTK and the entire trilogy).

The ending, I think, is only long if you view it in the context of ROTK alone. I saw it more as a summation of a ten-hour movie. In that sense, it was absolutely proper. Anyway, I get tired of the way so many movies seem to just stop when they run out of plot. It was nice to see the writers and director take the time necessary for a satisfying denouement.


12-18-2003, 02:54 PM
I agree, it was amazing. The battle scenes were simply some of the most (probably the most) amazing battle scenes ever. The shots of the signal fires on the mountains were beautiful. The ending was kindof long, but I think it had to be, after all, they were wrapping up 7 hours from the first two extended movies, plus another 3 so that's about 10 hours. Considering that I actually extpected Return of the King to be one of the best movies I'd seen, I couldn't believe it. I don't think I'd ever had such high expectations of a movie before. It was well done, well shot, had a good plot, the best computer graphics I've seen (the battle scenes really do make the Two Towers battles look tiny). Jeeze I sound like kid. Of course, I don't think I have enjoyed a movie this much since I saw Jurassic Park in the theater when I was like 12. I couldn't get tickets for the trilogy marathon showing, so me and some friends spent the day at my place watching the 2 extended editions anyway. Movie theaters don't serve beer anyway so who cares (ok, maybe I am a little spiteful).

12-20-2003, 06:14 PM
Just back from LOTR Return of the King.

No, it's not the best film ever made. It's sure darn close though!

This was story telling at it's best. Jackson's pacing was impeccable, almost knowing to the instant how much an audience can take in, and then moving on. Even with all the carnage, you still felt human compassion in the midst of it. Almost impossible to do, but he pulled it off. The audience was very moved, and we had clapping, laughing, and not a few tears going on. At the end, the fall of Mordor brought back the feeling of seeing the Death Star explode at the end of Star Wars.

After expecting so much from the Matrix trilogy, it's gratifying to see that some directors understand how to use CGI to move a story, not BE the story.

I saw it in a big new theater. 60ft curved screen, 500 or more seats, state of the art sound...I forgot it all for 3 1/2 hrs, heck nobody even got up to go to the bathroom!

If you only get to see one movie in the theaters this DECADE, make sure it's this one.

12-28-2003, 06:55 PM
The movie was almost 40 minutes too long... To many unnecessary set up shots... just too much "lets show Frodo suffering." The lead in to the third could've been better as well... how many folks new that was Smeagol killing his brother for the ring? Did we need 20 minutes of that "chit"? Puhlease. I thought the pacing and story telling of the second film was far superior. It never dragged. This one was just tooooooo looooooooong... I don't mind long films (Seven Samurai etc..) when it's done right, this one was not..

Da Worfster...

12-28-2003, 07:44 PM
Beside my ass getting sore, the ending, was like will it every end....Frodo finish the book, The King gets married, Frodo leaves for good, Sam returns home.

12-29-2003, 10:31 AM
I thought this movie was awesome. Yes it was long, but when the DVD comes out, I'll be able to pause it. After the movie, I took the "Lord of the Leaks!" Maybe I'm a geek, but I could have watched another 3 hours of the battle scenes.

12-29-2003, 06:35 PM
Just saw it on Friday, and I thought it was an overwhelmingly great piece of filmmaking. It was like one memorable scene after another, and unlike a lot of adventure flicks nowadays (won't mention names Mr. Lucas) the characters have a depth and the action has purpose and meaning. But, it's not bloatedly self-important and pretentious like some pretender "epics" out there. A lot of the themes and story threads taking shape in FOTR and TTT fully materialized in ROTK. And just at a visual level, I don't think this movie has any peer. It's just a special movie, and I'm totally bummed that I can't see it for the first time again! (well, okay MAYBE when the Extended DVD comes out and we can see Sarumon and Gandalf duke it out at the beginning, and hopefully get some more depth to the plotline involving Faramir and Denethor, as it stands that was easily the weak link)

Actually, I thought ROTK was probably the best paced of the three LOTR films. Even though it was the longest, it felt the shortest.

Although it felt like one ending after another, supposedly this is in tune with the structure and more somber tone of the book. Having the movie end with the coronation scene or with all the happy hobbits in the pub would have been more of a conventional Hollywood movie ending, but the story was ultimately Frodo's tragedy, where his journey basically saved his idyllic world but wounded him in such a way that he could no longer live as part of that idyllic world. I thought the ending was a braver path, because it did not mindlessly celebrate heroism as a payoff and a happy ending, but more as a rite of passage that changes a person and loses their innocence.

12-30-2003, 05:04 PM
If I would have read the book, I may have felt cheated. But I'm impressed with your insight Woochifer.