Saw it Saturday as part of a media screening / film commision presentation. It may be the best movie I have ever seen in my life. I can't wait to see it again to confirm what my first impressions were.

I envy all of you who are about to walk into that theatre and see it for the first time. It is a beautiful, powerful, perhaps "perfect" film. It will win Best Picture, as well as many other awards in April. There is nothing to disappoint, nothing that feels left out...I have found myself thinking about it since I left the theatre on Sat. night.

Please post your thoughts as you see the movie, but be careful to not reveal any spoilers as you do so.

Doesn't come out til tomorrow in Canada. Have you read the books Hacken Slash much? If so, can you remember any glaring plot conflicts with the original (don't tell me, just say yes, or no :) )

Spoiler!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arwen kills Sauron by poking his eye out with her elfie scimitar!!!

I shall see it on Friday. It shall be lovely.

Well, it was OK for Arwen to "do-in" Sauron as far as I was concerned, the story always needed a little more "girrrrl power", but to have her run off with Legolas was a bit too much.

I did feel it was a nice touch to create a young apprentice to Gandalf, so that the kids would have a character to relate to, just don't know how they'll keep from getting sued by calling him "Parry Hotter".

The movie doesn't come out here until officially midnite tonight (I think Shralp must have tickets to the cartoon version :D ), but Harkins and the Film Commision had a sneak preview on Saturday. I think they actually have had a couple of sneak previews here already, most major cities have. That's how all the critics can have reviews out before the movie even opens.

Anyway, to answer your question, Mystra...this film is probably a bit more faithful to the book than the previous two, with the exception of two fairly major story lines. Rather than risk telling too much, if you want to know more, you can pm me.

I promise you, I can't picture anyone being disappointed in this film. Before I saw it, I had concerns that it might not win Best Picture, now I have no doubts. Am planning to see it again ASAP, probably this weekend.

Enjoy!

Spoiler
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It is revealed near the end that Sauron is really Barbara Streisand.

The whole "War for Middle Earth" thing was all a bad trip Gandalf was having. It turns out that the pipe weed that Bilbo and Gandalf were smoking at the biginning of "Fellowship" was laced with Angel Dust, and Bilbo didn't tell Gandalf for fear it would kill the buzz. Gandalf wakes up with the munchies and embarks on a quest for Cheetos.

Elrond reveals himself as the original lead singer of Aerosmith, reforges his "Mikestand of Kings" and rocks the house. Arwen is just confused.
-
-
-
-
-
End spoiler.

I admire Jackson staying so faithful to the book.

Ok, I've seen it! (and now I come to post this at 4:30 am :p ) The best word to describe RotK is great.

Of course, everything was much more dramatic in the movie, like Pippin and Palantir, Frodo's and Sam's disputes, that Gollum caused, Denethor's death etc.

The ending after the ring was destroyed was quick and missed many parts. E.g. returning to Shire was entirely different than in the book

Battles, scenery, mountains, cities etc. looked excellent. And again, music fits well in the movie.

Return of the king gets 5 points from 5, but Peter Jackson left much material to Extended edition. We'll have to wait for it.

Gonna catch a midnight showing tonight. I have extreemly high expectations for the climax, Wood hasn't convinced me yet that he's a good enough actor to pull it off successfully. This moment's really going to make or brake the movie for me, but since everyone's first impressions are so amazingly positive I think I can be expecting some of the most entertaining hours of my life.

Seen it last night. I'm very VERY pleased. The only downpoints I have about it are that we don't get a closure on Saruman. They stick treebeard near him as his jailor, and that's it. The other thing is how Sam gets hold of the vial, sting and the ring. I never saw him take it. AFAIK, frodo got ... 'wrapped up' ;) and then Sam came and saved the day. But how did he get the sword etc before frodo got all sticky?

I'd like to have seen the scouring of the shire, but the movie is just fine without it. I would've like to see more of Eomer in the battle for Gondor, his role was ... minor.

But I am very satisfied with the movie, it turned out great! :)

@ Hacken Slash

If that is a serious spoiler, that is very depressing, and it departs greatly from the book. At no point does Arwen get anywhere near a battlefield, and at no point does she run off with Legolas. I'm bitter now. I was planning on seeing it tomorrow, and I still will, but I hate when they change things.

@ All

I understand omitting parts (can't have a 6 hour movie) but when they change major parts of the storyline, I have issues with that. You say that they changed a lot of the ending.

SPOILER


I knew the shire scene was editted out - no problem with that. Do they still include Aragorn's coronation?

@ Aldeth

Yes, they include the coronation. According to Newsweek, Jackson left out the scouring of the shire because it was a part of the book he just didn't like. And for the movie's sake, I can't blame him. It would be one tiny battle coming right after the gigantic epic battle at Mordor. It would have fizzled. Good call methinks. As for the fate of Saruman and an explanation of why Eowen and Faramir were standing next to each other at the end, both will be on the DVD.

Okay - now to the select few things that pissed me off about and otherwise fantastic movie. Bare in mind I haven't read the book, so this isn't a critical nitpick, just my personal hopes.
Gandalf doesn't do any cool wizardy magic. He blinds some flying Nazgul with his light to help Faramir's war party escape, but that's it. He was supposedly more powerful than Saruman at this point, and nuthin. I was hoping the Dwarves and/or more elves would've shown up to kick some ass. I find it hard to believe that Gimli is the ONLY noble dwarf in Middle Earth. I was kind of hoping Gollum would be at least slightly redeemed. Nope. No lesbians. :toofar:
Other than those things, it was a great 3 hours and 22 minutes. :D

I was hoping the Dwarves and/or more elves would've shown up to kick some ass. I find it hard to believe that Gimli is the ONLY noble dwarf in Middle Earth.That is explained in the books. The elves in Thranduil's kingdom and Lothlorien were engaging the orcs in the Misty Mountains, and The dwarves were beset by more Easterlings in the Northeast. So neither could send troops to fight in the Last Battle.

And that's another thing - if this was some terrible, end-of-the-entire-world conflict, why not show - or at least alude to - the struggle going on in other lands with other peoples? It just makes Middle Earth look like Gondor and Rohan are the only two civilizations on the planet.

Grumble grumble grumble.

The film was almost perfect. I especially enjoyed:

The charging army of Rohan when they mowed down the orc archers, very impressive.
The Palantir, much more dramatic and adds a little excitment to a gradual start.
Eowyn, Merry and the Nazgul Lord. A perfectly executed scene, just how i imagined it to be in the book.
Most of the film was indeed incredibly good.


The ending however was not great. This has nothing to do with the direction of Jackson. the exclusion of the Shire scourging was a very welcome edit, after all, that part of the book is scrappy and stupid at best. But he was unable to improve the rather morbid ending, that being the sailing from the grey havens.
It was, as in the book, a sombre, upsetting and and unfullfilling affair. it left me feeling empty and, as in the book, i couldn't help getting the impression of ritual suicide.
But overall this fault of Tolkeins work was patched up as much as it could have been i suppose.

However, i must say the rest of the film was an absolute delight. It will take a great deal to ever replace the lord of the rings trilogy as my favourite movies of all time.

@Aldeth
If that is a serious spoiler, that is very depressing, and it departs greatly from the book. At no point does Arwen get anywhere near a battlefield, and at no point does she run off with Legolas. I'm bitter now. I was planning on seeing it tomorrow, and I still will, but I hate when they change things.
I am very sorry if you took me serious on that. I was, as usual, being a laughing idiot. Arwen, of course, stays faithful to Aragorn and is not involved in any battles. Sorry if I joked around and made you bitter.

@ Faragon

The other thing is how Sam gets hold of the vial, sting and the ring. I never saw him take it. AFAIK, frodo got ... 'wrapped up' and then Sam came and saved the day. But how did he get the sword etc before frodo got all sticky?
Frodo drops both Sting and the vial when he wrestles with Gollum outside the spider's cave. Sam finds them along the trail when he follows. I'm pretty sure Sam took the ring when he thought Frodo was dead. The ring was around his neck, and Sam cut open the webs enough to expose his face.

@ Hacken Slash - PHEW - that's a relief! I thought they were going to do something totally off-base like have Aragorn marry Eowyn or something. The reason I took it seriously, is because you said the same thing as Bel, so I thought, "They really DID that?!?!"

I'm glad I was wrong.

Did they film the Tower of Cirith Ungol scene? Where Frodo gets taken by the orcs, and Sam has to rescue him?

Yes.

They also film the scene where Richard Simmons shows up and inspires the troops.

Easy DR, you'll have poor Aldeth falling on his blade soon.

Yes, Bel, it is included.

What about the White Tree sapling?

Any truth to the rumour that Hacken Slash has a short cameo where he tries to convince Gollum to trade in his rags for a brand new SP thong?

Bel - Yes, that too.

Dude I'm gonna smack you.

Is the Mouth of Sauron in it?

No, not a mouth...

Hint: The big "red eye" symbolizes something.
(see Richard Simmons spoiler above)

Sir Bel: No. They don't talk at the black gate, but it's ... awesome ;)

Death Rabbit: Ah yes, I must've missed that part then while diving into my backpack for more food and drinks ;)

Just seen it, and it was great :) One of the best movies I've ever seen...

Spoiler!
|
|
|
|
The missing parts about Saruman was kinda annoying. THe battle in THe Shire was ledt out, that wasn't exactly great, but the movie rocks :D

No talking at the black gate?!?!?!? What about the returning of 'someone's' gear? How did they do that? If you don't want to post a spoiler...PM it to me!

Spoilerific! :)


There is no returning someone's gear. They walk up to the black gate, which then opens, revealing the bulk of sauron's army. The small free people's army is surrounded, and Aragorn then bravely charges in the direction of Sauron. Frodo tosses in the ring, and Baraddur collapses, Sauron's spirit dissipates. Mordor's army flees.

It's beautiful, don't worry ;)

I have just returned from the cinema and my feelings can be summarized in two words. Total dissapointment. Jackson has done a load of uneccesery changes in the story. The only part of the filmt,that it was realy great, was the charge of the Riders.

:toofar: Oooooo, the alternate Black Gate battle (With Sauron at the gates?!?!?!?!?!?!?) Does not sound good...

*Breathes a little, trying to remember the movies are not the books*

Sir Bel, I didn't meant just this battle. Why did he send the army of the dead to Gondor? Why instead of the Danudain he send Elrod to tell Aragorn about the path of the dead? Why did he make King of Rohan an ass (even for a moment) when he said that he doesn't want to help Gondor? Since when Legolas became an acrobat (I felt that I was watching "Xena" when I saw Legolas doing all these jumps on the elephant)? Were all these changes necessery? Sure, a movie is not a book but, in my opinion, when a movie is based on a book, it has to be as close to the book as possible and Jackson has failed to this.

The Dunedain were probably excluded because they would have to be explained...It's easier to bring in someone you already 'know' hence, Elrond. That also answers why the Mouth of Sauron was excluded...He'd need to be explained with a background.

The movies are made for mass appeal. Not necessarily the fans. After thinking about it, I understand why it was done...But I don't hafta like it.

Sure, a movie is not a book but, in my opinion, when a movie is based on a book, it has to be as close to the book as possible and Jackson has failed to this. Which is precisely why I will never ever read a book before seeing a movie - it ruins it. Come on guys - it was a great movie! Jackson was faithful enough about the core story that a few little details and embelishments here and there don't hurt anything. The written page doesn't always translate well into the screen, no matter how good the director is. I'm sure whatever gaps that left the hard-core book fans disappointed will be, for the most part, taken care of in the DVD. Jackson did a phenominal job, especially when compared to the way most directors absolutely butcher literary adaptations.

Don't set your expectations so high that they kill the experience.

What about Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth? Is he in it?

The Dunedain were probably excluded because they would have to be explained I guess that a phrase like "my felllow rangers from the north have come" would be more that enough explanation for the people who haven't read the book and a similar approach applies to most of the cases where background information was needed.

Which is precisely why I will never ever read a book before seeing a movie - it ruins it You are right but if you have read the book ten years before the release of the movie, you don't have this option.

Well, I guess I'm lucky - I read the books over 25 years ago and so the details are kind of vague. Short of making Gollum the hero and having him get romantically involved with Sam, they could have changed almost anything and I probably wouldn't have noticed.

I know all the fans would like to see an exact adaptation of the books, but if this was required to turn a literary work into a movie you'd never see LoTR on the big screen (or any other book for that matter). Do realize that Peter Jackson and crew are just as much artists as Tolkein was. They want to tell the story of LoTR, not just turn Tolkein's writing into dialoge.
As for my previous post, I was completely disapointed with Elijah Wood's performance during the climax, it just could have been sooo much better. Still, the entire movie was able to make up for this shortcoming, wasn't as good as Fellowship, but still a must-see.

AARRRGGHH!!!!!!

I am so sick of people who get hung up on "the book said this" and "the book said that." Please try to understand the difference between a movie and a book, and the inherent challenges to bringing a literary work to the screen.

I can say it no better than Neill Cumpton's recent review, were he addressed this very form of objection most eloquently...(I have provide some editing, only for rating content)
Someone told me that all of the spider stuff actually happens in the second book in the series, and that they had to tweak some of the stuff that happens in the books to make the movies work. You know what? Good. Books suck. They used to be good back when people didn’t have movies and TV and dressed like Davey Crockett. People also used to ride horses and drink tea, but now we have cars and Sprite. Move the **** on. Peter Jackson did an amazing job adapting these books, and now the movies are so kick-a$$ that some people are going to go back and READ the books, which wouldn’t have happened if he’d just filmed the books exactly as they are. Happy now, smarty?
Let me give you an example of how NOT to make books into movies:
This summer a huge bucket of farts came out called LEAGUE OF ADVENTURE GENTLEMEN. It was about how a bunch of characters from old-timey books got together and ****ed up bad guys. And NO ONE SAW IT. Why?
First, they picked a bunch of characters like Invisible Man and Mr. Hyde and Dracula-Woman and Huck Finn. These are all characters from books that were written five hundred years ago. Huck Finn was actually written before writing. These are the kind of books they make you read in summer school but you’re all like, “**** you, I’m going to play Sonic on my Sega” and you totally complete all the levels by August. So who the **** is going to go see a movie about characters and people they’ve never heard of (the movie acts like you’re supposed to know who these people are)? Like I said before, MOVIES are the new books Get over the ridiculous details and enjoy the movie, dammit. JRRT never wrote his stories to become some sort of inviolate scripture, and he would be the first to say, as he drew on a glowing bowl of pipeweed,
"Perhaps you should embark on a quest for a life, my friend".!!!

Actually I think that was "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" :)

Well...I've seen it now too! Wow! What a ride!!! I can't wait to see the extended edition, because you can tell the little details that were taken out.

Overall, I thought it was a great movie! The whole Shelob sequence is incredible!!! The Ride of the Rohirrim and the battle of Pellenor Fields was spectacular - and so was Minas Tirith!!

The ending seemed a little rushed, but there was so much to get in, I can live with it. Overall, a great movie!!! But for all you purists out there, IT'S NOT THE BOOKS! But go, buy some popcorn, and enjoy the ride!!!

I saw it and thought it was a good to very good flick but it wasn't great. I really, really thought the ending dragged on. I talked to the folks I went with who never had read the book and this was the general consensus. They also didn't think it was as good as the second film (I suspect the end hurt it in a lot of folks' eyes.)

The directing was good but not great. Same thing with the acting. The story was of course very good (I don't care that much about how he changed it from the book).

All in all very good. Not as good as Master and Commander though in my opinion and I don't think it deserves an award for Best Picture and I don't think Peter Jackson deserves a Best Director award.

Lotsa spoilers:

Man, I saw it last night, and it was a good movie. I just can't say great because so many of the scenes were rushed. The ride-through of Isengard should have been cut out altogether instead of just using it as an excuse to find the palantir (which served no purpose except to divide Merry and Pippin). After the big build-up for Shelob's lair, I was disappointed by how easily Sam laid the smack down. In fact, Sam becoming some sort of uber fighter who takes three orcs solo wasn't believable. If he could do that, why didn't he take them out when they first picked Frodo up?

The battle scenes were truly great. Legolas doing his Mary Lou Retton routine didn't bother me. And I didn't mind so much Faramir's battle consisting of only a charge and his horse dragging him back to Minas Tirith. In fact, the battle scenes are enough of a reason to buy the DVD.

The ending, however, was all goofed up. I was disappointed that the conflict in the Shire wasn't included. Not because I wanted to see another battle scene but because putting things right at home -- and seeing the difference in Frodo and the hobbits after their journey -- was a great way to end the story.

Jackson could've done away with one or more of the fades to black, but the story ends as pretty much all stories should: With a vaguely British guy sitting in his home.

Awesome... Just... Awesome...

/me trundles off to write a review

@BTA Actually I think that was "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" Yeah, you're right, one of this reviewer's charms is that he gets things mixed up on purpose, but is very funny. He is also, unfortunately, profane, so I can't link to the entire review with enduring the wrath of one of our humourless Admins or Moderator :D

Here's another snippet
This is where I started getting really confused, though, because they start talking about kingdoms and alliances and there’s a lot of lines like, “Rohan shall ride!” and “Gondor still stands!” and “Flabadan Son of Rectum must wear the mantle of Bloggith!” and also there’s some **** with the elves that’s like being in a ****ing candle store for twenty minutes. Ya gotta love the Independent internet reviewer :p

OK, now that I've seen all three I will comment on the trilogy.

The things that make me like this trilogy the most are the music and the scenery. They are simply off the hook.

But story, pacing, and characters are given the bad end of the deal. I'm not asking that the movies be 100% faithful to the books, but the movies bite off more than they can chew and handle in even 3+ hours time each. There are too many characters, too many storylines, too many locations that they all have to be rushed through and not treated with the amount of time and respect that they demand. The story is too epic to be glossed over. It becomes a jumbled mess of flashbacks, dreams, and visions of the future. Gandalf has to sit on a balcony spouting exposition like some kind of bad commentator telling us all about what Frodo and Sam are facing and what Sauron's up to when Gandalf's not even there. The pacing of these movies does not do the epicness of them justice.

I said this after seeing Fellowship, and I'll say it again, it would have been far better if the trilogy of books had been extended to more than just three really long movies. Forget trying to fit three epic books into three epic movies, it didn't work as well as it could have been. I know from a producer and studio standpoint this sounds like suicide, but all they had to do was do sign on to cover Fellowship in two movies(leaner individually, but better quality put together) and get a fanbase from that. Once the studios saw the good reception, they'd be willing to sign on for four more films, to cover Two Towers and Return of the King. But no, everyone doubts fans would want to see the 6th LOTR film a few years down the road. They need to stop doubting the fans. I'll forgo speedy releases to the box office for better quality anyday.

That said, what the **** was up with the beginning of RotK. I thought I was seeing a spoof at first with those two hobbits fishing, and that one makes a really funny face underwater. What the crap. What a way to begin a movie as epic as RotK. I understand it was to explain how Gollum found the ring, but did it have to be so corny? I am not against corniness here and there, but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the movie.

And the ending, the actual throwing the Ring into Mount Doom, seemed so anti-climatic. I mean this was the whole point of the movies, so much fanfare, so much hype, all trumped up, and all it was Frodo and Gollum dancing a jig on a cliff. I wished there was at least some redemption from Gollum, and was sad at his fate. But Frodo, man how I wished he had toppled over that edge.

Well, my favorite part of all three movies is the beginning half of Fellowship. It's the least rushed, spends the most time getting to know characters, and just makes the most sense (with a few exceptions). The last half of Fellowship I hate, feeling it is way too rushed and badly done. Two Towers and RotK fall in between my favorite and least favorite parts of Fellowship, although I think I liked Two Towers slightly better overall than RotK.

Favorite characters are Aragorn, Elrond, and Treebeard. Although RotK made me appreciate Faramir and Theoden more.

Again, I cannot express how much I love the music and the scenery. And the epic battles were great. But I cannot express how much I am upset with the handling of the story, the pacing, and character development, etc. I think more time onscreen could have worked these issues out.

All in all, LotR makes my third favorite movie series. Star Wars (prequels and sequels) and Indiana Jones are still my first and second favorites.

Finally saw it, so now I don't have to vex over the content and Hacken Slash and Death Rabbit's commentary. It was very good overall, and the battle scenes were exceptional. If I were to have a complaint, it would simply be that so much was cut out, there would be things that don't make sense if you didn't read the books. For example, the whole ending with the Gray Havens, if you didn't read the book, you wouldn't have a clue as to WHY they were going to the Gray Havens, or that Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf all had rings of power (even though Gandalf wasn't an elf.) Another example is that they introduce the Palantir, but don't really do anything with it. It's been a while since I read the books, but I was under the impression that Denethor (sp?) was driven insane by the use of the Palantir. He certainly does go insane, but there really never is an explanation as to why. Finally - and I could be dead wrong with this but I don't think so - Elrond shows up to give Aragorn the sword that was reforged. Wasn't this (in the books) supposed to have been given to him in the Fellowship? That's a small point really, but some of the things don't make sense if you've never read the books. However, from what I hear, the director's cut is 65 minutes longer than the released movie, so I imagine a whole lot of what was missed will be included there.

Big B.

I do agree on most of the points you make, especially the rushing of certain areas. I could certainly have liked a few extra Eomer moments for example.

As for your idea of 6 films, i am not sure it could work. Think about the layout of the books.
There are of course six books, but in true Tolkein style, the endings of most of them are lacking in style somewhat. Could you really imagine people getting excited about a 2 hour movie of Frodo travelling through the shire and onto rivendell, only to almost die at the end. There is really no way the films could of worked in this format, and no, i don't beleive there would be that many fans who would be prepared to wait.

But everything else you say i think i agree with.

Still amazing films though.

Could you really imagine people getting excited about a 2 hour movie of Frodo travelling through the shire and onto rivendell, only to almost die at the end Why not, it sounds a heck of a lot like what they did in the second Matrix film? Err, actually come to think of it that is a pretty good answer to why not. ;)

They don't mess up Eowyn, do they?

BTW, I like that they made Arwen a real character and have put some conflict into that relationship. Tolkein himself wanted more in-depth female characters and male/female relationships, but he found that he had problems writing women in any way that satisfied him. He was way ahead of his time in his opinion of women, which is obvious when you look at Galadriel and Eowyn.

Nah, Eowyn's fine...But the ending shows her with "you know who" but gives no explanation as to why or how they'd met in the movie. The Houses of Healing scene in the book is completely missing.

The Houses of Healing was filmed, but cut to keep the movie at 3-1/2 hours. It, along with the fate of Saruman will be included on the EE dvd. This scene will explain how "you know who" gets together with "you know who" :D

There are rumours that the EE dvd will be almost 4-1/2 hours long!

Wow! I am pretty much blown away! Jackson has done a marvelous job of interpreting Tolkiens work, heck, he even improved it quite a bit and now I am tihnkging the ending. Jackson's ending is lightyears better than Tolkien's. However as many has said the film do suffer from everything they had to remove but I honestly cant say how they could have put it all into a movie which was going up in the cinemas.

I thought the scene in Mt. Doom was a bit prolonged, it didnt fit with my image from the book and I think it would ahve been more dramatic if Gollum would just had jumped Frodo, bitten of the ring and then plunged to his death.
The movie had virtually no breathers, it was full throttle throughout it all, it would have been nice with some small pauses in between all the cataclysmic events.

I thought that the movie was okay, if you ignore the fact that you read the books.

I know you shouldn't compare, so if you just go for how good the movie was, I think it was great.

My favorite scene was after Legolas takes out the big Oiliphaunt with all of the guys on it and lands right in front of Gimili. Gimili's line was hillarious.

so, if i haven't watch the movie, can i post here?

guess i just did.

i am waiting for a collector's edition LoTR dvds set and watch them all in once, one day, non stop.

Absolutely loved the ROTK!!!

Watching Smeagol's transformation to Gollum was so horrifying, compelling, and true to the book.

Shelob rocked, as did all the other battle scenes.

There were only two things I was dissatisfied with:

1) Leaving out Gandalf vs. Saruman. I felt this event was too important to leave out of the movie.

2) The unsympathetic portrayal of Denethor. Much like my getting worked up over Faramir in the Two Towers. I totally understand the need to rework sequences and whatnot to make it flow better in a movie. But for me, misrepresenting a character so that it becomes demeaning in comparison to the book, that is often a little much for me.

But overall, those are just two minor dents in a fabulous rendition of the story.

I emjoyed the film. I thought the ending went on a bit long, Gollum really annoyed me, and by the end felt like screaming at Frodo to get on the damn boat, but other than that it was good. The Merry/Pippin scenes in the city (I can never remember which is which - they both look the same to me) were the parts I enjoyed most.

LOTR is the best movie I've ever seen (I think of all of them as one movie)

It blows Braveheart out of the water :D

I saw RotK yesterday, and it was an awesome movie. No more, no less. Well, maybe a little more. For the lenght of it, it could have been much better. Better then the first two, and as my friend put it, "It raped The Matrix", but it still could have been better.

Saw it yesterday. I liked it more than the other two, but felt that there were parts (like the endless mustering of Rohan and the tearjerker ending) that could have been sacrificed to bring back the gandalf/saruman confrontation at Isengard and the scouring of the Shire. Loved the dead warriors led by Aragorn off the paths of the dead. That was a great scene.

It was perfect in my opinion other than the leaving out of the Rangers. That would've just been cool.

The battle for Minas Tirith was by far the best battle scene in a movie I've ever seen.

I saw it on Saturday (now it's Tuesday).
I am VERY dissapointed...

The film was great -one of the best films I've ever seen, if not the best- but the audience was... GRRRRR! (*^&*$%^$^& :mad: :flaming: :almostmad:

They were clapping, shouting, whistling and talking all the time. I did not enjoy the film at all.

I'll go see it again next Saturday.

Really great film that will probably be alot better once the EE DVD version is out (just like with the other two). There are only a few things I didn't like about it:

1) Aragorn charging at the Black Gates, really didn't like that scene
2) The special effects s****d in my opinion.

Before someone flays me alive let me explain point 2. You could (or at least I could) SEE the computer graphics (reason that made the street scene in spiderman s*** and made I liked daredevil less then I could have). The reason why I mention this as a really bad point was that this wasn't the case in the other two movies, although they also used alot of computer animations. By computer animations I'm not counting Smeagol/Gollum since that was marvelous. I do mean the great battles especially with the mumaks and the charge at the black gate were you saw that a bluescreen was used for the background.

Overall I'm pretty pleased with the trilogy and I think the second bad point will bother me less on a smaller screen (meaning at home with the EE edition).

I agree with BOC about Legolas = Xena.

I also must agree with Jaguar, that line of "you-know-who" is the best of the entire trilogy except for the one where Gandalf clings to the broken bridge in Moria

EEE!!! That... was.... AWESOME! The epic cinematic experience of the millennium. I'm sad its over though....

they say they cut an hour or so out, and I can't wait until the extended DVD comes! The only thing is, I hope it shows what happens to Gimli and Legolas. There was nothing in the theater-version. I know what happened in the book, but it needs to be in the movie.

No, Valkyrie... they didn't cut one hour but two and a half.
The initial film was 6 hours but they had to cut many scenes to bring it down to 3-1/2 hours.

Now I'm a little pissed with Jackson because he, sort of, humiliated *again* the dwarf, Gimli. Legolas did all these amazing acrobatics, Aragorn and Theoden had also very good scenes, Gandalf too. Frodo was the Ringbearer, Sam was his loyal companion. And so on and so forth. But what about Gimli? What did he do? Nothing... In TTT he fell off the horse, he was talking about their race and Eowyn was laughing. And once again the dwarves are the humiliated and useless guys.

The film was great.

The audience needed a good smiting. They were snickering, cheering, and jeering all the while.

Bah. I shall have to watch it again.

They were snickering, cheering, and jeering all the while.Heh, that was me. Every time Frodo made the "I'm so "revolted/scared/tired" face, I said to the people I was with: "I ate what?"

Ok, I made it no secret that I didn't like the first two movies and I was trying hard not to go to this one, but my girlfriend wanted to see it... Not a purist mind you, I read the books about 15 years ago and don't remember the details so well, I just think the first movie was "ok" and the Two Towers was simply one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

That being said, I was blown away by RotK, no I don't think it was the best movie I've ever seen, some of you need to calm down... sheesh. For a while I thought it might be the best action movie I've seen though, the Riders of Rohans charge through the orcs was great, and their subsequent charge on the big elephants, just visually incredible. Shelob, incredible, the Witch-King/Eowyn shoot out at high noon, incredible, some crazy guy getting caught on fire and jumping off the roof, incredible. All around, I dug it.

The Sam/Frodo/Gollum parts were sort of a downer but they needed to be in there, I just think Jackson got the worst actors imaginable. I just hated them, all three of them.

One big question though, in the book, did Aragorn lead an army of ghosts on Gondor? I don't remember that at all... it was enetertaining enough, but I was puzzled by it.

He led an army of ghosts, but they only cleared out Osgiliath, IIRC, and didn't go into Minas Tirith itself.

Osgiliath was already a settled issue by then.

Aragorn led the ghosts to prevent the attack by the Corsairs of Umbar to the south of Minas Tirith. He then recruited men from the southern fiefs of Gondor, and led them to Minas Tirith on those same ships which the Corsairs were supposed to be using. This provided the last turning point in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

I saw it last night. I was amazed. The scene at the top of the secret stair with sam and frodo was very emotional. Peter Jackson managed to nail the entire book. Outstanding.

I did notice areas where they are going to fling in scenes for the Extended DVD. Like the sitting men, Piki statues. You all know what I mean. They are shown in the movie, and there is a space there for them to be explained. The bit where Sam charges through Shelob's lair etc. It should make for a great finished movie.

The whole trilogy was great. I think Tolkien would have approved. But, oh dear, I do miss everything that was cut out. In particular, I think that not emphasising how hard it would be for a "mortal man" to kill the lord of the Nazgul, and then cutting out the Houses of Healing scenes, were serious mistakes. If ROTK needed to be two movies to get it all in, then it should have been two movies. For one thing, the kingsfoil scene is the one in which Aragorn's kingship is made real, and for another thing, it transforms Eowyn from grieving niece and broken-hearted lover to a great military hero happy with life and in love. Eowyn is an extremely important character, especially for female Tolkien fans, and cutting out so much was painful. It reduced her to a plot device for Aragorn, just one of the women he could choose from. If they had to cut something out, we could do with fewer of Arwen's weeping scenes. If there was time to include Sam's wedding, surely there was time for a laugh like a ring of steel and, "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him." Not to mention, "Do not scorn pity that is the gift of a gentle heart, Eowyn! But I do not offer you my pity. For you are a lady high and valiant and have yourself won renown that shall not be forgotten; and you are a lady beautiful, I deem, beyond even the words of the Elven-tongue to tell. And I love you."

Also, I was hoping that when Faramir was dragged back by his horse that his armour would somehow have been torn off. But you can't have everything.

I think Tolkien would have approved. In a newspaper called "Het Laatste Nieuws" they published an article concerning Tolkien the day RotK came out. In it they said that originally Tolkien said to the original publisher of LotR that he thought the books should not be released and afterwards he was maddened at what positive attention his books got from the readers. The conclusion of the article was that Tolkien would not approve the films to be made in the first place, whether they be good or not.

[ January 02, 2004, 10:16: Message edited by: Meatdog ]

But Tolkien's Family did approve. They had complete script approval on all three movies, and made a lot of suggestions

Yes, but they weren't interested in what Tolkien found of his own books. They were only interested in how the books were translated onto the big screen.

Saw it yesterday :D WOOOOOOOOOOT! Great Ass Kickin Movie! My only niggling complaint was that Frodo after getting his finger bitten off then still attacks gollum and they fall together. This annoyed me because I wanted to see gollum dancing and chanting and falling off but not caring because 'I've got the precious' etc.

Other points: Anyone else think that the one eyed orc leader guy (from the taking of osgilliath) looked like a pig? When he said 'the time of men is over, the time of... is beginning' i was expecting him to say pigs not orcs.

There were only two maybe three points where the CGI was really obvious, the most noticeable when treebeard is staning next to isengard, the tower is really blurry and doesn't look right.

I think Tolkien would have approved I doubt this. Tolkien was the biggest purest of the lot. I heard, from a friend, that he saw a stage production of part of the Lotr and spent the entire time complaining about the lines being changed.

Wow.
I...can't descibe it, really.
It's...just awesome. And amazing.
Wow. Again.

But Rohirrim tactics sucked. "Giant elephants! What shall we do?!" "Charge them!"

Those were some big elephants. I agree with Deathmage. Charging those things was possibly not the wisest tactic.

Anyway, I was blown away by some of those fight scenes. The siege engines, catapults, big uglies, the utter chaos. Extremely well done. The scenes with the undead were another big plus. It almost felt like Baldur's Gate. The cheesy ending does not take away too much from the film.

One word review: Magnificent.

Yeah for a people who're considered the top notch of mounted combatants in Middle Earth, their tactics were pretty sucky.

I expected them to go all Xwing vs ATST on those Oliphaunts. ;) Then again, I expected Neo and Smith to toss Kamehamehas at eachother in the final battle as well, so :p

One other thing: When I saw that piglike orcish leader, I half-expected Duke Nukem to appear and snarl: " Nobody steals our chicks. And lives."

:D :D :p

Best. Movie. Ever.

... Well, not quite. I think the EE will count as a completely different movie :grin:

Every time some really obvious line from the books was added... *sighs*

'I'm glad you're here with me Samwise Gamgee. Here at the end of all things.'

I went to see it with Baezle and co. I loved it. All of it, right from the beginning to the end. Only gripe is that my hero Gimli didn't do much, but then none of the heroes of the Fellowship did particularly much.

A lot of the details of the movie trailer were missing so it will need the EE version to reveal all. Like TeekC I can't wait for all 3 EEDVD's so that I can watch all of Jackson's version plus the extra extra bits...

AWESOME! :eek: :jawdrop:

Yeah for a people who're considered the top notch of mounted combatants in Middle Earth, their tactics were pretty sucky Generally speaking the tactics employed by everyone in the films were pretty poor but the cavalry tactics of both Gondor and Rohan of "lets do unsupported charges against anything that is in our way" does rank up there as being really stupid.

We have (A) several charges directly into infantry armed with properly set-up long spears which ought to have turned the attacking cavalry into hamburger except for the fact that orcs appear to have a genetic flaw that causes them to drop their spears whenever horses are approaching :rolleyes: Apparently the concept of having archers on hand to bombard the defending infantry before the cavalry charge is something that has never occurred to the men of Middle Earth.

(B) a charge over the plain against the occupants of a fortified city with numerous archers - o.k. they were under orders to attack and knew that to do so was pointless and suicidal but you think they would have come up with a better tactic than "lets have everyone mount up and form a single cavalry line so that the orcs can turn us into pin cushions".

and (C) the charge against the oliphants. Quite frankly the only possibly effective conventional response to the oliphants' charge that I can think of would be an arrow storm. However, given that Theoden apparently thinks that unless you are defending a castle there is no need for archers, the best that they could have done would be to retreat and try to get the oliphants to tire themselves out.

The films also contain the fine tactics of (1)sending your entire army out, despite the fact that you obviously have overwhelming numbers, so that the leader is left sitting in the main base virtually undefended.
(2) having archers behind a single row of infantry
and (3) having an infantry force charging down from the top of a vertical cliff looking rather like a herd of lemmings.

Of course JSBB. Movies have always somehow managed to stick to some semblence of reality. That's why the entire movie was based on mythical people, places and occurences. A movie doesn't need to be logical, it just needs to look good and all will forget the lack of logic behind it.

Desperation in the face of danger, that's what made them charge. If they didn't, Gondor would fail.

Well, I saw it on Sunday night/Monday morning in a marathon with all three instalments and all I have to say is 'goddamn!'

Man, sitting there in a cinema to watch all three felt like it took years, but it was all worth it for sure. Though I was a little disappointed with the scenes that were left out, I thoroughly enjoyed this film in its own merits and not on the merits of the book.

At the risk of a possible spoiler (though without mentioning many identifying details) I was moved to tears during the final scenes atop Minas Tirith by Aragorn's comments to the Hobbits.

Certainly an easy 10 out of 10 from me. Though I would happily have sat through a longer film to get more of the details that were left out.

BTW. Did anyone else spot a possible goof during the 'lighting of the signal fires' sequence?? I'm not sure if I actually saw what I think I did so I'm probably going again tomorrow night to double-check.

It was awesome, but I also agree with JSBB. They were pretty stupid. And, also, what I find weird is that, although I know that elves are dexterous and nimble, how does Legolas look like he's skating down that elephant?

Looks like Aragorn finally got some good armor. Looks like Half-plate. In FotR, no armor. In TTT, chainmail that he takes from the armory in Helm's deep. But NOW, he has some decent armor. :p

Staggering, the only word coming to mind is staggering.

What a rush, since everyone commented on their sometimes long too long view, I won't have to say how great this movie is but here are a few good points.

Sound in our theater was so load people were trying to guard their ears when the nazgul were flying over. The part where the gate opens when frodo and sam are there was mind blowing.

I've never enjoyed watching fires getting lit, the music and scenery and overall feeling when the beacons were let made my heart beat faster, I mean it.

Battlescenes were brilliant, even legolas who did the coolest thing.

Can't wait for the EE DVD!

*wishing it was November 2004*

EDIT: question: what exactly happens with the scouring of the shire? (it's been a while, and when I got to the end of the book, frodo had tossed the ring into mount doom and there were more than a hundred pages left!! Don't get me wrong I love books and I love/hate endings, but when it's ended it's ended)

While the Hobbits are lolligagging around, taking their sweet time about getting home, Saruman and Wormtongue head to the Shire and cause all sorts of mischief that the Hobbits have to clean up. Some of the damage was quite extensive. For example, they cut down the old Party Tree in front of Bag End.

At every battle, every damn single battle, I felt like standing up and just clapping. I'm quite sure other people thought of the same thing.. right? *looks a psychatrist up*

I spent a good part of the movie just waiting for what they'd skipped. Luckily, just about everything was in I thought essential. There was a huge amount of battle, at least, which made this part wholly different from the first two movies. While FoTR was about adventure, and TT was about adventure and war, this was completely about war. Not that it wasn't familiar from the books. Just that it gives a completely different picture on the screen.

This wasn't the best movie of them all, as FoTR still had so much more powerful atmosphere in making all that magic and mythics come to life than any other movie I've ever even dreamed of. I'd rate it in the middle of the three.

The concept of time in the Battle of Minas Tirith(sp?) baffles me.

It's all good until the orcs wheel up that wolf battering ram. At this time it's still day. Then it cuts to Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, and when it gets back to the battle it's the middle of night and the wolf battering ram is still sitting there and then they finally start using it. So you mean to tell me the orcs rolled up the battering ram and sat there for at least six hours before ramming the door?

At this time the depressed steward drags Faramir to his little torch room and Pippin sees it.

Next thing you know Pippin finds Gandalf and tells him.

Gandalf and Pippin make it all the way back up Minas Tirith before the steward and his cronies can light a match, and low and behold, it's not even night anymore, now it's day again.

And to top it off, the burning steward makes it all the way down the long path and off the cliff despite being on fire and just getting a horse hoove to the head.

Um...OK. :p

Still a great battle, just has me wondering from time to time.

What bugged me about the movie is that golum is all wrong. In the book, the One Ring also darkens his flesh to the color of burnt wood. He is not pink!

Also, the Uruk-hai were created by Sauron, not Saruman.

Peter Jackson has come a long way from "Meet the Feebles". The whole trilogy of TLotR was completely breath-taking and I'm so glad I finally got to see the third part. The only bad thing about the last one is that it was the end. :( I want more. But there can't be any more because it just wouldn't be right to continue the story written by the master, Tolkien.

Saw it.

I was... disappointed. What is it with me and the third parts of awesome trilogies? I was SO let down with Revolutions and now, this...

It didn't suck. It jsut duid not have the... impact... I had with FotR and TTT... this time, I was much more pissed off at the inaccuracies, things left out, people left out....

*sigh*

Most of my favorite pparts were missing.... such as the Scuring of the Shire, Merry swearing fealty to THeoden, the Halls of Healing, Pippin being shown the ways of the Citadel.... *sigh*

The way the ending was mangled... it hurts. And damn it, Celeborn bloody well stayed in Middle-Earth until a later date!

*sigh*

II must now admit the truth. I am a Tolkien purist. hell, I was even grumbling about pronounciation! And the whole "paths of the dead" thing... Legolas was flicnhing! He should not have been doing that! And what about the grey company? Grrr!

I am hopeless. *sigh*

And not enough elves!

Rotku didn't like the undead. Rotku didn't like the undead. Never in the book where they seen, nor did they help out at the battle of What's-it-called fields (the name slipps my memory).

Other than the undead sence the movie was unbelivable. Aye, it did miss out a lot of things, and it could have been better, yes of course it couldn't compare to the books, but for a movie it was unmatchable.

Hey Death Rabbit, you dont happen to be for hire as jester do you? I´ve been looking for one to entertain me in my castle :)

Seriously dude, thanks for the laugh.


The movie sure was great, best of the three IMO. Cant wait til the extended version gets out.

Finally saw it yesterday. Awesome, especially the battle scenes. In any of the movies, I didn't really notice any of the deviations from the books since I read them about 25 years ago. Having said that, I thought the ending of the movie (after the final battle) dragged on a bit, although I realise that the book had even more content. All in all, though, one of the quickest 3+ hours I've spent.

I saw it last week, and in one word, the film is spectacular. Visually, the battle scenes were the best I've seen in any movie yet. And while I was annoyed that they left out some of the frequently mentioned bits here, I think it'll just make me anticipate the extended edition that much more.

Let's call this the Dearth of Decent Villains and the Dumbing Down of Dialogue. They're related.

In a film where your main bad guy is a glowing eye that doesn't move, you have to make the best of the secondary bad guys that sustain him. Leaving out the chastening of Saruman was just bad editing, IMHO...right on par with leaving out the Lothlorien gift-giving scene in favor of that ridiculous ten-minute crumbling-stairway bit with the dumbass dwarf-tossing jokes in Fellowship. I'm no stickler for textual fidelity, but there are items (the rope, the lembas, the elven cloaks--does anybody really believe Frodo and Sam can hide under ordinary cloaks right under the eyes of the bad guys and still not be seen?--Legolas' bow, etc) which are essential to the plotlines of the two subsequent films. Opening with the Gandalf/Saruman encounter would have been much more powerful, IMO. To leave out the demise of the one bad guy who actually moves and talks is poor storytelling, plain and simple. (And Christopher Lee agrees with me on this.)

On to my biggest pet peeve. The Lord of the Nazgul is one badass mofo. But in the film he's licked by a chick and a midget without any real explanation as to how they are able to accomplish this particularly difficult feat. And the dialogue...ridiculous. I sum it up thusly:

"Get outta my way, dude."
"I ain't no dude!"

When it ought to have gone a lot like it did in the book:

"Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion. Leave the dead in peace."
"Come not between the Nazgul and his prey, or he will slay thee in turn."
"Do what you will. I will hinder it, if I may."
"Hinder me? Dost thou not know the prophecy? No living man may hinder me!"
"But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn am I. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone! For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him!"

Again, I don't insist that they stick to the dialogue in the book, but the Lord of the Nazgul is *the* bad guy par excellence in RotK, and he's dispatched almost as an afterthought.

The one bad guy I liked, the deformed orc...we don't even get to see him die. We just see him get nervous.

I would have liked to have seen the Mouth of Sauron, but fair enough, introducing another character that late in the game would have strained the plotline.

There are no worthy character villains in this trilogy. Just armies.

Two more comments: I didn't buy into Denethor's madness, not for a second. Either bad acting or poor writing/editing, but didn't believe it for a second.

And if you hadn't read the books, it strikes me that the army of the dead and the return of the eagles seemed awfully convenient.

"Say, there's no way we're gonna beat those nasty orcses with our paltry number of riders."
"Hold on a sec...something tells me that if I take this trail I'll happen across legions of unkillable undead who just might want to help us out!"

Poor editing, for the most part. The interminable endings could have been pared down to make a little more room for more essential elements of the story.

My two cents.

I think some of what you mentioned will be added in the Extended version, just as they did with your example of the gifts in Lothlorien. That part was added to the movie in the Extended edition. So maybe the parts you mentioned will be better worked out in the "full" movie.

Yeah, but I shouldn't have to wait for the extended DVD version to get essential plot points. The dumbass stairway scene in Fellowship ought to have been cut from the cinema version in favor of the gift-giving scene, not the other way around.

We FINALLY saw it Friday night. It was worth the wait. I'm looking forward to the boxed-set of the EE DVD's. ;)

In addition, to everything said above - MY very minor gripe was about the arrival of the Rohirrim at Minas Tirith. In the book, that is THE dramatic moment for me; Minas Tirith is in darkness, everyone is about to give up, the Lord of the Nazgul is all high and mighty - then a cock crows and the sound of horns can be heard (horns of the North blowing wildly). Rohan had arrived.

I get a chill in my spine just writing about it. Didn't quite get that in the movie - they just sort of turned up. But otherwise BRILLIANT.

Exactly my feeling about that Harbourboy...Good call! That was the one scene I was most looking forward to...ALthough I still liked it, it could have been more dramatic seeing the sun rise as the Rohirrim charge shouting "Death!" Great stuff!

I admmit, Theoden's speech was probably the best thing in the entire movie.

Like a friend said, not enough Rohrimm.

*sigh*

I need to see it again... too bad I am firmly set in the "starving student" category... :(

Jackson just won the Golden Globe for Best Director. :grin:

Sweet! New Zealand finally wins *something*!

Yeah, they also got the award for best drama, iirc.

Jackson's the man.