Film Roar

Just got back from the 12:00am showing and thought it was pretty good. My only major complaint is the ending went on and on and on.

Hey good catch.. my server had forgotten it was on the west coast and had set the time to GMT insteand of PST. Just fixed it, thanks.

hee! it's true; i forgot to write about that, but the endless fades felt clumsy and unnecessarily frequent. is this "the end"? no! is -this- the end? no!

I'm glad I am not the only one who thought so. To me it seemed like they couldn't decide where to end the film so they just kept tacking on more (fades and all).

Just got back from the theater.. I was impressed. A review will go up in a day or two.

wait, i -know- you didn't write this at 3:48 a.m. what's up with that? :)

That was honestly the most incredible film experience I've ever had. 'Return of the King,' unlike some sequels out there I could name, not only preserves the impetus that the previous two films have established, but builds on it, till the pace becomes exhilarating. As a devotee of the books it was everything I could have wished.

As for the ending, I can understand why it frustrated people who haven't read the book. But those of us who have read the book needed to see each scene as it played out. It was less that they didn't know where to end the movie, more that they wanted each scene to play out and wind down, knowing where they were going to culminate the story. And I think that's exactly how it ought to be.

PJ did a very good job BUT he left out an important part : the Scourge of the Shire

Ten minutes of the interminable ending should have been spent on this.

While i agree it would of been nice to see the Scourging of the Shire one of the parts i really miss was the breaking of Sarumans staff. Still there is always the extended DVD next year i suppose.
Unlike most it seems the "has it or hasnt" end didnt bother me, though i admit it would of been better without the fades at thed of the last few scenes that seem to traditionally signify a films end.
In my opnion a fantastic film for which no words i can write here can do it justice.
Kudos to PJ and all those involved.

A review of Return of the King is posted at:

Film Roar: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Silk writes: "While i agree it would of been nice to see the Scourging of the Shire one of the parts i really miss was the breaking of Sarumans staff."

I definitely agree--the breaking of Saruman's staff was a part that I definitely missed, but I think it ought to have been in The Two Towers, not Return of the King. As far as the Scouring of the Shire goes, I miss it, but feel that it really wouldn't have worked in the movie. DCM's 'ten minutes' would never have been able to cover the true scope of what happened.

Hi I was invited to a special showing a week before the release and I very much liked the movie. There are a few things, for a person who has not read the books but is a movie buff, which I disliked. First of all the movie seemed to drag in the beginning and the "Lets all cry about every little thing attitude" was repetitive. Secondly, I know the movie needed to tell the story... but I think their could have been better transitions through out the different character plots (I understand this is the directors style). Also I could tell that the third movie was not consistent with the other two, this is because there is a different editor on all the movies, yet the first two went well together.

The end was also dragged out. It could have stopped earlier after the ring was destroyed and here's a thought: let the audience use their imagination(ex. Matrix Revolutions). I think everyone knows how "Happily Ever After" movies conclude. But all said, the movie was great and I think these movies will remain a classic for all time just like Star Wars. So save you DVD box sets unopened because their going to be worth a lot.

Personally I believe that Peter Jackson was justified in excluding the scourging of the shire from the third movie. I despised that scene greatly and feel that it didn't belong in the book. It didn't help the story nor was there a point for it. I am pleased however, to learn that Saruman's death scene will be included in the special addition DVD. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out how pleased I am in Peter Jackson's rendering of the Lord of the Rings. If I may be so bold to say, I feel he portrayed the story better than Tolkien did or could ever wish to. While I enjoyed the books somewhat, the movies put them all to shame. In the words of Tom Hanks in Forest Gump "That's all I have to say about that."

I've seen it twice in theatres. It was an awesome movie. I know ppl are saying that the filmmakers could have included Sarumon being beaten up or whatever, and the scouring of the Shire, but the movie is 3.5 hours as it is! And for those of you (like me) who wouldn't have had a problem with the movie being 4 hours or MORE, other audiences don't like to sit in a theatre for that many hours.

Can anyone explain why they all got on the boat at the end? I have no clue! someone please enlighten me!

Hi Mark - on you comment on the scourging of the shire chapter - I agree with you that it's not that 'entertaining' a chapter. it seems to be a bit dull after the 'main' event (ie. the destruction of the ring and the fall of sauron/the return of the king)..
The contrary argument, however, is important to understand as well- which is that this chapter is the MOST important one for the following reason:
Lord of the Rings is about hobbits!!!
The hobbits saved their own land and future in this chapter and it also helped show the result of character development which is common in folktales and fairytales, where the heroes go through a "home-away-home" sequence where the 2nd home shows a new and improved hero - which is what Tolkien showed with the hobbits and their new abilities.
Don't forget that LOTR is about 'the little guy' and how 's/he' saves the world'!!!!!

Thanks for listening
-SAP

ps. the movies were great - couldn't have been made better on the big screen!
pss. about the 'imaginary ending' -- I think the 'sailing into the west' did that trick for ya!!!

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ENDING OF RETURN OF THE KING AND ITS BUGGING ME! Did Frodo and Bilbo and all the other elves (and Gandalf) sail off to die?? I remember Gandalf telling Pippin something about when you die theres white shores and all that stuff...please help! SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME!

The movie did a decent job of cramming a whole lot of story into two hours, but you are right that the end is not as clear as it is in the books. If you really want to know what happened the best thing you can do is read the books.. seriously they are a good read and worth the time. Next best thing you can do is read one of the many chapter by chapter synopsis available online. Just do a google search for "lord of the rings chapter synopsis" or something like that. I did it just now and got some good hits, here are two:

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/monkeynotes/pmLordRings72.asp
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/homework.htm#RotK

If you are REALLY too lazy to at least read the cliffnotes: yes they do go off to die.. sort of... they are sailing off to Grey Heavens which has symbolic meaning as a place where they can live forever maybe just in spirit sort of like catholic heaven.

If you really REALLY want to know read the Slilmarillion, I think it goes into more detail about Gandalf's history in the Grey Heavens.

The Scourging of the Shire was a very important part of the book. It culminate the entire experience the Hobbits have; leaving the shire to go to a far off place and fight evil but upon returning they find the evil that was far away from home has consumed them... THATS NOT IMPORTANT???

It is important but not directly relevant to the main story line the movie follows. I fall important aspects had been included the movie would be four hours long.

Four hours is nothing, I would definetly sit through that i already sat through 6 hours. Not to mention they were play them all back to back in some theatres so...an extra hour would be nothing.

Return of the King...

The ending?! What did the ending mean? Where did they go? Cliff notes?! It is like C.S. Lewis; metaphorically speaking. Heaven/hell,
angel/devil, good/evil, light/dark, mortal/im-
mortal, ring, symbolizing eternal with no beginning and no end. Resurrection of the ____,
life ever after, king and Christ, end of the world (as we know it), and blah, blah.

sorry to correct you paige, but this is just to help Soeren understand.

When they sail away, they sail to another continent named Valinor. its at the same time a metaphore for heaven and the birthplace of elves (eldar, the first born). Grey heavens is the port where they sail FROM (see Cirdan, the harbor master). Its not clear if Frodo, Bilbo and the rest die or not, they just...outgrow middle earth and move on to Valinor (in my opinion) galdalf left for example because he was created to be the enemy of sauron, with sauron dead, there was no meaning for him being in middle earth without interfering with the humans and the fourth age.

just my two cents

Cyberian

Well, I thought ROTK was pretty awesome-although it would have been good if he totally stuck to the book-all the extnded dvds are brilliant!! :D