finally

[low_delta]

We finally saw Return of the King last night. I liked it a lot. But it was hard to keep a straight face.

Did anyone else think, when they saw the armies of Mordor marching out of the green, glowing Minas Morgul, "oh-eeh-oh, ee-oh-oh! oh-eeh-oh, ee-oh-oh!"? Or wonder if Pippin was going to see the ruby slippers in the Palantir? At least Treebeard didn't start flinging apples at Saruman.

And when Frodo woke up, why did he and Gandalf start laughing? That was the stupidest thing.

But, like I said, I liked it. Partly because it was fairly close to the book. There were no glaring contrivances. They made up the part about Gollum turning Frodo against Sam, but it worked well enough. The rest of Frodo and Sam's journey was very close to the book. I was impressed. The part with Shelob was very good, though as it was depicted, I don't think Sam would have stood a chance. Seems like Tolkien's was more realistic.

And the scene at the Cracks of Doom, where Frodo was to throw the ring in, was very good. Except maybe that little cliffhanger at the end.

But all in all, I liked it, as I did the first two. And I'm glad that nobody else ever attempted to make those into movies until the technology allowed it.

Bernard Hill gave a great performance as King Theoden. I liked Sean Astin's Sam. He really looked the part. I think Andy Serkis who played Smeagol (Gollum) looked like I pictured Wormtongue. I still do not think Hugo Weaving looks like an elf. Arwen's mother must ahve been the most beautiful woman in history. I can see why the women think Voggo Mortensen (Aragorn) is so hot. But I don't think Orlando Bloom (Legolas) is all the cute. (Sam and Rosie's kids were played by the actor's and actress's kids.)

Comments

[ravenfeather.livejournal.com]

I thought that at his coronation, Aragorn looked like Jesus. And Arwen breaks into song: "I don't know how to love him..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHH! THAT is great!

Legolas was an elf.. they don't attract dirt, they don't sweat and the certainly don't produce sebum! I suppose I should have looked at Aragorn as being realistic.. but they DID have water, so wash your face and neck at least. In the first movie .. or was it the second, it was the second, when everyone was realistically dirty except Eowen and she stuck out as being clean, well in the third, Aragorn stuck out as being too dirty, it was noticable enough to distract me from what was going on.

I was bothered by the loss of The Scouring of the Shire and the death of Saruman. hmm *grin* Not enough violence for you?

If you think about it.. they made a LOT of changed in all three movies with the elves.. The sword is one, they were never at helms deep, whatshisname didn't die, the list goes on and lets face it Elron wasn't NEARLY the asshole he was in the books. Overall they were a lot nicer/less scary/more helpful/a more sympathetic race than depicted in the books.. and you didn't get to see the progression they made to helpfulness. I felt the same way about Merry and Pippin in the first and second movies, you didn't really SEE how bad their behavior was, and didn't see how they developed into decent little hobbit folk and valuable members of the "team". I know it would have been impossible to go into the detail the books did, so that part didn't bother me that much.

I think the reason the Arwen thing bothered me is because she wasn't that big a deal in the books. It bothered me that they knocked out an entire character in the first movie and she took over his role when she took Frodo across the river.. and she was never DYING or attached to the ring etc. It wasn't a change to an entire race.. it was an elevation of a character, and in my opinion THAT was attached to the box office potential of the actress playing that character, NOT a necessity for the story. THAT is more what I object to. Of course is she had done more than sit around and look morose and leak tears, I might not have been so bothered by that elevation.

The level of tears in this movie by her and Sam was too.. much.

I know.. I would have pushed Frodo. *grin*

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I thought it was due to the need for a (another) strong female character. I think that makes sense. Replacing Glorifindel with Arwen to give her something to do seems fair. But that was just the first movie.

Later on, they changed things around. And I'm mystified by tying her fate to that of the Ring. At first, when Elrond said she was dying, I thought he was just angry that she had chosen the mortal path.

But some of the things they added were taking place, just behind the scenes. They would have had to have left Arwen out completely, for anything ot make sense to most viewers.

[ravenfeather.livejournal.com]

They would have had to have left Arwen out completely and what is the problem with that again? ;)

Peter said in the interview that he expanded Arwen's role because the reality of making a hollywood blockbuster was there had to be a major love interest integral to the entire film, and there had to be a CHOICE between possibilities. *shrug* He is the film maker, so I guess he knows.. I still think that formulas like that.. devalue the audience in advance.. as if we wouldn't be interested in a quality story unless it followed a certain path.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I see that love interest thing going on in all sorts of movies, and it's bugged me that it is such a requirement. At least in this one, it makes sense. It was always there, if not seen. I think the romantic tension was always there between Eowyn and Aragorn too, so they'd have to either downplay it, or get rid of it too, because that would the only opportunity for romance and people would be bugged by it. >:-D

as if we wouldn't be interested in a quality story unless it followed a certain path. I wonder what percentage of the people are like you and me, who would just as soon see no romance in all these films.

[ravenfeather.livejournal.com]

*I* think it is a lot higher than *they* think it is.