On Big Ten Football 2020: Week 4 Recap and Week 5 Pre... Dan* said: |
Ooof. What a horrible season for both of us so far. At this point, I've mostly lost interest in thi... |
On Big Ten Football 2020: Week 1 Recap Ken said: |
I stand corrected. I looked at the ESPN play-by-play to count IU's timeouts and they must have not i... |
On Big Ten Football 2020: Week 1 Recap Dan* said: |
Hi Ken, good to see you back for another season of commentary! Looking forward to some football. C... |
On College Football 2019: Final Ken said: |
Hey Dan, thanks for being my only subscriber! Yeah I'll be rooting for Penn State (Memphis is a weir... |
On College Football 2019: Final Dan* said: |
Thanks for the great articles this year Ken! I hope the Big 19 kicks ass in the bowl games. See you... |
Movies: Return of the King | Monday, 2004 January 5 - 12:44 pm |
The final installment of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is true to the book in most respects. Is that really such a good thing? "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King", the much-anticipated ending to the trilogy, is chock full of lavish battle scenes, mystical drama, and archaic dialogue. That's just as we've come to expect from the previous two movies, or from reading Tolkien's books. And really, that's the stuff we all wanted to see. But with this final movie, which runs well over three hours (plus previews and commercials), something unfortunate happens... the movie is played out just like the book. And for those of you who haven't read Return of the King, it means that some of the most dramatic parts of the movie (the big battle scenes, for instance), come early in the story; and after reaching a stirring climactic moment, we have to rebuild towards another one. And then another one. And then another one. And then there's a long drawn-out closing sequence. That's not terrible for a book, which can be read over the course of days and weeks; but for a single four-hour sitting, it became mind-numbing. I started looking at my watch and groaning over how much time I had left to sit there. In this movie in particular, we could have used a little Hollywood-ization, a little dramatic license. The film editors and directors should have resequenced some of the scenes and taken some liberties with the plot, such that the movie kept building towards the end. The pace of the movie could have been quickened; we don't always need long, sweeping, dramatic panoramas. What ever happened to editing? James Cameron's "Titanic" suffered from this same sort of in-love-with-itself narcissism and still won the Best Editing Oscar. What were people thinking? You'll still appreciate the movie if you're a Tolkien fan; you'll like the stunning special effects, the costumes, and the overall look of the film. Otherwise, you'll find yourself noticing how stilted the dialogue is, and how one-dimensional the acting is; and you may find yourself bored to tears. Rating: 2.5 / 5 (as a fan) |
Permalink
![]() Posted by Ken in: movies, reviews |
There are no comments on this article. |