angelfishseven said:

i havent even seen the film but the first and second were way way way too long...the editing was horrid...me thinks people are more inclined to give ROFK the win for the collective work of all three films but...why? each film should stand on its own and while this film is recieving oodles of awards from critic groups the bulk of the reviews seem to be "extremely good"..but not "excellent"..

but its all politics..this will win cause the other two didnt...and once this thing hits dvd my ass will be hating the long sit.

i don't think it will. i watched a DVD of it today and it looked very bad.

I don´t want LOTR - The Return of the King to win!

i havent even seen the film but the first and second were way way way too long...the editing was horrid...me thinks people are more inclined to give ROFK the win for the collective work of all three films but...why? each film should stand on its own and while this film is recieving oodles of awards from critic groups the bulk of the reviews seem to be "extremely good"..but not "excellent"..

but its all politics..this will win cause the other two didnt...and once this thing hits dvd my ass will be hating the long sit.

meow85 said:

Of course they're long. They're *supposed* to be long movies. You have an issue with that, feel free to go back in time and bitch at Tolkein for writing them that way.


Keep in mind that Peter Jackson et al were faced with the task of adpating a wonderful, yet very long and convoluted story into movie format. They had to do this in a way that would be sufficiently interesting to the average movie-goer, but also true to the books. Even as it is, there were parts left out and things changed because they just didn't work in a movie.


I read somewhere that the original cut of FoTR was nearly 9 hours long. Would you have preferred that?

Peter Jackson's film trilogy finally reaches an end, and I can only breath another huge sigh of disappointment. Not one to express my sadness over the fact that the trilogy has come to an end, but one to express my sadness at just how poorly these films were done.
The first Lord of the Rings film was exciting, and yet too quickly paced and featuring tons of stiff, uncomfortable dialogue. The second Lord of the Rings only went further downhill, feeling rushed and lazy, and looking as if it had been cut and pasted together with sticky tape. Epic shots inserted haphazardly into the narrative throughout, some of the worst performances ever witnessed, and CGI that kept getting more cringe-inducing and lifeless as things went on. Return of the King is a step-up from The Two Towers, yet it still isn't the perfect cinematic experience that I was expecting. Even with its flaws, the first film had an energy to it and a ton of passion that one could see oozing through every frame. That sense of energy is sadly missing from both The Two Towers and Return of the King, even though it takes the word "epic" to the extreme.

All in All ...i guess with all that being said...it will lead the pack for the Oscars this year...but i hope they will maybe give Eastwood the Oscar for Mystic River...
[This message was edited Tue Jan 27 3:01:21 PST 2004 by PusherMan]

PusherMan said:

I also hope Eastwood would pick up the Oscar...He truly deserves it ...

Rupert said:

My prediction is that Eastwood will get best director, while LOTR: TROTK will get best picture. Sean Penn will get best actor, hands down.