Today on Blogcritics
Home » Return to Return of the King

Return to Return of the King

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

We went to see Return of the King for the second time last night because our 13-year-old wanted to see it for his third time. My pre-VCR generation has trouble being entertained by a movie more than once, but there are exceptions. Lord of the Rings is one: Giant trolls, gargantuan elephants, catapults firing heads, fierce bad guys with faces made out of cookie dough, fire-tipped battering rams, stirring music, flying dragons, all in one scene. What more do you want in a movie? Even though it was my second time, I still had trouble finding a slack time to take a bathroom break. Thank goodness for Liv Tyler (or, as she’s uncharitably known in our household, Mrs. Ed).

I have a small wager with my son. I say that Gollum will be nominated as Best Supporting Actor. He deserves it. So does Sean Astin, but as Best Actor; nominating him for Supporting Actor would confuse his character (Frodo’s support) with his structural role in the movie.

And I will be personally outraged if LongBeard the Ent beats out Viggo Mortensen for the award for Best Acting by an Inanimate Object. IMO, Mortensen was way better, although I realize it’s a topic about which reasonable people can disagree.

Powered by

About David Weinberger

  • Tom Bombadil

    it’s treebeard, not longbeard. :D

  • Eric Olsen

    Nice Dave, thanks! I plan on returning for another day’s worth of viewing before the Oscars. And Viggo was oddly wooden and diffuse this time around – I did not have that impression in the other two.

  • sam

    After my first time seeing the movie, I went back mainly because of Liv Tyler. I think she should win an award but I don’t know what. Because, uh…never mind.

    When you say Gollum nominated, you mean Andy Serkis, right? I think it’s amazing how hard he worked even when he was “just” playing a CG character. What about the trend of CG characters in movies? Hmmm. Where’s that headed?

  • Bill

    Lets see now, Return of the King…
    Yes, that would be the movie that robbed me of 9 dollars and three and a half hours of my life. Never have I seen so many grown men crying. It was all so sad and pathetic and totally anitclimatic and sadly, boring. By the end of the movie I didn’t give a crap about any of the characters I just wanted the movie to be over, and I found Elijah Woods’ attempts at being a cheery little hobbit to be intensely annoying. As a matter of fact I found the whole end of the movie to be an enormous disappointment.
    They pissed away all of the good moments and they sucked the life out of the story. Oh well. Thats what they get for shooting it all at once.

  • http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger David Weinberger

    No, I’d like it to go to Gollum, the CGI character who transcended his programmers and Serkis.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    Must disagree about Viggo. His performance was not Oscar-worthy, but I thought his evolution into being kingworthy was moving and anything but wooden.

    I agree — something must be done for Andy Serkis, who was just terrific. And Sean Astin ought to be up for Best Actor.

  • duane

    Natalie, David said that Viggo Mortensen should be favored over a tree “for the award for Best Acting by an Inanimate Object.” I think he was saying that his performance wasn’t too hot.

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, which is why she disagreed

  • duane

    Ooops. Sorry, I misread that. Carry on.

  • http://www.expatatlarge.com/blog/ E@L

    The Mrs Ed / Liv Tyler controversy is examined in further detail (including photos!) on my blog page:

    http://www.expatatlarge.com/blog/

    E@L

  • Arwen

    I think Viggo did a pretty good job, and I really liked all the movies. Gollum was amazing, as were all of the digital effects/ minatures. Elijah did alright, but he didn’t make a very good happy hobbit. Sam was far better.

    The movie was spectacular compared too how bad it could have been. There is really no way to do a story like lotr complete justice, but they did parts pretty well.

  • Arwen

    Eowyn was done really well.

  • joel

    Return of the King was a terrible movie, nothing but a parade of special effects and expensive cameras and exotic locations. BORING. Two Towers sucked too; The Fellowship was the only film that came close to conveying the magic and CHARACTERS of Tolkien’s vision. Giant Orcs. Woo Hoo. I think people’s tastes for substantial films is pretty much gone, we’re all a bunch of drooling geeks for special effects and pretty colors.

  • Chris Kent

    Joel,

    Please stop making fun of me!! Yes, I am a drooling geek and I like special effects and pretty colors. Actually, that’s why I like Insane Clown Posse!

    In fact, that’s all that Return of the King really is – the Insane Clown Posse of movies…..