MovieChat Forums > The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) Discussion > I get the popularity among viewers, but ...

I get the popularity among viewers, but among critics?

posted 8 years ago by antilect
20 replies | jump to latest

How can this movie be in the top 250? For viewers it's very understandable since it's a lovely family movie about good triumphing over evil.

However, looking at the technicalities of this production, it's literally the most generic and formulaic directing riddled with CGI schlock-fests at every turn. Cliche dialogue not in the books, and at every turn it feels like Jackson took liberties to turn a philosophical masterpiece into a war-movie for teenage boys. I've read the books now, so I know full well how they made me feel to this day. But let's stick to the movie adaption compared with other historic pieces of cinema.

Am I the only critic that thinks that this movie, while generously upholding a modern standard for the average viewer, is still very generic and flat?

I feel like this has nothing on movies like The Godfather, because it's an overblown cgi-production that masquerades as substance.

If you think this movie is great because it made you feel great, I can respect that. As a viewer I loved it when I was 18 at the time. I didn't see the sloppy generics in the production that I can see now that I've gotten more experienced with different kinds of historic movies.

What I don't understand is how so many people celebrate it as a masterpiece of cinema. The characters are card-board thin because of the script, and don't develop over the course of the story with the exception of the one and best actor in all the movies; Viggo.

What are your thoughts, if you really like and understand the history of cinema. How does this compare with the substance in movies like Shawshank Redemption or The Godfather or even animated movies like Spirited Away that are filled with interesting and mature allegories I still can't get my head around.

To me, this is a generous 7.7~ish

Just curious.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

I couldn't help but notice that, for a self-proclaimed critic, your overview of this trilogy seems extraordinarily shallow and superficial.

I'm not sure your viewing skills are all they might be, at least in this particular case.

I have a question for you: why do you suppose the Hobbit movies, brought to you from the same director and basic production team, (theoretically) plying source material from the same author, and employing much newer, more sophisticated and more CGI are in the 7.8~ish IMDb range, with Metacritic scores in the 60~ish range?

[–] magpie930 8 years ago

That was a genuinely funny review to read. Goal: write a review in a cynical tone designed (by constructing strawmen arguments and using trite, provocative adjectives) to prod and poke people wanting to defend their favorite film because they won't be able to bear seeing a critical comment (however poorly stated).

uh... not really interested in this game, thanks.

As a viewer I loved it when I was 18 at the time. I didn't see the sloppy generics in the production that I can see now that I've gotten more experienced with different kinds of historic movies.

cheers from someone way older and more experienced than you. Trust me.

[–] WeirdRaptor 8 years ago

Either you're trolling or you were dropped on your head constantly on a child. Hmm. I'm leaning towards the latter.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] masterk-83963 8 years ago

Don't take so seriously when someone mentions The Shawshank Redemption!!!

https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/the+lord+of+the+rings+the+fellowship+of+the+ring/rankings/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/the+lord+of+the+rings+the+return+of+the+king/rankings/
Comparing Lord of the Rings with movies you have mentioned is a joke, except The Godfather.

[–] putraandre476 8 years ago

to state that this movie overblown CGI just showing to us you don't know anything about filmmaking. Star Wars are also full of CGI stuff, but people and critics still loved them.

if you really like and understand the history of cinema. How does this compare with the substance in movies like Shawshank Redemption or The Godfather or even animated movies like Spirited Away that are filled with interesting and mature allegories I still can't get my head around.

what kind of cliche statement!!!

Am I the only critic

you are critic for what?? Time, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian?? LOL

[–] ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony 8 years ago

I know I'll take this movie over tween friendly junk like Harry Potter or The Hunger Games. That's saying a lot since I love Lord of the Rings and Tolkien and just don't give a crap for Harry Potter or The Hunger Games. Twilight, Divergent, and 50 Shades of Grey are not the books or movies for me either.

"Metallica loves Ponyville!"

[–] moundshroud 8 years ago

From the subject line:

I get the popularity among viewers

First line of text:

How can this movie be in the top 250?

Ask yourself: What data forms the basis of IMDB's rating system?

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

I have noticed that self-proclaimed elite cinephiles and other defenders of the great classic motion pictures often have a poor grasp of the mechanics of IMDb ratings and rankings.

I recently saw a post from someone lamenting the societal decay exemplified by The Dark Knight being ranked higher on the IMDb Top 250 than the works of Scorsese, Kubrick, Kurosawa, etc. Eventually he acknowledged that TDK is a very good film and that he personally scored it a 9/10...which happens to be it's exact weighted average on IMDb at the moment.

I never got an answer as to whether he was part of the problem or part of the solution.

[–] bznessman 8 years ago

I never got an answer as to whether he was part of the problem or part of the solution.

I think maybe you did:

he personally scored it a 9/10

Although, if you were asking him, he probably doesn't realize he is part of his own problem.