When the menace known as the Joker emerges from his mysterious past, he wreaks havoc and chaos on the people of Gotham, the Dark Knight must accept one of the greatest psychological and physical tests of his ability to fight injustice.
After the rebels are overpowered by the Empire on their newly established base, Luke Skywalker begins Jedi training with Yoda. His friends accept shelter from a questionable ally as Darth Vader hunts them in a plan to capture Luke.
Luke Skywalker joins forces with a Jedi Knight, a cocky pilot, a Wookiee and two droids to save the galaxy from the Empire's world-destroying battle-station while also attempting to rescue Princess Leia from the evil Darth Vader.
The final confrontation between the forces of good and evil fighting for control of the future of Middle-earth. Hobbits: Frodo and Sam reach Mordor in their quest to destroy the "one ring", while Aragorn leads the forces of good against Sauron's evil army at the stone city of Minas Tirith. Written by
Sean Astin (Samwise Gamgee) and Billy Boyd (Peregrin "Pippin" Took) appeared in The Witches of Oz (2011) and Dorothy and the Witches of Oz (2012). See more »
When Sam cuts Shelob's silk from around Frodo's face, it is completely cleared of silk in the close-up shots but remains covered with silk from the nose down in the long shots. See more »
Smeagol, I've got one! I've got a fish, Smeag. Smeagol!
Pull it in. Go on. Go on. Go on. Pull it in.
See more »
There's a text written in maori: Me mahara tonu taatou nga Uri- aapakura noo tuaanuku nei, noo te waaotuu te tu kekehua ana o ngaa Eldarin kua hohouu mai i te Uru-moana. Which is in english: Let us dedicate our memories to the spirits of the Eldar who came to us from the Ocean that lies to the West. See more »
Overall, I am disappointed, though not surprised, by the negative
criticism of this movie. Indeed, this criticism exceeds the offering of
alternative viewpoints and the expression of other cinematic
possibilities and sinks into the realm of bitter invective. So many
armchair critics are currently competing with avid Tolkien, Jackson,
and movie fans alike in order to espouse the "true" value of Peter
Jackson's landmark movie trilogy. For it is a landmark event in cinema
history based on its sheer size and careful attention, praise and
evisceration apart. The issue that greatly irritates me and pushes me
to write is that many of the negative reviewers on this website have
such limited room in their imagination that they cannot conceive of a
world outside their own narrow framework. I find that a most sad
reality in light of the legacy of Tolkien, Jackson, and all good
story-tellers -- to create, to engender, and to nourish the growth of
any and all imaginative ventures.
The problem with imagination is that it is an individual event, a
unique subjective experience that a single person experiences
completely alone. Those who enter into the realm of Art, Fiction,
Fantasy, and any degree of Story-telling agree (willingly or no) to
take that personal act of creation and primal nature and share it with
the community of human beings, each of whom has his or her own
imaginative context. It is a bold act of sacrifice, self-confidence,
and faith (spiritual, one could argue) to thrust the contents of one's
subjective reality into (to borrow from Douglas Adams) the Whole Sort
of General Mish Mash. People who do so deserve respect for the mere
creative act, the ability to foist forward what they believe is true.
From Homer to Bill O'Reilly, this concept of personal creation, what
Tolkien called Sub-Creation, is the essence of modern human existence,
and we owe it to each other to respect the right to creation history
has granted us.
Therefore, in defense of both Tolkien (whom some on this website have
maligned) and Jackson (whom many have maligned), I forward that both
are imaginative creators in their own right, with different and
completely acceptable offerings to the world. Those who cannot tolerate
either for "mediocre writing" or "atrocious film-making" should offer
forth their literary or cinematic offspring instead of cunningly-worded
diatribes of their deep dissatisfaction with all that does not conform
to their inner reality. Then, we few who believe in and trust the
creative ability of all will be able to see how those critical inner
realities (so authoritative in exposition) match up with the rest of
Tolkien was an enormously talented, intelligent, and imaginative man,
one whose stories, though unpolished by experience, still managed to
attract a worldwide audience and devoted following with their luster.
Jackson's movies took the sheen and inherent value of Tolkien's stories
and placed it in a visual medium, a place where fans of LOTR could
witness and love the events and people they held so dear. Of course
Tolkien's story is imperfect; of course Jackson's movies aren't as full
as we wish them to be. Their great successes are that they still manage
to capture our imagination, to move us, to take genuine truth and
isolate it in a world outside our ken, a place where we see ourselves
better against a foreign backdrop. Both have created and done so
masterfully, with the intuitive grasp that is termed "genius." Tolkien
would have had much at issue with Jackson's movies, where plot
incongruities, lapsed character development, and visual splendor
overshadow the philological and melancholic overtones of his book.
Jackson admits he finds much at issue with Tolkien's book, including a
lack of clear character motivation, extended and largely extraneous
dialog, and heightened language not suited for Hollywood. But Tolkien,
despite his perfectionist griping and loathing for any film version of
his book, would respect Jackson for continuing the act of creation, for
taking his modern-day mythology and spreading it to as many people as
possible. Jackson has taken the beauty, the scope, the complexity, the
richness, and the loss that permeate Middle-Earth and shared those
leitmotifs with the world. Tolkien's characteristic "niggling" would
have prevented any such attempt (even Jackson's), but in the end, his
heritage lives on in beautifully conceived and executed films.
I do not ask others to stifle their opinions of this movie or any
other. Indeed, continue to express the direst and bleakest of your
frustrations with the creative power of others, as it may lead you to
actually do some creation yourself. Remember though, that the great
evils of history, from Satan to Hitler to Sauron, are never capable of
creation -- only twisting, mutilating, mocking, deforming, and
misapplying. Be open to the vision of others and what they have to
offer, especially when that offering comes in the virtuosic shape of
Tolkien's writing or Jackon's movies. Look for the True in the
Secondary and how it manifests itself everywhere once you recognize it.
This movie receives a 10 from me because it not only maintains
incredible faithfulness to Tolkien's themes (and yes, events may
deviate in completely separate and dissimilar media) but it asks
intelligent viewers to look deeper into the circumstances of its own
creation and beauty. From the loyalty of Sam and the weight of epic
history to the sacrifice of Arwen and the never-completely-won nature
of war, Jackson's movies capture the essence and heart of Tolkien's
tale, with the benefit of the director's own imaginative fruit as well.
The world owes Mr. Jackson its gratitude, as he has created another
world and another reality that so many can, do, and will cherish.
One final word: There are few who would not rather be wandering in a
far green country rather than dwelling in their own Circles of the
57 of 83 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?