Manohla Dargis' LA Times review of ROTK
01-26-04, 12:26 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenneth Turan reviewed ROTK for the LA Times. He gave it a very positive review.
Dargis did, however, address ROTK in her online column.
She followed up that screed with a further comment a few days later.
Dargis did, however, address ROTK in her online column.
We try to split the film assignments fairly, so I took the second "Lord of the Rings" film and my colleague Kenneth Turan took the third (he took the second "Matrix" movie and I took the third). I'm very glad that I didn't review "The Return of the King," however, because I would have, with great reluctance, panned it. I logged onto www.metacritic.com and www.rottentomatoes.com and discovered that a number of women critics have succumbed to the latest installment of Peter Jackson's epic endeavor. Claudia Puig from USA Today gave "The Return of the King" four stars, Lisa Schwarzbaum from Entertainment Weekly gave it an A, and Lisa Kennedy from the Denver Post anointed it with 3½ stars (out of 4). Eleanor Ringel Gillespie from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution liked the film as did Maitland McDonagh from TV Guide's Movie Guide and a handful of other women critics.
Me? It was nice to see Viggo Mortensen, Hugo Weaving and Orlando Bloom again, but mostly I was bored out of my mind while watching "The Return of the King" — really, really bored. I assumed that other critics would like the film and would rightly praise Jackson for his grand cinematic ambitions, but I have to admit that I've been startled and not a little depressed by the rush to proclaim this bloated, often enervating spectacle a masterpiece. Gender doesn't have anything to do with my take, though. I love loads of traditionally "male" films and genres, including action flicks, gangster and detective movies, westerns, science fiction and horror freakouts, which is a good thing since most films are now, overwhelmingly, made by men for men. And then there's the simple fact that I've always enjoyed the sight of beautiful men doing manly things on screen, including pummeling one another to a pulp, albeit in a highbrow D.H. Lawrence kind of way.
Beautiful men are certainly one reason I loved the first "Lord of the Rings" film, although I also loved its energy and lack of irony, as well as Jackson's towering aspiration. I thought the second movie was mezzo-mezzo — some of it was thrilling (Legalos lifting himself onto his horse), some of it magical (the talking and walking trees, which seemed like old hippie cousins to the trees in "The Wizard of Oz"). But the battle scenes were overlong, dull and badly choreographed — a confusion of noise, CGI tricks and little else. The third film was far worse; it played like a series of sustained final chords ("ta-da...ta-da...ta-da!") mixed in with a lot of CGI gunk. I like animation as much as the next cinephile, but if I had to watch one more computer-generated oliphant crush one more computer-generated warrior, I thought I was going to scream.
And then there are the film's rather discomforting politics, which I won't bother going into since I've already received enough hate mail this month. For an interesting analysis of "The Return of the King," check out K.A. Dilday's piece at www.opendemocracy.com, which suggests that the film is "vindication and veneration of empire."
Me? It was nice to see Viggo Mortensen, Hugo Weaving and Orlando Bloom again, but mostly I was bored out of my mind while watching "The Return of the King" — really, really bored. I assumed that other critics would like the film and would rightly praise Jackson for his grand cinematic ambitions, but I have to admit that I've been startled and not a little depressed by the rush to proclaim this bloated, often enervating spectacle a masterpiece. Gender doesn't have anything to do with my take, though. I love loads of traditionally "male" films and genres, including action flicks, gangster and detective movies, westerns, science fiction and horror freakouts, which is a good thing since most films are now, overwhelmingly, made by men for men. And then there's the simple fact that I've always enjoyed the sight of beautiful men doing manly things on screen, including pummeling one another to a pulp, albeit in a highbrow D.H. Lawrence kind of way.
Beautiful men are certainly one reason I loved the first "Lord of the Rings" film, although I also loved its energy and lack of irony, as well as Jackson's towering aspiration. I thought the second movie was mezzo-mezzo — some of it was thrilling (Legalos lifting himself onto his horse), some of it magical (the talking and walking trees, which seemed like old hippie cousins to the trees in "The Wizard of Oz"). But the battle scenes were overlong, dull and badly choreographed — a confusion of noise, CGI tricks and little else. The third film was far worse; it played like a series of sustained final chords ("ta-da...ta-da...ta-da!") mixed in with a lot of CGI gunk. I like animation as much as the next cinephile, but if I had to watch one more computer-generated oliphant crush one more computer-generated warrior, I thought I was going to scream.
And then there are the film's rather discomforting politics, which I won't bother going into since I've already received enough hate mail this month. For an interesting analysis of "The Return of the King," check out K.A. Dilday's piece at www.opendemocracy.com, which suggests that the film is "vindication and veneration of empire."
I don't think that people who sing the praises of "The Return of the King" are wrong; they're deluded.
01-26-04, 02:23 PM
#5
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thank you Skorp. In this months Film Comment it gives a recap of her reviews and shows that she gave ROTK one star, but it did not include the review, so thank you.
I pretty much disagree with her assessment. I find I usually disagree with her.
In that review she spends far more time qualifying her position than defending it with examples.
I pretty much disagree with her assessment. I find I usually disagree with her.
In that review she spends far more time qualifying her position than defending it with examples.
Last edited by Pants; 01-26-04 at 03:14 PM.
01-26-04, 05:24 PM
#6
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Pants
I pretty much disagree with her assessment. I find I usually disagree with her.
I pretty much disagree with her assessment. I find I usually disagree with her.
01-26-04, 05:54 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by the big train
If gender doesn't have anything to do with her take, then why is it the overriding theme of her review?
If gender doesn't have anything to do with her take, then why is it the overriding theme of her review?
However, her slam that people who sing the praises of ROTK are "deluded" is pretty low and wholly inappropriate coming from a critic for a major paper.
But, then, what do I know? I'm one of those suffering from that delusion (as are the New York Film Critics, the Broadcast Film Critics, the Hollywood Foreign Press -- and millions of other people around the world).
Isn't it a good thing we have Manohla Dargis to show us all the error of our ways!
01-27-04, 12:22 AM
#8
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Fascination Street
Posts: 6,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I first knew that I would frequently disagree with Dargis when I read her vitriolic review of Lynch's Lost Highway many years ago--basically, she picked it apart with old-hat feminist dogma.
Her pan of ROTK holds absolutely no weight with me. As far as I am concerned we didn't even see the same movie.
Her pan of ROTK holds absolutely no weight with me. As far as I am concerned we didn't even see the same movie.
01-29-04, 07:29 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like animation as much as the next cinephile, but if I had to watch one more computer-generated oliphant crush one more computer-generated warrior, I thought I was going to scream.
He should also have gotten a real winged creature from middle earth for the Nazgul to ride on instead of using CG.
Shame on you PJ!
Last edited by Hobgoblin; 01-29-04 at 07:31 PM.
01-30-04, 11:38 AM
#10
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Hobgoblin
Yeah! Why the heck didn't Peter Jackson get a Real oliphaunt to really crush a real warrior actor to death?
He should also have gotten a real winged creature from middle earth for the Nazgul to ride on instead of using CG.
Shame on you PJ!
Yeah! Why the heck didn't Peter Jackson get a Real oliphaunt to really crush a real warrior actor to death?
He should also have gotten a real winged creature from middle earth for the Nazgul to ride on instead of using CG.
Shame on you PJ!
01-31-04, 05:07 AM
#11
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Philly
Posts: 1,408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^
and how do you propose they put the mumakil on screen? and the warriors that they kill?
why do film critics have such a nostalgic love for old fashioned sfx? the only thing that should matter is what looks the best. cgi CAN certainly look cartoonish, but when used wisely it is excellent and indistinguishable from the real elements.
and how do you propose they put the mumakil on screen? and the warriors that they kill?
why do film critics have such a nostalgic love for old fashioned sfx? the only thing that should matter is what looks the best. cgi CAN certainly look cartoonish, but when used wisely it is excellent and indistinguishable from the real elements.
01-31-04, 04:26 PM
#12
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TCG
^^^
and how do you propose they put the mumakil on screen? and the warriors that they kill?
why do film critics have such a nostalgic love for old fashioned sfx? the only thing that should matter is what looks the best. cgi CAN certainly look cartoonish, but when used wisely it is excellent and indistinguishable from the real elements.
^^^
and how do you propose they put the mumakil on screen? and the warriors that they kill?
why do film critics have such a nostalgic love for old fashioned sfx? the only thing that should matter is what looks the best. cgi CAN certainly look cartoonish, but when used wisely it is excellent and indistinguishable from the real elements.
02-01-04, 07:15 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Pants
I don't like her article either, but it's pretty obvious you missed her point there.
I don't like her article either, but it's pretty obvious you missed her point there.
02-01-04, 11:14 AM
#14
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What the hell is wrong with you people?
See the above post by jaeufraser and then learn to read. She isn't asking for another form of special effect to be used, she wants less Oliphaunt period.
See the above post by jaeufraser and then learn to read. She isn't asking for another form of special effect to be used, she wants less Oliphaunt period.
02-01-04, 03:37 PM
#15
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by TCG
why do film critics have such a nostalgic love for old fashioned sfx?
why do film critics have such a nostalgic love for old fashioned sfx?
Dig back through the archives to any successful and well made sfx movie (Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Star Trek IV). They were panned just as hard as movies are today for relying on special effects. Now we're supposed to do a 180 and think those movies are better because they had rubber suits instead of CGI monsters?
Granted, those are all great movies, but so are movies like the LOTR trilogy, and LOTR looks even better, because they can immerse you so much deeper into that alternate world.
CGI can definitely be overused. The Matrix Reloaded and Blade II spring to mind, but any cinematic technique or trick can be overused. Movies should be judged on how they work as a whole, not how "pure" the picture on the screen is.
02-01-04, 03:38 PM
#16
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Pants
She isn't asking for another form of special effect to be used, she wants less Oliphaunt period.
She isn't asking for another form of special effect to be used, she wants less Oliphaunt period.
02-01-04, 03:56 PM
#17
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jason
Maybe she should go watch "Cold Mountain" again. I think there's only one oliphant in that.
Maybe she should go watch "Cold Mountain" again. I think there's only one oliphant in that.
02-01-04, 04:19 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Pants
What the hell is wrong with you people?
See the above post by jaeufraser and then learn to read. She isn't asking for another form of special effect to be used, she wants less Oliphaunt period.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
See the above post by jaeufraser and then learn to read. She isn't asking for another form of special effect to be used, she wants less Oliphaunt period.
02-01-04, 04:35 PM
#19
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Hobgoblin
What is wrong with showing oliphaunts? Is she a member of some "Society for the prevention of cruelty to CG Animals"?
What is wrong with showing oliphaunts? Is she a member of some "Society for the prevention of cruelty to CG Animals"?
