|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Ahh… glorious hype! There’s nothing better – except when that hype is realised and a film actually lives up to a monstrous billing. And I for one had no doubts at all that RotK would be every inch the film I dreamed it would be. Problem is, having seen it I realise that I was wrong. Okay, before I get into the meat of the review, let me first garnish it with a little perspective: 1. I absolutely loved FotR, I came out the cinema describing it as “a mother###### of film” and I found the extended edition to be substantially better. 2. TTT was better than FotR. 3. I HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOKS. Actually, this last one is the only garnish you need. As far as I can tell, whether you merely like this film (or are disappointed) versus whether you think it’s the greatest thing since [insert great film here – let’s say Shawshank] depends almost wholly on your ability to fill in the gaps in this film with your knowledge of the novels – after all, no film can be convincing unless the audience believes in what they are seeing. But this raises an interesting question; is this a film in its own right, or a adjunct to the book? Or is the book an accompaniment to the film in this final completion of a grand LotR story? I’m sure Tolkien did not write it with the film in mind and given that the film does not hold to the book’s plot, is it not right to view this trilogy of films in isolation? Is it not right to expect to be able to watch and enjoy this film without having read the books?
Approximate Word count = 1127
Approximate Pages = 4.5
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|