if its the worst movie ever how on earth did it make 950 million worldwide, i don't mind if you hate if you good points, if you say it sucks that stupidity, saying you hate just to piss people off. Anyways my review:
It wasn't that good
joking
I HAVE MY HATS OFF TO THE KING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEOADNS SPEECH IS THE BEST PART OF THE MOVIE!!!!!!
PLEASE don't tell me you thinks it worse then glitter or gigli ????
Well, its not as Gigli or Glitter, Hell i havent even seen them.
But i find that Rotk is not GREATEST MOVIE as people think it is. its decent but too me theres some points that I didnt like.
1) The acting, the dramatic parts were funny because of the lack of good acting
2) The ending was bad, it was so drawn out.
3) The visuals, yes impressive, but it was done before in the previous Lord of the rings movies.
4) got sick of them riding horses in the scenery of the movies
And just because a movies has been seen by "950 million" people does not say anything about how good the movie is ex. Star Wars - Attack of the Clones made over 300 millon dollars and Titantic made 600 million.
dollars, but people think they blow.
Its a decent movie, but not the best.
1) I have no clue where you get that from, I thought the acting was flawless
2) I am forced to agree with you there
3)There are several different landscapes and topography, along with the fact that even if they are old, they're still breathtakingly beautiful.
4) Well that's more of a personal gripe than an actual complaint
They were barely any different landscapes, they were fields, mountains and a caynon. And they might be buetiful, but for a person who seen 2 movies before that ( 6 hours of them) its get kinda of old. People need new things.
THe horses comment is an complaint because Peter Jackson could of had cutting down the length considerably because of the horses.
Originally posted by Samas-adian
Well, its not as Gigli or Glitter, Hell i havent even seen them.
But i find that Rotk is not GREATEST MOVIE as people think it is. its decent but too me theres some points that I didnt like.
1) The acting, the dramatic parts were funny because of the lack of good acting
2) The ending was bad, it was so drawn out.
3) The visuals, yes impressive, but it was done before in the previous Lord of the rings movies.
4) got sick of them riding horses in the scenery of the moviesAnd just because a movies has been seen by "950 million" people does not say anything about how good the movie is ex. Star Wars - Attack of the Clones made over 300 millon dollars and Titantic made 600 million.
dollars, but people think they blow.
Its a decent movie, but not the best.
have you read the books? the ending was stretched to show what happened to people....after the ring was destroyed hell it weas even cut down! 😛
and about number 4....they couldnt ride anything else...the movies would have been a HAELL of a lot longer if it were on foot
3, they werent trying to top anything...just making a film
1, i thought it was good acting..especially on sean astin and ian mckellens part
Who cares if i read the books, Its a film and im judging as a film. Or i get it, because its about these books, it has special rules on how people like it or not.
- Why couldnt they just part in the end, and have Sean Austin tell what happened to everybody and show little segments (10 seconds) of people leaving. Why did it have to be 30 minutes longer.
- I think its implied that the rode a horse to get there. You know, let them get on a horse, and have them get off a horse.... WHy did you have to seem them riding it for like 2 minutes or so.
- well i understand they're making a film, But when people say that " oh that graphics and special effects made the movie great, then i can what i said.
- I agree that they are a few parts where good acting is an involved but overall, i really laughed during the "dramatic parts.'