Father Geek here with ol' Latauro, annnnnnd some chap who goes under the name of... "Uncle Cliff". Unc sent in a review that neither Latauro or I, or many of you agree with, sooooo flame away, aim in the right direction folks. We're just the messengers, not the author. This should make for a really rousing group of talkbacks...

Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?

AICN-DOWNUNDER

Reviews are strange beasts. Though they are primarily used to incite rioting (at least, on the AICN talkbacks), they’re basically barometers we use to pre-judge a film. We get to know reviewers, we work out who we like and who we don’t. We discover their nuances. David Stratton (from the Australian TV program “The Movie Show”) will almost always give a bad review to a film with a shakey-cam, for instance. There are traits we come to expect and anticipate, and we have a general idea where our own opinions stand next to theirs.

I think it’s the reason AICN is so popular. Not solely because of the scoops; it’s the reviews, they’re a big part of it. Harry gets criticised for describing the circumstances surrounding the screening he attended, but let’s face it: it’s an important part of the viewing experience. Yet how many reviewers consider it important? Very few. But AICN is a site for film lovers, people who breathe cinema. It’s given cred to the term “Geek”.

But it’s a big point of contention. People get angry when reviewers don’t like the films that they like, and like the ones they hate. The danger of putting emotion into a review is that it can then become personal (yes, I was the one who said I hated everyone associated with the newTEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE... I may have been exaggerating... a lot). But sometimes it’s good to read the opposing opinion. Listen carefully to someone who disagrees with us. There’s a lot of love going around for RETURN OF THE KING, and very few negative reviews (if any) to be found.

What I’m leading up to is this: check out the Reviews section for someone who (statistically speaking) disagrees with you. And there’s some news in the column as well.

(Also: a shout out to Katie Maynes, who’s leaving Village Roadshow in Melbourne and moving up north to become a crocodile farmer. Okay, I may have made some of that up. Happy trails Katie, and many thanks!)

NEWS

* Investors in THE MATRIX have launched a lawsuit against Village Roadshow Limited in Victoria’s Supreme Court over “unsatisfactory returns” from the $23 million they invested in the first of the three films. Next up: a similar law suit from the viewers of the second two MATRIX films...

* DOWN AND DIRTY will begin filming at Jacob’s Well in Queensland this May. The film is about a heist that goes wrong.

* Our sincere condolences go out to the family and friends of Australian journalist Mark Worth, who passed away last week. Worth was a prolific journalist, working for “Dateline”, “Foreign Correspondent” and on Channel Four in the UK, to name but a few. Most recently, he’d returned to his filmmaking roots, writing and directing the documentary LAND OF THE MORNING STAR about Papua New Guinea, his birthplace. The documentary will premiere on the ABC, at 8:30pm on February 2nd.

AWARDS AND FESTIVALS

SANTA BARBARA FILM FESTIVAL

LOVE’S BROTHER, written and directed by Jan Sardi (scribe of the SHINE screenplay) will make its premiere here. The film stars Giovanni Ribisi and Adam Garcia.

BRITISH ACADEMY FILM AWARDS

COLD MOUNTAIN has clocked up thirteen nominations, RETURN OF THE KING only has a shameful twelve. Local (downunder) nominees include Naomi Watts, Peter Weir, John Seale, Andrew Lesnie, Russell Boyd and Wendy Stites.

BOX OFFICE

Did you know that FINDING NEMO made more money than any other film at the Australian box office in 2003? Good stuff. And here’s what made the cash this week...

Annnnd the Winners this Week are...

• 1. THE LAST SAMURAI
• 2. LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING
• 3. SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE
• 4. CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN
• 5. SPY KIDS 3-D: GAME OVER

RELEASED THIS WEEK

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu moves into new territory (or, at least, a new country), Ben Stiller constructs a film around a man going to the toilet, the Irish invade America (tell me you wouldn’t at least pay to watch them give it a shot), MOTORBIKES FUCKING ROCK!!! WOO!!! YEAH!!!, and we get a film that would have been improved if they’d *removed* the vampires and werewolves.

Here's the Newies...

• 21 GRAMS
• ALONG CAME POLLY
• IN AMERICA
• TORQUE
• UNDERWORLD

REVIEWS

This isn’t me.

In fact, I listed RETURN OF THE KING as my favourite film of 2003 and was too blown away by it to really talk about why.

Days after I posted my top ten (and bottom three) (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16716). I got an email from someone who had different opinions on the film. I have no reason for why it took me so long to post it other than I kept forgetting (I was still in holiday mode and had trouble processing anything even *vaguely* work related).

The reason I’m putting it up is that I disagree with his arguments... but I had to think hard about some of them to make sure. Our following reviewer makes some excellent points, and does so very well.

LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING Reviewed by Uncle Cliff

People seem to be entranced by this film, and I wish I was too. But trying to explain its flaws all I get is "its a fantasy movie", which I suppose means "anything goes." People dont want the romanticism of this world tainted by having to think about it. And maybe thats how it should be, but I couldnt help sitting in that cinema and thinking the worst. I couldnt turn off that analytical side of the brain you referred to. If you have a spare five minutes you may want to read my negative review of the film. It could be an interesting insight considering 99% of reviews are overwhelmingly positive. If not, dats cool. Keep the Aussie news acomin. (if you do read on, apologies in advance for getting the spelling of every character incorrect.)

In short:

Most disappointing film of the year. Weakest film of the trilogy.

In long:

I have heard Peter Jackson say in interviews that the first two films were just setting the stage for this film. Now this sounds like the usual 'this film is the best because it is the film I am promoting today' type of PR, but I also think he genuinely believed it -- which is a pity because it means that the near-pointless first half of the movie was intentionally made so stagnant. My interpretation of what he is saying is that he was right, the first two films did set the stage. They did all the hard yards, but when it came to the third film the momentum stopped dead (until we reached the big battle.) If you were to write a synopsis of the first half of ROTK it would read as such: Frodo and Sam continue their journey while the others go back and forward organising an impending battle.

There seemed to be a lot of piss-farting around where Gandalf etc were just trying to get their army up. And surprise, surprise, after it looks like the army of men will not unite against the forces of darkness one army comes to the aid of the other in their darkest hour. Nice stuff, but didn't that already happen at Helm's Deep? Not really a huge pay off considering how much time was devoted to this cause.

Still, this is a minor gripe considering the utter stupidity of the 'army of the dead, cursed men'. Is this Pirates of the fucking Caribbean? Where did these ghosts come from? I fucking hated them. Hated, despised, loathed. Sure, LOTR is a fantasy, but up until this stage it is all tangible fantasy. Orcs, Elfs, Hobbits are all believable within the context that the films/books create. They are just different races inhabiting the same world. An army full of dead, cursed men -- to me anyway -- did not fit into the context of Middle Earth that I had been sold on up until that point.

And you would have to agree that only the laziest of storytelling introduces something like this mere minutes before we see it.

SCENE 50

"Hey whats making the horses go nuts?"

"Why that would be the caves of dead, cursed men who form an unbeatable army when united by the heir to the throne in a very convenient act that cements his place as the true ruler of men."

"Oh, cool"

SCENE 51

We are introduced to said dead, cursed men.

Perhaps if their existence had been mentioned in the first two films I would not have had a problem with them, but as it was they stuck out like two very sore, stupid, convenient thumbs that just serve as an easy story-arch end for Aragorn (wow, they followed him, he *must* be the true king - after all, he has a cool old broken sword!) and also to the battle.

Also what was with the witch king? Speaking of bad build-ups: Gandalf informs us that there is a bad-assed dude out there that may stand in their way of success. He appears and is disposed of in mere minutes, pretty pitifully truth told. What sort of tosser goes around telling everyone "no man can kill me" when a simple sword to the head does the trick. Dickhead.

And while the battle was far from totally boring, it gave me a sense of 'been-there-done-that'. (including the milking of the 'body count' battle joke between Gimli and Legolas that I loved in Two Towers) The use of slo-mo and other questionable editing methods sucked me straight out of the world I was in and reminded me again, and again, that I was watching a movie (bad move in a fantasy film). Helm's deep was the shit. Perfect pacing, good sense of comradery between the characters and nice sprinkles of humour with the best action direction of all three films. In the first I complained that the battle scenes were too grandiose, big swooping pans with little detail. In Helms Deep the battle was laid out to us in gritty detail with a brilliant sense of impending doom and hopelessness countered with blind heroism. Even with the orcs present it felt like it was a historical battle, a medievil recreation.

The fight in 'King' felt like the other end of the fantasy spectrum with ghost armies and elfs skateboarding down elephant trunks. All a bit goofy really.

Legolas and Gimli had nothing to do in this film, their story should have ended at Helm's Deep. Their friendship had reached an endearing level by Two Towers end, however everything they said or did in this film felt like a re-hash of something they had already said or did in the other two. (with the exception of aforementioned elephant trunk half-pipe) And for a film called 'Return of the King' Aragorn really didn't do a fuck of a lot besides giving a few rousing "natural leader" speeches and holding a cool sword that won him the respect of some stoopid ghosts. I expected much more in his story. Instead I got an hour of a demented would-be-king who kept trying to burn his clearly alive son to death.

Funniest part of the film? Gandalf telling Faramihr that his father did love him. Uh, did you get that impression from one of his "I wish you had died instead of your brother" speeches, or was it when he made him go into a hopeless battle where death was seemingly inevitable while he slurped tomatoes and made hobbits sing? No wait, nothing says I love you like being nearly burnt alive.

The whole thing with Faramihr's dad was ridiculous to the point of hilarity. I was trying not to laugh when he took a nose dive off the mountain side. Which brings me to the needlessly melodramatic return of Liv. I have not wanted to ask for fear of being laughed at, but why is she dying? It would appear the answer is "because she is in love with a human" which really isnt an answer at all. In fact I have never understood any of the Elven stuff. Did they all leave to ride a boat to heaven? Voluntarily commit mass suicide with Gandalf and Frodo in tow? I don't know what its like in the books, but it seems the films have not wanted to explain anything about them because it may distract from their romantic mysticism. Which I can stomach fine except the Liv part. We are told her fate is tied to the ring? WHY? Because its good melodrama. And do they really expect us to believe that Aragorn helps save the world and then is more worried about getting his crown than finding out if his girlfriend lived or died? Oh look, here she is behind a sheet, better have a schmaltzy kiss. That'll rub it in Ellowyn's face.

Its hard to point a finger at anything these days and say "dude, thats gay" without the PC police jumping on you, but whats up with these hobbits? Look Im an open-minded young man who loves a good group hug with his mates as much as anyone but I am sure no two heterosexual men have ever shared as intense lingering stares as Sam and Frodo. After the first two films I was like heh, did anyone see the gay subtext there but this was no subtext. Their relationship became a parody of what it had been previously. Its called slash fiction, people, but it only works when it stays in SUBTEXT. I loved the nice lets get Sam married so people dont walk out of here thinking the hobbits are gay bit tho.

But did we have to see him get married? I know weve travelled a long way with these characters and want a proper send-off for them but jesus christ that fucking ending went on. And did they have to rub our faces in it by continually fading to black for 5 seconds after each ending so everyone thinks okay film over---wait! Theres more! The guy next to me kept hopping up, in obvious need for a piss, then having to sit back down after it faded back into yet another where are they now moment in Hobbitville. In the end he cracked it and just left after the fourth false-end. It should have done the star wars end and just finished with the crowning of Aragorn with nice cuts to the smiling faces of all the main characters. Instead we get such captivating moments as Sam getting married and a bizarre near-orgy with everyone jumping on Frodo in bed. Saucy.

So what did I like about the film, you may ask?

Gollum.

It was clear into the second film that the whole story is his. Everyone else is incidental. He has the true story-arch.

EXCEPT

As much as I loved the flashback that opened the film it was baffling that Smeagol talked like Gollum before he even got the ring. It sort of tarnished the character a bit for me that instead of being a normal hobbit that the ring corrupted and demented over time, he was already a freaky hobbit before the ring. In fact, if anything the ring made him more likeable. And it was odd that he was calling the ring my precious before even touching it. It just reeked of in case there is anyone really dumb in the audience we are just trying to illustrate that this guy and Gollum are the same person. Understood?.

Despite what you have just read there still was loads to like about the film. The visuals alone kept me captivated, for instance and there were some very good scenes mixed in there somewhere. It just felt it was a whole film of cheap emotional payoffs. I walked out of the first one thinking it was good, but not great. The extended edition changed my mind. I loved the Two Towers and couldnt wait to see the extended edition of that one. However with Return of the King I am hoping that the extended edition is actually a reduced edition. There could be a really good film in there if they chopped out the filler. I am hoping a second viewing will change my mind but I am scared it will make me dislike it further. Oh well, I know one day I will make my peace with it and be able to enjoy it on some level because, hey, its Lord of the Rings, dammit!

NEXT WEEK

- Cheech and Chong sign on to MULLING IT OVER, written by Aaron Sorkin and with a theme song by Art Garfunkel

- Microsoft approve funding for X-BOX: THE MOVIE, with Chevy Chase as the voice of the X-Box and Brad Garrett as a self-pitying controller that no one can get their hands around

- Emilio Estevez to issue press release stating he “still exists”

Peace out,

Latauro

downunder@aintitcoolmail.com