Cal (insert last name here...) (PvtCaboose91)

"We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood."

"The world, as we know, will come to an end soon."

In his book Apocalypse Movies: End of the World Cinema, author Kim Newman noted that "The more complicated a civilization becomes, the more fun it is to imagine the whole works going up in flames". Roland Emmerich has clearly taken Newman's words to heart, as his career has been built almost exclusively on disaster films; allowing movie-goers to vicariously experience the destruction of Earth via aliens in Independence Day, an atomic-spawned monstrosity in Godzilla and an ice age in The Day After Tomorrow. Why the obliteration of our world is so enjoyable in the eyes of the movie-going public is probably best left to theologians and psychologists, but Emmerich is visibly in tune with it and knows how to exploit it. And for his latest opus, 2012, the director has considerably upped the ante by imagining a true end-of-the-world scenario packed with an incredible assortment of catastrophic destruction. The film operates under the assumption that if we enjoyed seeing isolated mayhem in other disaster flicks, movie-goers will really love witnessing widespread global destruction. Thankfully, it works - this is awesome entertainment.

2012 plays with the theory of the Mayan calendar that the world will end on December 21, 2012. But by conducting a little research on this topic, one will find that there were several other calendars devised around the time of the Mayans, yet only one contained lithographs that appear to be a warning. The only thing scientists can agree on about this calendar is that it simply ends on the feared date before it begins again from zero. There's simply no evidence to suggest the apocalypse will be brought on - doomsayers are just always looking for the next possible date for Earth's destruction (wasn't the world meant to end in the year 2000?). However the Mayan theory is hardly mentioned in this film - it's just a selling point, as well as an excuse for the end of the world to be brought on. From there, the filmmakers have devised a few stabs at hard science that seem convincing on the surface but probably wouldn't pass muster in a high school science course. But all this justification is just smoke and mirrors, because the money is instead in the grandiosity of the disaster.

Speaking from a narrative perspective, 2012 adheres closely to the '70s-era Irwin Allen-style of disaster movies in which a broad array of characters are brought together because of a disaster. The representative Everyman here is divorced, fledging novelist Jackson Curtis, whose ex-wife Kate (Peet) is dating successful plastic surgeon Gordon (McCarthy). Jackson's kids even prefer Gordon over him (notice the clichés so far). As for the earnest professional who discovers the impending destruction of Earth, there's government geologist Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor). The science behind this apocalypse is simple: the Earth begins to heat up from within due to being pelted with intensifying radioactive particles from the sun, causing the planet's crust to break apart and shift. Cue the rollicking silliness. This includes plenty of conventional scenarios that have played out in films since 1980: the eleventh-hour miscalculation that results in the timer speeding up for the impending disaster, the noble daughter who outlives her father, the divorcee who falls back in love, and the character with two days of pilot training who is perfectly able to repeatedly fly everyone to safety.

Too many simultaneous plotlines have always been a key weakness of disaster movies, and 2012 is no different. At about 150 minutes, the length of this movie is indefensible. The script is an appalling concoction of cheesy expository dialogue, painful chunks of ham-fisted character development and blatant contrivances designed solely to bring the characters together and advance the plot. Adding insult to injury, the action doesn't start until about 45 minutes of the runtime have passed! Over-explaining the ludicrous science unfortunately results in both sheer boredom and a chance for the audience to mentally dissect the holes in the theory. Since this is meant to be a big Hollywood disaster movie, it's a considerable problem that it takes so long for the action to start. As a side note, the concept of destroying the world is a non-starter from a dramatic perspective. After all, if the story sticks to its guns and the planet is destroyed, it would end on a depressing note that denies viewers the climactic catharsis they'd be expecting. And if the film concludes on a happy note, the whole thing feels as if it was crafted by a studio system willing to sacrifice the integrity of the premise. Alas, the film ends with a tacked-on, embarrassingly saccharine-coated Hollywood ending.

Of course, the average movie-goer doesn't care about the characters or the script, which is good since both are flimsy in the case of 2012. The driving motivation for anyone to see this movie is the mayhem... And boy does Emmerich get that aspect right. As a film which delivers epic destruction, 2012 is unparalleled. Absolutely everything one could want in a disaster epic can be found in this film. Everything. There are earthquakes, volcanos, collapsing skyscrapers, tsunamis, capsized ocean liners, plain crashes, and more. Normal disaster movies kill thousands, while 2012 kills billions without breaking a sweat. The money shots are impeccably sold by the special effects crew who deliver vast images of doom with remarkable detail - the CGI is amazingly close to photorealism. There's some truly multiplex-rocking action to behold within this flick, such as the jaw-droppingly orchestrated and utterly gripping "California is going down" sequence. Reports of the budget for this film range from $200 million to $260 million, and no money went to waste. While plenty of action and a weak human element is a basis to hopelessly hate a movie, Emmerich has an advantage over films like the latest Transformers - he's a good filmmaker. Emmerich has sound knowledge of how to construct breathtaking imagery and action without resorting to a dozen camera edits in a matter of seconds or distracting shaky-cam. He allows his audience to actually watch the mayhem rather than opting for cinematic techniques that induce headaches.

The disaster sequences, while nail-biting, are also preposterous and far too Hollywood. As the destruction commences, Jackson and his family manage to outrace it all without a single hiccup. Later, the concept of outrunning a fireball is reduced to the level of a nursery school feat. The Hollywood-style split-second precision grows irritating rather quickly, with planes taking off at the exact moment the ground gives way. And when the protagonists arrive in Vegas, networks are still broadcasting on television...are the power grids unaffected by the chaos? More stupidity arises when the government commissions the construction of massive arks to save what is left of the human population: these structures are built extremely close to each other, so guess what will happen when all the flood waters rush in at extreme velocity? On top of all this nonsense, there's improbable cell phone reception, an awful Arnold Schwarzenegger vocal imitator, and surveillance cameras with unlikely range.

Is there any reason to care about the characters? Absolutely not - they are caricatures saddled with threadbare motivation and bad dialogue. The cast is more formidable than one might expect from a glorified B-movie, but the acting is still pretty below-par. Thus, 2012 only works when it immerses viewers in the epic action set-pieces rather than trying to develop characters or dole out exposition. It's a highly enjoyable, paint-by-numbers disaster movie which contains some absolutely breathtaking popcorn moments.

"The battle of Helm's Deep is over; the battle for Middle Earth is about to begin..."

Through my eyes, Peter Jackson's much-anticipated and much-glorified The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the paradigmatic example of a perfect movie. The cinematic journey that initiated on Boxing Day 2001 and quickly received worldwide acclaim ultimately came to a conclusion with this final instalment. Personally, my passion for the Lord of the Rings trilogy never ceased and to this day I continue to view them frequently.

Just like its two precursors, The Return of the King was met with a congregation of positive reviews and of course recognition from the Oscar committee. I was ecstatic during the Oscar season at the beginning of 2004 when I discovered that the film was recognised with 11 Oscar nominations. Needless to say, I was even more ecstatic when Peter Jackson and his crew walked away with all 11 in their possession. The Return of the King won literally hundreds of awards worldwide and above all it accomplished a Box Office landmark: breaking the $1 billion milestone and becoming just the second film in history to do so. With this film walking away after sweeping the Oscars and sitting at a convincing second on the worldwide box office (as of mid-2008), this is indeed a rare event when it comes to a film offering of the fantasy genre. The technical proficiency is purely the finest that money can buy. Jackson's team at WETA workshop single-handedly created and rendered all special effects shots using software they had designed themselves.

This is by far the longest instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy; however it never feels too long. While many will complain (endlessly complain) about the length, I see the film in a completely different light. The way I see it the length is necessary to maintain a sense of fidelity to the novel and to successfully wrap everything up. If anything, I hate it when filmmakers rush things and end up with a missed opportunity on their hands. Peter Jackson had a modest budget and some astronomically amazing special effects on his side, so the work in every other department had to be top notch. Jackson's supreme gift is that of total immersion; the breathtaking lands of Middle Earth remain vibrantly alive. The film's pace may be reasonably slow for some, but the beauty soars with opulent layers of architecture, geography and complex storytelling.

Just like both entries thus far in the trilogy, The Return of the King reinvents the word "epic" completely. Many of the battles throughout the film display rich texture, and awe-inspiring showcases of visual effects. The action is emphatically extravagant and brought to life on an exorbitantly impressive scale! But what separates this from most fantasy epics is the heart at its core. Whenever there's a battle, you'll always find a satisfying serving of emotionally-charged moments featuring intimate scenes with the central protagonists. This coupling of visceral special effects and moving moments that display deep camaraderie is absolutely spellbinding!

This third and final instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy starts off almost exactly where The Two Towers ended. One must remember that all three of Tolkien's novels were written to plainly be one enormous piece of literature, and it was his publisher that insisted the novel should be split up the three shorter, more convenient components. In essence, all three additions to the cinematic Lord of the Rings trilogy can be edited together and the transitions would be seamless. The films are identical to the situation with Tolkien's novels: one big chunk of storytelling that's separated into three parts. You can never watch The Return of the King without first watching the initial two parts as this was never meant to be a standalone movie.

The first section of the plot here is concerned with Frodo (Wood), Sam (Astin) and the creature Gollum (a digital character played by Andy Serkis). As they move closer to the dark lands of Mordor, towards the fire of Mount Doom where the One Ring must be destroyed, the ring is becoming a heavier burden for the troubled young Frodo. As the quest perseveres, Frodo is becoming severely tested. Faith has been placed in Gollum to lead the Hobbits to Mount Doom despite the constant mistrust that Sam holds for the former Hobbit. On the outside this seems like a simple physically straining journey, but it's also an emotionally tiring journey on the inside for the three companions. While this story unfolds, the focus also alters to the remainder of the original fellowship. Sauron's eye has shifted to the city of Minas Tirith, the capital of Gondor, as the next target for his rampaging army. The fall of Gondor will mean the end of Men and the completion of his objective to clean Middle Earth of the species. A portion of the original fellowship, along with a horde of newer characters, move to the city of Minas Tirith to help build up defence for the impending attack and possible destruction of the White City. We find Aragorn (Mortensen), Legolas (Bloom) and Gimli (Rhys-Davis) through their more diverse journey into the cursed mountains to summon the legendary Army of the Dead.

This brief synopsis barely breaks the surface of this grandiose, all-round extremely satisfying epic film.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is an unprecedented milestone of contemporary moviemaking. If The Two Towers raised the bar with its epic battles, then The Return of the King knocks the bar cleanly out of the ground! This is so much more than just a simple fantasy epic, in fact this is multi-faceted tale about the strength of character, friendship, loyalty and love. Each shot is sizzling with visual elegance...the special effects are nothing short of breathtaking! Every battle is truly monumental in its sheer scale, as well as exciting and intense. Previously, I briefly touched on the emotionally-straining moments that this film has to offer. The cast pull off these moments beautifully and I was extremely close to tears more than once during the movie. There are several truly moving moments that still give me goose bumps at the simple thought of them. These moments are fuelled by not only the motivating performances, but the score courtesy of composer Howard Shore. The composer was recognised with an Oscar and I plainly cannot quibble with this decision. The music retains the elegance of the visuals, and even makes the epic battles look even grander.

There are only a few new additions to the cast that are introduced here, the most notable being Australian actor John Noble as Denethor who rules Minas Tirith with an iron fist. The Oscar committee barely gave any recognition to the actors (only awarding Ian McKellen with a nomination for Fellowship). I guess with so many people in the cast it'd be impossible to choose one or two for a nomination. Andy Serkis is one member of the cast that deserves particular credit. He's hidden behind digital make-up, but each line he delivers is potent and really hits home. The acting from Elijah Wood is truly a triumph to behold. His performance required a great degree of emotion to portray the ring's power to corrupt. His performance was critical in order to display the ring's influence, which needless to say is absolute. Each character has their own personal demon to confront, and each undergoes their own inner journey. Every cast member does their job stunningly.

The Return of the King has of course been filmed in Peter Jackson's homeland of New Zealand. The Kiwi landscape is vast and beautiful. Whenever one views the film we're taking a step inside the gorgeous land of Middle Earth. Peter Jackson is a visionary, and like all the preceding films the attention and care to every conceivable detail is incredible.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a build up with an even share of action and exposition. The Two Towers is more exposition and build up followed by some action. With The Return of the King, the build up is definitely worth it...every second. The exposition has already been established in the other films, so this film is short on exposition and instead stocks a great supply of action scenes that are truly a cinematic marvel. The battles are lengthy but never suffer from over-length...each second is as intense as the one preceding it. Then the conclusion to the film is wholly satisfying. Some people complain about "too many endings". Okay, so there were many instances when the film could have ended but instead moved onto something else. Fair enough, but I mean this trilogy has already gone for like 9 hours...they can't wrap everything up in a hurry and leave plot holes or stories that haven't been concluded. Instead of rushing everything, each second is lovingly created in all aspects: filming, editing, colour scheme, special effects, acting, scripting, etc. The best part is that this end remains faithful to Tolkien's original novel. Thus the fans needn't worry...for the novel has been properly transferred to the medium of film.

There are far too many pointless and vain arguments between the haters and the lovers of the trilogy. The bottom line is that we're all entitled to our own opinion, and we can't all agree. Thus labelling Peter Jackson's masterpiece as "overrated" only proves that you are too narrow-minded to accept the fact that you are just a component of the minority that disagrees with the majority.

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the crowning achievement of the fantasy genre. In terms of a conventional fantasy with wizards, magic and mythical creatures, this is as good as a fantasy film can get! Since 2003 this film has been my favourite of all time. In the number of years since the first time I saw it, I have never seen a film that can top the quality and escapism of this masterpiece. All three Lord of the Rings films score top marks from me, which is a rarity when it comes to a trilogy or series. All three films are truly an unfathomably excellent work of art. J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy that was preserved on pages is now preserved on film for the audiences of the contemporary age. The Return of the King is one of the most finely tuned and cinematically perfect films ever made. Winner of 11 Oscars including Best Picture 2003, Best Director, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, Best Score among others. Also available in an extended edition that adds 50 minutes to the experience.

In the common tongue it reads "One Ring to Rule Them All. One Ring to Find Them. One Ring to Bring Them All and In The Darkness Bind Them."

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring marks the first ambitious film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's highly praised and acclaimed series of fantasy novels. Naturally, transferring one of the world's greatest fantasy novels to the screen would subsist as a daunting undertaking. For the die-hard fans of Tolkien's legendary novels, uncertainty was always an issue when small-time New Zealand born director Peter Jackson took the reigns. Although Jackson is an accomplished director who had previously helmed such films as Heavenly Creatures and Bad Taste, no-one knew for sure if the Kiwi was up to the task. The results are absolutely outstanding: a ripping yarn of a fantasy film rich in extraordinary production values, astounding special effects and never a dull moment.

The hordes of Tolkien fans must have breathed a collective sigh of relief when Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring thundered across cinemas worldwide and became an instant hit. The film grossed millions of dollars globally and was being met with cavalcades of acclaim including mountains of positive reviews. What's more - the film also scored 13 Oscar nominations and subsequently walked away with 4 wins. Although previous stabs at adapting Tolkien's novels to the big screen yielded embarrassing results, Jackson's prior experience and familiarity with the fantasy genre translated into a respectful, lavish, gorgeously-mounted production that breathed fresh cinematic life into Middle Earth.

This first instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy introduces the characters and establishes the story. An ancient ring of power was forged several centuries ago by the Dark Lord Sauron (Baker). Sauron's master ring, known as the One Ring, was filled with Sauron's sinister power and contains the capability to rule all peoples of Middle Earth. After an impressive opening montage that recaps the integral events of Middle Earth that have occurred thousands of years ago, the story then picks up at Hobbiton: a village that is largely inhabited by the Hobbit race.

After being lost for centuries, Sauron's One Ring is picked up by a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Holm). Fast forward a few decades and it's Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday. As the celebrations rage on, Bilbo should be happy but feels empty as his life is seemingly winding down and there are still a lot of things he wants to do before shuffling off. Bilbo departs Hobbiton, leaving the One Ring to be inherited by his nephew Frodo Baggins (Wood). Frodo soon learns that this ring is Sauron's master ring, and it must be immediately destroyed. Now Frodo must embark on a journey to the fires of Mount Doom. Only in the flames of that mountain can the ring be destroyed. If he fails and a resurrected Sauron reclaims the ring, he will bind the other 9 subservient rings to his will and cast a pall over the lands of Middle Earth.

The film's subtitle, The Fellowship of the Ring, is drawn from the milestone in Frodo's journey to Mount Doom that occurs: Frodo collects a band of companions who swear to aid in the quest and protect Frodo at all costs.

The film's easy-going first hour quickly transforms into a heart-stopping, exciting, powerful and violent saga that is truly difficult to find boring. Although audience reactions were mixed and many complained about the film's length, I frankly cannot imagine myself being bored.

To say that I loved this film is a gross understatement. Not only is Tolkien's novel one of the greatest books ever published, but Jackson's film adaptation now confidently places itself amongst the greatest movies of all time. This first instalment in Jackson's trilogy is a labour of love - he and his team were determined and worked endlessly to accomplish the best possible product. Jackson's first LOTR film is visually astounding, as well being outstanding in terms of audio and atmosphere.

While so many battles were created using computer technology, this is the blueprint of "epic". Over the years we've seen "big" films like Titanic and Braveheart, but this film simply dwarfs most movies in terms of sheer production size. Every facet of the movie has been done to perfection - every chair, every sword, every location. Why has it taken so many decades to finally get this ambitious project off the ground? Simply because the sheer scope and size of the production would cost far too much. Even in the age of advanced digital technology and big-budget epics, it took countless years to finish. It's refreshing to see so much determination to reach perfection. The descriptions of everything in Tolkien's novel are brilliantly matched by the ideal creative team.

Pale imitations like Harry Potter are a regularity. In the years succeeding this film's release the world was exposed to failed fantasy epics like Eragon, just to name one. The brilliance of Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy will always remain unmatched. To quote a music reviewer, this film is the "blueprint for a trillion inferior facsimiles." With the aid of contemporary filmmaking technology and the diverse New Zealand landscape, the visual result is simply impossible to match.

Special recognition must go to Howard Shore for composing the music that won an Oscar! I own the soundtrack CD and can't get enough of the music. It's exciting, intense, grand, passionate and even heart-breaking at times. This is the cherry on top.

The film is astronomically elevated by the marvellous cast. Elijah Wood makes an exceptional Frodo Baggins. This is an emotionally challenging role for the youthful actor, and nevertheless he nails it perfectly. Sean Astin plays the exigent role of Samwise Gamgee. The role called for an endless assortment of diverse emotions that Astin strikes faultlessly. Ian McKellen is utterly flawless as Gandalf the Grey. McKellen was acknowledged with an Oscar nomination for playing Gandalf with equal parts of underhanded humour and shrewdness. McKellen IS Gandalf and there is no doubt about that. Viggo Mortenson convincingly pulls off the dashing Aragorn: a ranger who becomes determined to help Frodo. Credit must also go to Sean Bean. I am a great admirer of Bean, and must mention his outstanding performance. His versatility is tested with this challenging role: like many other additions to the cast, a collection of emotions are pivotal. Bean passionately pulls off the role of Boromir.

I'm not even halfway through mentioning the cast! Orlando Bloom got his big break playing the loyal elf Legolas. This is the single role that Bloom was meant to play. The character is flat and emotionless...and this describes the nature of every single Orlando Bloom performance. John Rhys-Davis is sublime as the dwarf Gimli. This is one of the veteran actors included in the cast. I couldn't imagine anyone better suited. Finally there are great portrayals from Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan as two Hobbit companions, in addition to sublime elf portrayals from such actors as Hugo Weaving and Liv Tyler. The cast is truly a wonder to behold!

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring will forever be one of my absolute favourite movies! I still recall the first time I saw this movie: it was Boxing Day 2001 and my favourite uncle dragged me along to the cinema with my brother and cousin. We had booked tickets in advance and it's a good thing we did as there was a sign outside that strictly read "LOTR sold out!" Ever since that first screening I viewed, I subsequently saw it many more times at the cinema (about 5 more times, actually) as well as watching it at marathons and in the comfort of my own bedroom where I can watch the DVD.

Peter Jackson and his creative team have achieved a cinematic marvel! Even with characters and segments of the book being removed, this will remain the definitive cinematic vision of Tolkien's novel for many decades to come. One of the most anticipated cinematic events in history has finally transpired and in my opinion it is completely worth the wait! Some will love it, some will hate it: I will always be part of the former. Critics and audiences alike will always praise this film, and who's to quibble? It's a fine movie! Winner of 4 Oscars. Later released in an extended version.