argument argue about share argue how
argue for

pros and cons   against

All TopicsArt & LiteratureFilm

Arguments for and against

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

The last in the trilogy (and only Best Picture Winner) - how does it stack up to the other two? How does it stack up?

started by JackCNewell on 12/7/09.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
For Against
As a movie it’s fine, albeit about 45 minutes too long. As an adaptation of the Tolkien book of the same name, it’s a shameful conclusion to what might have otherwise been an excellent tribute to The Lord of the Rings. One of the primary reasons for the hobbits setting out on their quest was protection of their home, the Shire. Tolkien’s book ends with the Shire scoured and turned into an industrial wasteland, its citizens brutalized and murdered. Two lessons can be gleamed from such a tragic ending. The first lesson is a warning against reckless industrialization, a seemingly prophetic warning to today’s world of climate change and globalization. The second lesson is a message that war touches every aspect of our lives; the hobbits could never return to the home the loved, regardless of how hard they fought in the war. Without such a moving capstone, the movies just stand as a technical achievement with great special effects, not an artistic achievement with fully realized story arcs and rich metaphors.

by Mr. Huge (56.99) on 12/9/09.


The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
argue   for
© 2009 13 Guys Named Ed, LLC   •   About   •   Feedback   •   Sitemap
against   argues