Return of the King does Deserve #4 status

Rating: 10/10 (22 June 2005)

In an era when filmmakers of mediocre ability can get financing to do grunge slash thrillers or sex-pie college comedies of Farrelly-manque nonsense, this poll serves to illustrate the gratitude of fans everywhere at being served such a luscious 9 course meal of a film. Or 3 of them. At the Director's own insistence, the writing, the production, the editing, the art design, the sound planning, the actors/characters, the costumes, the music, the effects. Everything was delivered until the limits almost gave.
None of these and ALL of them are the stars.
To say this vote reflects only appreciation of the special effects is to disingenuously shoulder aside the leadership and dedication and commitment from ALL teams required to produce not just one but all three films to such incredible standards of consistency to the books, while pleasing worldwide fans, and new audiences, as well as all ages.
Schindler's List was not Spielberg's story by authorship any more than Tolkien's was Jackson's, both borrowed a cultural event, one historical, one literary, story to exploit on the big screen using the appropriate talent. That's what filmmakers do. And if they're smart, they get the right material. I don't think Spielberg could have delivered LOTR. But I have a funny feeling PJ might have come close to SL. Both proved their genius by traveling outside their closest strength positions and moved to new arenas. Both borrowed from past projects and knowledge of film to create the dramatic impacts they engineered in those films.You cannot say because one was historically based then it was by that ilk superior.
Schindler's List may be the most sociologically impactful movie ever made, but it was not the best. There was exploitation, and the Nazi's character was colored fancifully, and Schindler was not the spitting image of Liam Neesam, etc etc. You can read history without the women prostituting themselves and children lying in outhouse filth. Spielberg made the same kinds of decisions making that movie Jackson did making rings, but each used "special effects" of a different kind. Did Naziism happen in black and white?
That anyone would seek to disprove Rings popularity by citing the more proximate (and non-disputed) sociological consciousness raised by SL is gaging on the wrong scale. I would not pay to see SL again, once as enough. But I've paid a dozen times (X3)and for the extended DVD's to relive Tolkien's world, because like those characters "I believe there's something good in this world worth fighting for". And Jackson's world gives me and others a place to go to encourage us. The films are about Hope.
Wasn't THAT the message from Schindler as well?