2000's Bracket; Round 3, Match 1- 1) LOTR:The Return of the King vs. 17)Casino Royale

[Papa Shango]

The Wrestlezone Movie Tournament, 2000's Bracket;
Round 3, Match 1

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

vs.

Casino Royale

 

[Father:_Polley]

Essentially this boils down to the fact that it's the finale of Lord of the Rings, the end of the story with all the battles and tying together of the various stories, against a Bond film. Don't get me wrong, it's a good Bond film and I love them, but it's not even a new one (Casino Royale, while not officially part of the Bond 'canon' was made previously in 1967 starring David Niven and Peter Sellers, although the exact story differs)

Now, long as ROTK is, the stunning visual effects and the fact that Gollum plays a major part, along with the fight scenes are enough in my view to take it past a grittier, darker Bond than seen previously.

Bond is always good for entertainment, but 11 Oscars suggest that LOTR is supreme

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

To me, if Lord of the Rings was one film instead of being broken up into 3, it would deserve all the credit it gets. But separately, I found the second one to be such a pain in the ass that I don't remember even half of what went on in it, and I found the second one to be boring when it should've essentially kept me on my seat the entire time. The second time I saw ROTK, I wanted to shoot myself it was so grudgingly annoying to get through.

Casino Royale to me is the best Bond film out there. ROTK didn't deserve most of the awards it won. Now, Casino Royale shouldn't win Best Picture either, but I think its far better than the third LOTR film.

Casino Royale.

 

[Papa Shango]

Casino Royale was a very good action film, and I think it successfully rebooted James Bond, making it a legitimate tentpole franchise for the first time since probably before I was born. The action is intense, and Daniel Craig's performance as a young, rough agent is powerful and successfully brings a new tone to the franchise.

And yet, the third installment of The Lord of the Rings is possibly one of the greatest epics of all time. Peter Jackson's direction and ingenuity shines as a tribute to the hard work of his idol, Stephen Spielberg, whose previous work in films such as Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and Close Encounters made it possible for Jackson to dream of bringing the popular series to life. The performances are strong, if at times a little sentimental and melodramatic. And special props to Andy Serkis, who brought the character of Gollum to life through naught but CGI and green screen technology. Jackson chooses to omit the Hobbits' trek back to the Shire, and their battle to win it back from the Orcs. Instead we get one of the longest epilogues in film history. There are times when the ending borders on laborous in its sentimentality, but other than that, I have very little to criticize about this film.

 

[Mr. TM]

I am sick and tired of people saying they will not vote for Lord Of The Rings, Return of the King because it is the last third of the series. It is the Climax of the film! you are voting for the orgasm of 50 years of story. The movie is the 4th highest grossing film of all time, people obviously preferred it to the first two. It is the icing on the cake, and is far superior to Casino Royale, which isn't even that good of a Bond movie. What it all comes down to is, who is going to care about Casino Royale in 10 years? do people care about GoldenEye, beyond the game? Tomorrow Never Dies? The World is Not Enough? No, the bond movies are seen as one massive 20+ set of similar movies that are good to watch at Easter or some other time. Return of the King will be viewed for years.

 

[Shocky]

Lord of the Rings Return of the King is the third film, but it's really a third part. I firmly believe that the Academy recognized the entire trilogy in this third film. Now I'm a big James Bond, particularly a Casino Royale fan, but in no way does it match up with the sheer 12 hour epicness that is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. In fact, I try, try not to like the LOTR movies, an the only thing that I know for sure with my attempts, I hate the boring monotone Elves, but that's about it.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I loved the first Lord of the Rings movie. The next I found absolutely meh, never understanding the appreciation around them. Casino Royale is a film I hold closely to my heart.

I was never a big Bond fan. They were a good bit of fun but that's it. Goldeneye was a great bit of fun. But Casino Royale is where it all changed. A Bond film we can find badass without feeling stupid simultaneously. What can I say? I'm a sucker for a franchise reboot.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Lord of the Rings Return of the King is the third film, but it's really a third part. I firmly believe that the Academy recognized the entire trilogy in this third film.

This tournament states that it's The Return Of The King, not the Lord Of The Rings trilogy.

Now I'm a big James Bond, particularly a Casino Royale fan, but in no way does it match up with the sheer 12 hour epicness that is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. In fact, I try, try not to like the LOTR movies, an the only thing that I know for sure with my attempts, I hate the boring monotone Elves, but that's about it.

Casino Royal doesn't match up to the whole Rings trilogy. But it's more than a match for the Return Of The King. Casino Royal is just as entertaining. But it has that crucial factor that you look for in almost every film, a beginning, a middle and an end.