12/26/03;
revised 6/1/04
This
is an edited version of the review I wrote of The Return of the King after
seeing it in the theater. It also
includes comments on the entire film trilogy.
The
Return of the King was an awesome experience and felt more like 2 hours than
3+. But the reviews were such screaming raves that my expectations were that no
movie could live up to them, and indeed, this one didn't. So it wasn't perfect,
but it was great. In almost every way
it is a most fitting and satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.
I
read the books about 30 years ago and came away with a deep and lasting
favorable impression, though I was puzzled and bored by the poetry and
appendices. After seeing The Fellowship of the Ring I bought the year 2000
edition of the books, which include Alan Lee's fabulous illustrations, and
started rereading. I went through the first two volumes rather slowly, but I
got completely stalled early in the third. I haven’t finished it yet
(2004). This is a great but slow-moving
story and the poetry is every bit as dull as I remembered.
Well,
the movies aren't slow, they're rich and demand to be savored through repeated
viewings. We saw The Fellowship in the theater and later on DVD, and then the
extended version on DVD, about ten times in all before The Two Towers came out.
We saw Towers in the theater (twice?) and rented it once or twice, then watched
the extended version several times, but not so many as Fellowship. I have to say that Fellowship, though it has
less action than Towers, is all around a better and more involving movie. What matters most in Fellowship is the
characters and the mostly human-sized problems, at least until the awesome
experience of the Mines of Moria. Even
after Moria, Boromir keeps the story focused on human problems. In Towers it’s all about the war and
Gollum. Gollum tends to keep the story
human (if I can use that term here), but on repeat viewings one tends to wait,
sometimes impatiently, through the scenes with Gollum, Faramir, Eowyn, and
Arwen to get back to the never stale, ever-fascinating, war. Regarding Faramir, the extended version of
Towers adds considerably to his role and his appeal.
Now
for The Return of the King. It has all the same strengths and many of the flaws
of the first two entries. The strengths I see as the absolute highest quality,
even brilliant, casting, acting, sets, props, sound, music, editing, lighting,
design, cinematography, and, above all, special effects. The special effects in
particular take center stage in Towers, what with the Ents, the large-scale
armies and battles, and Gollum; and this is even more true of King. This is movie making on a mighty scale,
standing above lesser efforts the way De Mille’s Ten Commandments did back in
the ‘50s.
The
flaws I see in King involve the script and the direction. The melodramatic and
phony “death” scenes of Towers have been much lamented, but I am equally or
more annoyed by the less commented-on "saves" such as: the
bed-stabbing scene in the Prancing Pony (in Fellowship), Pippin under the
horse's hooves, Merry about to be stabbed before Treebeard intervenes, Frodo
about to stab Sam, Gimli about to become Warg tidbit (all in Two Towers)...
repeat endlessly. This is standard Hollywood movie making, and so probably
doesn’t bother most viewers, but Jackson didn't need to try to trick us with
this phony tension. He didn't really
believe in the story's power to hold our interest, apparently. Fortunately, King has less of this nonsense.
However,
there are also the disturbing visual echoes of cultural icons. I have first in mind the arrival of Gandalf
at the battle of Helm’s Deep. I cannot
watch that scene without thinking of the TV Lone Ranger on his rearing
horse. Then, most of the bad guys seem
to have adopted the deep, harsh voices
of the World Wrestling Federation.
Finally, the most troubling echo is the death of the Witch King, a
climactic moment in the battle of Minas Tirith. Can anyone watch this death without hearing in his mind the last
words of the Wicked Witch of the West?
Again
in King, there is a completely unnecessary and unconvincing subplot of conflict
between Sam and Gollum for the trust of Frodo.
It would be nice if the extended version adds a bit to this and strongly
suggests that the only reason Frodo is persuaded to trust Gollum is because
Sauron’s Ring has clouded his judgment.
Otherwise one is simply baffled and disappointed that Frodo can be so
easily fooled.
Also
troubling for me was the lack of chemistry between Aragorn and Arwen, as well
as what I see as weak acting by near-top-billed Liv Tyler. Must she whisper
EVERY line, even in her “angry” confrontation with Elrond? Also, I HATE SLOW-MO
in general, and there’s a lot of it in this movie. And for my final carp, the
last twenty minutes of King was slack and felt tacked-on; I hope and expect
that the extended edition will flesh out this dénouement, making it more
interesting in its own right, and thus make a more satisfying and worthy
conclusion to the trilogy.
But
these are mostly forgivable quibbles and I would forgive much worse for the
pleasure of experiencing such utterly fabulous, incomparable riches like the
journey through the Mines of Moria, the Balrog, the attack on Isengard, the
battle of Helm's Deep, Gollum, Shelob, the attack on Minas Tirith, the best
volcanic eruption ever, and eye of Sauron, which is a palpable and intimidating
presence in King. This is what fantasy is all about. If the human story suffers
in such a background, that's a minor matter, because this trilogy is a
fantastic cinematic experience surpassing everything before it, a ratcheting-up
of the level of creation and expectation in a way that I can only compare to
the original release of Star Wars. Fantasy movies have grown up.
I've
never seen better special effects. The ents, trolls, oliphaunts, Shelob, and
the flying Nazgul have an awesome, thundering solidity, the Balrog radiates
heat from the screen, and the charge of the Rohirrim at Minas Tirith is just
incredibly real on the big screen. Helm’s Deep, and especially Minas Tirith,
are richly detailed. I even like the
much-disparaged encounter between Legolas and the oliphaunt. I could go on for hours just about the
incomparable assault on Minas Tirith.
But I won't.
Aside
from the sheer spectacle one savors the impressive characters and standout
performances: Viggo Mortensen as
Aragorn, Sean Bean as Boromir, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, the Frodo and Sam
of Elijah Wood and Sean Astin, and above all, Ian McKellen as Gandalf. Peter Jackson deserves a lot of credit
simply by bringing out such excellent and admirable performances by his
actors. In the huge casts of the three
movies, one is hard pressed to find a weakness.
I
can't say how it would be to watch these movies without knowing the story ahead
of time. I'd guess it's about like reading an unfamiliar Shakespeare play: you
mostly come away only with general impressions and perhaps a bit of boredom.
Jackson essentially made these movies for those who already love The Lord of
the Rings and are familiar with the vast story. I'm awfully glad he did.