Okay, my comments on “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King,” are below. Spoilers are contained…although, y’know, like you haven’t seen it or read the book yet.
And I apologize in advance if I misspell some of the names. I’m just too lazy to go grab the book or a cast list.
A labor of love. That’s the only way to describe the final chapter. You go into this film with expectations almost impossibly high thanks to the first two, and Jackson astoundingly succeeds them. The characterizations are richer and fuller than the first two, the “secondary” characters step up to the plate and repeatedly knock the ball out of the park, and you’re just amazed by the story you’re seeing as opposed to the special effects you’re seeing.
Watching the extended versions are extremely useful for appreciating the nuances. The extended look at the Hobbits partying lives in the Shire from the uncut “Fellowship” underscores how muted their return is by comparison. The Gimli/Legolas “Who Can Kill More?” contest is set up better in the uncut “Two Towers” and thus pays off better with the continuation of it in “Return.”
Is the film perfect? No. What film is? (Okay, “Casablanca,” but other than that.) Arwen is dying because Sauron is getting stronger? Say what? What, did we need *another* ticking clock? No, we needed an excuse to have Arwen nowhere near the battle so Aragorn wouldn’t have his focus split (and so it wouldn’t detract from Eowyn.) But this was a clunky way to do it, especially considering all the other elves, from her father to Legolas, seemed just fine, thanks for asking. Why not just have it be that Arwen was transporting the sword to Aragorn and she’s badly wounded on the way, and then she’s off healing? Just imagine the scene between her and Eowyn as the sword maiden sizes up the wounded Elf chick as the one who came between her and Aragorn?
Then, of course, there’s the much-discussed five endings. In the first two films, every time it came to a decision between what best served the movie as opposed to absolutely fealty to the books, Jackson chose the former. Had he done that here, the movie ends with the crowning of Aragorn and everybody bowing to the Hobbits. (As opposed to the “Went to the Doctor and the Doctor said, ‘No More Hobbits Jumping on the Bed” ending which just drew guffaws because for a moment you thought Gimli and Legolas were gonna jump on too.) Instead Jackson indulged himself and the hard core devotees by sticking to Tolkien’s hundred or so pages of anti-climax. I guess he just didn’t want to deprive anyone of the famous departure of Frodo with the elves, or Sam’s quiet “I’m back” as the final words (a nod to the subtitle of the Hobbit, “There and Back Again.”) Well, y’know what? It’s his movie, he broke his ášš and beat the odds to do it, and if he wants to linger in his departure a little longer than he really should have, that’s fine. He’s earned it. All I can say is, Thank God he dropped “The Scouring of the Shire.”
Beautifully done overall. Kudos to all involved.
PAD
• 
Be assured, gay subtext to LOTR (the films and the books) has indeed occured to some folks
And hopefully these are just people that aren’t taking the subject seriously.
If they are, they’re taking things too far.
But then, nothing would compare to the garbage from those wanting The Two Towers renamed due to 9/11.
I had a group of people sitting behind me who found every little thing in the film incredibly funny, especially the serious parts. Very annoying. Still better than The Last Samurai with the thugs in front of us talking through out, the guy behind us loudly smacking his lips as he ate his popcorn and commenting on every little thing and the same 3 people that felt the need to get up and walk through our aisle every 15 minutes or so.
Didn’t movie theatres used to have ushers at one point?
We apparently watched different films, Peter. 🙂
I thought Return of the King was clearly inferior to the first two – precisely because characterization suffered so badly. The characters mostly folded to one-dimensionality, and the intriguing themes and focuses of Tolkein’s original (Sam-as-protagonist and as representative of the new age; the epic closing of an age of history) are thoroughly buried under battle scene after endless battle scene.
The loss of “The Scouring of the Shire” was a bad body-blow to the story, as it’s a prime way in which the personal and societal growth of our Hobbits is demonstrated. The ending loses a lot of its impact (and some of its meaning) by excising it.
The film overall I think suffers a lot because Jackson didn’t include more of Tolkein’s denouement. At least he included some of it – ending on the coronation ceremony would have been pretty lame, since it was one of the most poorly-written moments of the three films.
On top of that, the handling of Denethor is clumsy in the extreme and could mostly have been cut. The Arwen storyline adds little to any of the films and could have been removed entirely. Some very strange storytelling choices in there.
The film is fun, but it’s less meaty than the first two. Fellowship I think is clearly the best of the trilogy, from pretty much any standpoint. But while the first two films are adventure dramas, King is really just an action film. Which was disappointing.
We apparently watched different films, Peter. 🙂
It’s funny how 95% of people watched one film, 5% (if that) watched another. 😉
Alright, we came up with another Next Project for PJ that’s even better (in the mind’s eye, at least) than The Odyssey with Viggo, Julianne, Catherine, and Nick:
Wuthering Heights.
Katie Holmes as Katherine, Jude Law as Heathcliff, Ewan McGregor as what’s-his-name, Katherine’s husband. Girl from “Once and Again” as Kathy II, some unkown punk kid as Hareton.
Actually, I thought as Michael Rawdon did.
RoTK is a heavily layered action film-the best parts were everything that wasn’t a fight.
Meaning, I loved most of everything with Sam and Frodo (Do you remember the Shire Mister Frodo?)
Everything Arwen has been lame. A footnote in the appendix of LOTR was made into a major plot point-ugh.
Don’t get wrong here-I did like the film! I just found some things to be lacking, and don’t find it as phenomenol as everyone else.
I’m happy for you all none the same. 😉
footnote in the appendix of LOTR was made into a major plot point-ugh.
And yet, that is one of the flaws of the novel, that Arwen isn’t that much of a plot point. You find out more about the relationship by his pushing Eowyn away.
Rather odd when Arwen is much of Aragorn’s drive throughout the story and his eventually taking on the mantle of the king.
It wasn’t handled the best in the movies either, but in the end, I think using Arwen more really was necessary.
On the off-hand chance that anyone is still reading this thread, here’s a ramdom thought:
Has anyone else noticed how much Frodo/Elijah Wood looks like a hairy-footed Michael Landon (espically during that first scene where he greets gandalf in the shire)? ^_^
Just to add my ‘me too’ to the list, I also thought the third movie rocked; can’t wait for the extended DVD.
Oh, RotK was awesome. Except for Shelob. I couldn’t watch. WAY acute arachnophobia here.
I want to know if anyone else thought that one orc (you know which one) looked like Sloth from “The Goonies.” I turned to my fiance and went “Rocky Road?” every time he was onscreen. Got major laughs. 🙂
The Sloth similarity was deliberate. It was sort of an inside joke (though one that many people are obviously in on) with Astin… a shout out to his “Goonies” days.
I found this at http://www.mymac.com:
While I usually agree with my writers, or at least do not publicly challenge them, I must take exception to Chris’s last blog post about the faults of the last Lord of the Rings movie, The Return of the King.
Yes, it is long. Too long to sit in a theater. Or is it? If your viewing was anything at all like mine, the first fifteen minutes of the movie was not the movie at all, but rather one LONG running commercial for Coke, some credit card company, and other made-for-television commercials which look horrible and pixilated as heck on the big screen. Then I had to sit through five movie trailers, which are of course commercials themselves. I don’t mind the trailers, actually. Up until this, it was one of the only places to see previews of upcoming flicks. But the product commercials are getting overbearing. From this point on, if I see a product ad before a movie, I will try my best NOT to purchase that item. Advertise Coke-a-Cola before a movie? Not buying any Coke, Sprite, Diet Coke, etc… for at least a month. Credit card ad? Nope, not applying. Already have that card? Will try not to use it for at least thirty days.
The trailers are a different matter. For the most part, there are usually no more than three or four trailers. Unless, of course, it is a Disney movie, in which case they will pimp every movie they plan on making over the next five years. Disney is the biggest offender of showing trailer after trailer after trailer before one of their flicks. Especially if it is a Pixar movie, as those are about the only decent movies coming out of the Disney camp the last five years. So they ride the coattails of a great movie (Monsters, Inc, Nemo, Toy Story, etc…) to pimp out the drivel that is a Disney created movie. Disney sucks…
I digress. Return of the King, as Chris feels, was a waste of time. I could not disagree more. And here’s why.
Most movies today are either decent or really bad. In fact, very, very few movies made today would be considered excellent or a classic. The last few movies I have watched, Kill Bill, Matrix Revolutions, and Bad Santa, have all been HUGE disappointments. Kill Bill was simply one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Lame story, HORRIBLE acting, no character development, and a complete waste of money. Bad Santa had a great premise, and I actually think Billy Bob Thornton is a good actor. But this movie was bad. Really, really bad. NO characters worth liking. Plot holes you could drive a locomotive through. Crummy cinematography. Just bad, bad, bad. Bad Santa, indeed. And Matrix Revolutions… Talk about a disappointment. The first Matrix was a fun, interesting film. Groundbreaking in a lot of respects. Unique, even. But like so many sequels, it was all downhill from there. The first Matrix was a complete movie, cyber-punk done right. The second movie was boring and did nothing but setup the third movie. And Revolutions? Yawn. Sad, really.
So how does ROTK fair? Here, there are no shades of grey. You know who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. You want the good guys to win, not just because they are good, but also because you really, truly care about the characters in the film. You completely believe in the pain and suffering Frodo goes through as the bearer of the One Ring. You see the conflict in Strider, as he grapples with who he really is, and who he must become. You respect Gandalf, and know intuitively that he is the general. You also feel his goodness, and his care and concern for those around him. Sam is loyal, trustworthy, and completely steals the trilogy. And more, all three movies stand on their own, but together tell ONE tale, a tale of good vs. evil. Here are the bad guys, and you fear them. Here are the good guys, and you worry for them.
When the machines attack the human city, the audience wants the humans to win to save humanity. But the Human city of Zion never feels like a real place. We really don’t get to see that this city is a living, breathing place full of people with hopes and dreams. In ROTK, and all the LOTR films, the world is a completely real place, full of real people with hopes, fears, frailties, strengths, weaknesses, and love. And not because they live in a real-world type of setting, but because the creator of this movie, Peter Jackson, let the actors be real. The special effects in Matrix are awesome, and you marvel at all the eye candy. But you know that what you are seeing is a special effect. In LOTR, there is just as much special effects, but you completely accept them without thinking about it. (Remember, the Hobbits are NOT really that small, so every shot you see them next to a full-sized person is an effect, but you completely never think about it.) The special effects never get in the way, while movies such as Star Wars, Matrix, and Hulk spotlight the special effects and CGI work, because underneath there is nothing else.
So, is ROTK a waste of almost four hours in a theatre? Not if you appreciate great, epic filmmaking. The tale of Frodo Baggins is one worth telling. Middle Earth feels like a part of our own history we simply never knew about. The story is a simple one at its core. But it is told masterfully, reminding all who watch it why many of us fell in love with the movies in the first place. There is a place for fun, special effect films. I love those, too. I will be at the next Star Wars, SpiderMan, Hulk, Aliens Vs. Predator, and Matrix-type of movies. They are, really, a dime a dozen today. Big-budget popcorn action flick escapism in all its glory. But movies like LOTR are unique, rare, and should be applauded for what they are, and what they represent. Film-making at its finest. And personally, I cannot wait to get my hands on the five-hour extended DVD edition when it comes out. Anyone up for a weekend in front of my HDTV to watch all three LOTR extended format next summer over a weekend? Just be sure to bring a LOT of popcorn!
A strange mix of good and bad. The first three quarters of the film were fairly exciting, but after Sam rescues Frodo from the tower the film rushes forward in leaps and bounds. For example: Peter Jackson makes a point of including Frodo and Sam donning Orc armor and then a few shots later they aren’t wearing it at all. The build to get into Mordor was so long that after entering the dámņëd place, the journey to Mount Doom takes about 15 minutes. No impact and no emotion behind this, very anticlimactic. Meanwhile, the good guys decide to draw out Mordors army. Instantly every orc in Mordor is gone. Think about it, one moment, Sam and Frodo look down on the valley filled with orcs all standing between them and Mount Doom, cut to, council at minas Tirith deciding to draw out orcs to help poor Frodo out, cut back to Sam and Frodo watching every orc take off.
A little disjointed and abrupt.
Also, Sauraman? Hello? He just sank back into his tower at the end of the last film and out of the series? Very, very poor. And how did the palantir get outside? Who cares? It just was, right?
My guess is this will all be answered in the dvd release. Well, isn’t that just special, now we make films and cut crucial bits of story out so that we can sell an extra dvd per household? Saurman was built up tremendously in the first two films, if a person hasn’t read the books, won’t they may be wonder, hey, where’s that old wizard guy? Guess not.
Arwen: They cut out the one important scene she had in the book, giving Frodo the Evenstar (Aragorn never had it). They built up this love interest, why? So that in the third film she can just walk up and kiss Aragorn for a happy ending? She was built up such a badass in the first film just so we can watch her pine away in the next two? Why? From a structoral point of view, it makes no sense.
Notice that even Peter Jackson cannot tell Saraman and Sauron apart. After the victory at Minas Tirith Gandalf refers to Sauron having been the one to attack Helms Deep. Way to go continuity.
The book left a nice uncertainty to Gollums death, did he accidntly stumble off the edge, or did he just not care for his future as he had the ring and was happy to rest? The film completely removes this uncertainty what with Frodo attacking Gollum and both of them falling off.
Eowyn and Faramir? Loose threads for the dvd edition? Or just left be to be ignored? Why even have the characters if you’re not going to give us the closure. Pointless from a structural point of view. If we have to wait until the dvd, why did I just pay to see an incomplete movie. Extras are nice, but only as enhacements. Not as a neccesity for a linear, solid story.
So, I feel it was very, very flawed. But it was qquite a bit of fun. Great cinema? Not even close. Fun movie to turn your brain off to? Sure. Flawed? Yes. Very.
But when a director who publicly states that he hates any story that revolves around magic directs a film that centers around wizards and elves and a war about a magic ring, what can one expect?
Well… I’m fairly a purist, and my wife’s family are very much purists.
The best thing I can say about the movies is… Peter Jackson has an amazing visual sense. His SFX and visualizations were terrific.
I just wish he hadn’t made so very *many* changes to the story, many that were undoubtedly necessitated by the desire to keep the length under, say, 20+ hours… but many of which completely changed the characters, or made them virtually irrelevant.
And that’s something I can’t appreciate, no matter how great the battle scenes are.
This version suffers from a serious lack of characterization, a willingness to change the plot significantly to get good visuals, and in the end, it’s not a good representation of the story told in the books.
Oh, most of the characters are there, and quite a few of the events, but many of them are so different as to be almost unrecognizable except by name.
Oh: and if Disney has any hand in “A Princess of Mars” or any other Barsoom novel, I’m likely going to be sorely disappointed.
And the Heinlein book is “Time Enough for Love”.