The Return Of The King

[bix171]

In this final, extremely satisfying installment of “The Lord Of The Rings” trilogy, Peter Jackson confirms himself as the Cecil B. DeMille of our time, a master purveyor of entertainment and showmanship with superior storytelling skills. Jackson throughout has set out to make his own movies and not become a slave to J.R.R. Tolkien’s books (awful as they are—this reviewer could not make it through the last one) and this episode particularly benefits from his cinematic vision and the refitting by the writers (who, in addition to Jackson, include Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens) of major plot points and the deepening of the character motivation so sorely lacking in Tolkien’s prose; there’s a lot of emotion on display and it’s frequently overwhelming. Jackson gives the audience what it wants and gives himself the pleasure of having created a work of art that is deeply personal as well, embodying, as it does, notions of chivalry and honor that go all the way back to “Heavenly Creatures”. In order to bring the massive story to closure, Jackson is forced to concentrate more on plot and battle (the film’s centerpiece, the oversized battle at Pelennor Fields, is enthralling, with plenty of swaggering action drawn from the Warner Bros. swashbucklers of the thirties) and have his cast shoulder the responsibility of maintaining interest in the characters—but fortunately everyone is up to the challenge, with Sean Astin (as Sam, for whom the story is ultimately about) and Elijah Wood (as Frodo, sensitively handling the supporting role to which he has been relegated) being the moral centers. Jackson and production designer Grant Major, for the finale, have combined the best design schemes of the previous two films, the warm, colorful textures of the “The Fellowship Of The Ring” with the rocky monochromatic landscapes of “The Two Towers” and the result is a breathtaking, moving cinematic experience that delivers the trilogy into movie legend; the fact that it’s now over means that audiences will feel an acute loss at Christmastime from hereon in.

[tabuno]

I couldn't give my complete 100% support to Return of the King as a perfect film for three weaknesses that bothered me.

1) Gollum eventually was turned into a stereotypical character by the end of his screen time instead of the brilliant schizophrenic interplay in The Two Towers.

2) The elven princess giving up immortality didn't seem to get adequate screen time considering the significance of her decision.

3) The interplay between Sam and Frodo, particularly Frodo didn't seem to be intense enough with the pull of evil and it appeared rightly or wrongly that it all came down to fate, luck, instead of any real integrity on the part of Frodo.

[bix171]

3) The interplay between Sam and Frodo, particularly Frodo didn't seem to be intense enough with the pull of evil and it appeared rightly or wrongly that it all came down to fate, luck, instead of any real integrity on the part of Frodo. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have always felt, while reading the first two books, that the whole thing--everything--was a simple case of pre-determination. There was no tension because Tolkien decided everything in advance. It's all fated, good versus evil, good winning. But I will say (SPOILER FORTHCOMING) that when Gollum shot out at Frodo in Mt. Doom that I was taken by surprise; in fact, the whole Mt. Doom scene (especially with Frodo's sneer when he decided against dropping the ring) had me on the edge of my seat.

Good thing I never finished the book. Jackson is a much better storyteller than Tolkien.

[anduril]

Originally posted by bix171
Good thing I never finished the book. Jackson is a much better storyteller than Tolkien.

I'm sorry... heresy, I tell you, heresy... Jackson's story is soooo full of cliched Hollywood "reversals"... how you could ever imagine him to have improved on Tolkien is beyond my comprehension...

Moreover, Frodo's decision not to drop the ring in Mt. Doom is in the book... so is the fight with Gollum and Gollum biting off Frodo's finger to get the ring back...

[Johann]

I've never read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I don't know if I ever will. Should I? Didn't the world get the gist with Peter Jackson's trilogy?

In each film I remember one part that sticks out. In Fellowship, I can't ever forget Gandalf shouting "You shall not pass!!!". In The Two Towers, it's the amazing battle sequence at "Helm's Deep"-awesome. Return of the King's truly scary giant spider attack scene is the third. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

I wanted these movies to suck so bad....I remember being at Anduril's house watching the trailer for Fellowship on the net and snidely commenting that it looked phony and retarded. (Those slo-mo shots of "the fellowship" walking over mountainous terrain, announcing their presence seemed lame). Anduril was more pumped up than a horny rooster. I was hating the hype. I consequently avoided the movie for 2 months.

With nothing else to see one day (and wanting my suspicions confirmed) I saw a matinee screening. My blood THC levels were off the charts and I had a joyous time at the theatre.

Knocked out by the sheer entertainment of it, I came out of the theatre feeling like an idiot for thinking the movie would suck. It was GREAT. I have to say that "The Fellowship" is my fave of the three. Gollum was conspicuously absent, and I'm a little tired of seeing him. Despite the long running times I was never bored. I also like the fact that it seemed like an earthy Excalibur, one of my all-time favorite movies. Nicol Williamson's Merlin could be buddies with Gandalf.

I admit I had trouble following all of the characters. I grasped "The Fellowship" alright (Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry & Pippin) but I don't really know what's the deal with Arwen, Eowyn, Denethor, Theoden or Saruman. Somebody help!
I know Frodo and Sam are trekking to Mordor to ditch the ring. Duh. I know Gollum is a former Hobbit who went bonkers.
I know the Orcs are at war with everybody because of Sauron.
What I don't know is exactly how all of the characters know their precise missions. Is the ring really capable of altering the destinies of men, women, kings, hobbits, wizards, elves, dwarves, orcs, spiders and trees? Seems so. No doubt about it- Lord of the Rings is fantasy thru and thru. No plausibility whatsoever. At least Jackson allocates time for the viewer to get a reasonable handle on everything. Each character has a big scene where you realize what they stand for. Even if I require many more viewings to grasp the "big picture", I have a safe and secure feeling that the filmmaker left no stone unturned. However I do agree with Kim Newman of Sight and Sound, who talked about the movie having "the air of a soap opera playing Dungeons & Dragons". Lots 'o fantasy to feast your peepers on...

If I were to be the movie snob I can be, I would say that the series is good, not worthy of oscars, succeeeds at what it does but can't be considered anything more than chum for geeks and freaks with no lives.

But that wouldn't be fair. It's a hell of an achievement. And while I prefer the work of Kubrick, Fellini & Polanski, Jackson has made history. Like Titanic and Jurassic Park, LOTR is textbook success: the kind that comes with a satisfaction guarantee.

[tabuno]

I'm glad someone mentioned "Excalibur," my favorite King Arthur movie because it was the most gritty and dark, serious and elegantly portrayed avoiding the Hollywood look. "Lord of the Rings" did seem to have more of a "Titanic" look of the fantasy genre type.

[bix171]

I personally couldn't make it through the triology. I quit about a quarter of the way through "The Return Of The King". The movie captures the good things about Tolkien (the all-encompassing imagination) while abbrieviating the bad (the endless descriptions of landscapes and shubbery and the roadmaps throughout middle-earth). Tolkien was not much interested in characterization (he was a linguist by profession) and this is Jackson's strong point.

In my humble opinion, the prose "Lord Of The Rings" could've been shortened by a couple of hundred pages. Yet I can't imagine cutting a frame from the films.