The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
My favorite reaction to a movie ever: despite disliking to some extent aspects of almost every single scene, I enjoyed Return of the King. Maybe I'm glad the trilogy is over. Maybe it's more than the sum of its parts. Maybe I'm a good nerd and a sucker for big budget high fantasy. I don't really know. I am secure however in my belief that JRR Tolkein and Peter Jackson now make up the most overrated duo in history.
This actually has some major spoilers, so don't read if you care about that.
Jackson, with the trilogy complete, comes away as doing a credible but not extraordinary job, considering his vast resources. While the tone remains even throughout the three movies, RotK features seemingly endless one-liners, and about 68 unnecessary shots of characters purely mugging for the camera, reminding us that they'll soon be in our homes on DVD. I mean come on, I have no doubt that Legolas could surf down the trunk of an elephant-like war beast if he wanted to, but would he really borrow a move created by the likes of Fred Flintstone? When did Sam become an excellent fighter, as well as master of both the inspirational speech AND the one-liner? And at the end the characters enter one by one to greet Frodo like it's the curtain call at the last episode of Seinfeld. Jackson should get his credibility raped for this blatant pandering, but he won't.
Additionally, and worse, the man can't do action. For movies that should have ridiculous battle scenes, the huge army fights in two towers and RotK are boring. Jackson's idea of shooting battles is a typical one, some context and tons of close-up camera shake. Not to be a dick and start comparing, but Ed Zwick's battles in the Last Samurai (and Glory) are a study in doing more with less--his camera stays still and he is the undisputed poet of warfare on film.
Jackson's bag of filmmaking tricks is simply limited, and he really doesn't have many moves of his own beyond eery unnatural light of all stripes. RotK is surprisingly careless with its structure, and inconsistencies in pacing, timing, distance, and context abound. I should not be confused as to where action is occurring on more than one occasion, and I was. However, I've been harsh. The acting is superb, some of the rousing moments do actually rouse and the stories of Merry, Pippin, Faromir, and Theodin arguably have more value than the rest of the movie. It's a shame that the scope is such to keep them from getting even more attention.
I'll be a lot harder on Tolkein, who, for all his imagination, was a chronicler and not a novelist. That approach works fine for the first two films (well two towers has that whole split story issue), but when it's time for things to come together Tolkein simply doesn't know what to do. To get out, he relies on about 17 deus ex machinas (i'm into exaggerating numbers) and other shoddy plot devices. He spends way too much time on Gollum, who isn't that interesting and keeps coming back in ways that make no logical sense.
Tolkein as philosopher ends up being really troubling, since his basic tenet seems to be that human beings have little-to-no will of their own/self-control. Consider the number of times, in the whole trilogy, that characters are drawn to things they do not understand, are scared of, or know to be intrinsically evil. With the ring it makes sense. With Aragorn and a mountain pass, it's gratuitous. The worst example is that (OK this is THE SPOILER people) Frodo cannot complete the task he set out to on his own, it takes fucking Gollum being there for him to do the right thing and get rid of the damn ring. Disappointing and dispiriting. Do people actually find these books inspirational? I find Tolkein's view sorta bleak, depressing.
Though it may be more the film's fault or simply the massive scope of the books being condensed, supporting characters and plot threads get lost for hours at a time (The coolness of Gimle is pretty much gone at this point). Gandalf's wizarding is inconsistent, and the set up battle with the Witch King is replaced by absurd lameness (I've heard the book is different). As king, Aragorn never returns triumphantly enough for my taste. The steward of Gondor subplot, though excellently Shakespearian, is poorly developed. If the juxtiposition of him eating with the slaughter of Gondor's troops is an example of Jackson's filmmaking sensibilities, get me the hell off this ship. It's the kind of scene you would expect from the director of Dead Alive gone legit.
But so it goes, and overall RotK does what it set out to. The trilogy is complete and I am satisfied. I wish it had ended as classily as it began, but in a sign of filmmaking fatigue, or that the same movie for 9 hours just isn't a good idea, that cannot be the case. I could nitpick RotK to death (and if I see it again I will) or I can sit back and take it all in. Doing that, it's not so bad.
Grades: RotK - B
Two Towers - B
Fellowship - A+
The Trilogy - B+
This actually has some major spoilers, so don't read if you care about that.
Jackson, with the trilogy complete, comes away as doing a credible but not extraordinary job, considering his vast resources. While the tone remains even throughout the three movies, RotK features seemingly endless one-liners, and about 68 unnecessary shots of characters purely mugging for the camera, reminding us that they'll soon be in our homes on DVD. I mean come on, I have no doubt that Legolas could surf down the trunk of an elephant-like war beast if he wanted to, but would he really borrow a move created by the likes of Fred Flintstone? When did Sam become an excellent fighter, as well as master of both the inspirational speech AND the one-liner? And at the end the characters enter one by one to greet Frodo like it's the curtain call at the last episode of Seinfeld. Jackson should get his credibility raped for this blatant pandering, but he won't.
Additionally, and worse, the man can't do action. For movies that should have ridiculous battle scenes, the huge army fights in two towers and RotK are boring. Jackson's idea of shooting battles is a typical one, some context and tons of close-up camera shake. Not to be a dick and start comparing, but Ed Zwick's battles in the Last Samurai (and Glory) are a study in doing more with less--his camera stays still and he is the undisputed poet of warfare on film.
Jackson's bag of filmmaking tricks is simply limited, and he really doesn't have many moves of his own beyond eery unnatural light of all stripes. RotK is surprisingly careless with its structure, and inconsistencies in pacing, timing, distance, and context abound. I should not be confused as to where action is occurring on more than one occasion, and I was. However, I've been harsh. The acting is superb, some of the rousing moments do actually rouse and the stories of Merry, Pippin, Faromir, and Theodin arguably have more value than the rest of the movie. It's a shame that the scope is such to keep them from getting even more attention.
I'll be a lot harder on Tolkein, who, for all his imagination, was a chronicler and not a novelist. That approach works fine for the first two films (well two towers has that whole split story issue), but when it's time for things to come together Tolkein simply doesn't know what to do. To get out, he relies on about 17 deus ex machinas (i'm into exaggerating numbers) and other shoddy plot devices. He spends way too much time on Gollum, who isn't that interesting and keeps coming back in ways that make no logical sense.
Tolkein as philosopher ends up being really troubling, since his basic tenet seems to be that human beings have little-to-no will of their own/self-control. Consider the number of times, in the whole trilogy, that characters are drawn to things they do not understand, are scared of, or know to be intrinsically evil. With the ring it makes sense. With Aragorn and a mountain pass, it's gratuitous. The worst example is that (OK this is THE SPOILER people) Frodo cannot complete the task he set out to on his own, it takes fucking Gollum being there for him to do the right thing and get rid of the damn ring. Disappointing and dispiriting. Do people actually find these books inspirational? I find Tolkein's view sorta bleak, depressing.
Though it may be more the film's fault or simply the massive scope of the books being condensed, supporting characters and plot threads get lost for hours at a time (The coolness of Gimle is pretty much gone at this point). Gandalf's wizarding is inconsistent, and the set up battle with the Witch King is replaced by absurd lameness (I've heard the book is different). As king, Aragorn never returns triumphantly enough for my taste. The steward of Gondor subplot, though excellently Shakespearian, is poorly developed. If the juxtiposition of him eating with the slaughter of Gondor's troops is an example of Jackson's filmmaking sensibilities, get me the hell off this ship. It's the kind of scene you would expect from the director of Dead Alive gone legit.
But so it goes, and overall RotK does what it set out to. The trilogy is complete and I am satisfied. I wish it had ended as classily as it began, but in a sign of filmmaking fatigue, or that the same movie for 9 hours just isn't a good idea, that cannot be the case. I could nitpick RotK to death (and if I see it again I will) or I can sit back and take it all in. Doing that, it's not so bad.
Grades: RotK - B
Two Towers - B
Fellowship - A+
The Trilogy - B+