|
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 08 July 2004 |
  The phenomena is complete. I have now seen all three installments of the Lord of the Rings trilogy (extended versions in each case but this one) and can officially ask, "what's the big deal?" I know that will annoy an awful lot of people, and it has nothing to do with the source material, which I have never read, but I don't understand the fervor this movie trilogy has generated, particularly the final installment. I realize I am in a sound minority since imdb.com currently ranks Return of the King as the fourth greatest movie of all time, after 63,495 votes, placing it above every movie ever made except The Shawshank Redemption(?) and the first two Godfather films. In fact, you have to slide all the way to #34 (Once Upon a Time in the West, which I consider to be possibly the greatest film ever made) on the imdb list to reach any film I include in my Top 20. The first 100 on the list only includes five of my 20 favorites, so my opinion is hardly the common one.
Return of the King starts off well, showing Smeagol finding the Ring and the effect it has on him. It was a bit of development I found interesting and got my hopes up right off. This was a vast improvement over the beginning of The Two Towers which literally threw the audience into the middle of a scene, forcing them to try and remember what on middle earth was going on. The force of the Ring rapidly transforms the seemingly pleasant Smeagol into the disturbed, disfigured split personality of Gollum.
From there, the film moves onto the "current" time where Frodo and Sam are continuing on their journey to destroy the Ring, while Aragorn, Gandalf and their various allies lose battle after battle against the Orcs and Sauron. the future of man depends on Frodo destroying the Ring, for reasons I have long forgotten.
This is where, for me, the entire trilogy and most of all Return of the King fails. Far too much of the story and true meaning that must have been in the original novels has been removed in favor of dramatic visuals and battle scenes. It seemed there was virtually nothing left in Return of the King but battles, separated by small, feeble attempts at plot development before moving on to the next battle. I had to keep trying to remind myself what the ultimate goal of these individuals was.
In the end, there was not enough dramatic contrast in Return of the King to keep it interesting for me. It spent so much time cranked up to 10 with hopeless cause battles and sweeping camera shots that it wore itself, and me, out by the first hour and there were nearly two and a half hours left to go. I hope the extended edition due out in November will add all plot development to flesh out the few dramatic scenes which in this version made little sense and seemed to be severely truncated.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a rather impressive technical achievement, but it should have been so much more. Some viewers have been put off by the degree of computer generated imaging (CGI) used in the trilogy, but that technology can be quite beneficial with this type of fantasy filmmaking. Avid fans have hoisted these movies as shining examples of how CGI can be used to support a great story and that these are not the standard, idiotic script, special effects laden blockbusters. My complaint is not that the story is stupid, but that too much of it has been removed in favor of the scenes which get people talking, buying multiple DVD releases, action figures and joining in on what has become a defensive, almost cult like following. In that sense, the trilogy is a resounding success and it's final sales figures which will move far beyond the 5 Billion dollar level worldwide is proof of that.
Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Dominic Monaghan.
Director: Peter Jackson
Studio: New Line Pictures
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: 210 minutes
Release: 2003
Reviewer: John Rice |
Movie Article List 
