READ THIS READ THIS! IT SOUNDS SO COOL! Rotk Review!

[Uncle Merry]

All I can say is I WANT TO SEE IT NOW!

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING review

I’ve already given 6 hours and 44 minutes of my life over to RETURN OF THE KING, I’ve seen it twice. On Tuesday, I’ll see it again, and after that, I imagine I’ll see it 3 more times by the end of the week.

This is frankly one of the greatest films ever made. It towers over the other so-called epics of the year in a way that one could only imagine it was like when INTOLERANCE was released 87 years ago. What was it like in 1916 to see a film on that scale? Beside all the two-reelers and three-reelers and four-reelers to see a true epic. One with spectacle and size so immense that as you watched it, you knew… you felt the screen busting at the seams to hold it all.

However, unlike INTOLERANCE, this film takes the care to tell intimate… almost private adventures and stories with all the care, love and passion that you could ever hope for. The performances burn into us. I am sitting here trying to go over the history of epics in my mind to remember one that juggled so many characters and gave us so much to care for and I’m coming up empty. There truly is no film to compare to RETURN OF THE KING.

For all it’s visual effects wizardry, the scenes and the moments that linger with me are not those moments. I remember Ian McKellen’s Gandalf telling Billy Boyd’s Pippin about the adventure beyond death amidst a battle to decide it all. There’s a serenity to Ian’s face… an impossible calm and resolute ease and anticipation to beginning that final adventure that puts Pippin at peace and calm. Billy Boyd’s face begins with sadness and in the end of the conversation… you see his nerves become calm, though the end is at hand. The scene is brilliant.

Just about every moment with Sean Astin in this film is one for the history books. Sean, bless him… He’s stunning as Samwise Gamgee and I can’t imagine the cold dark pathetic heart that doesn’t weep for him. There upon the endless steps…. Or upon the side of that cruel and desolate volcano… watching him carry the weight of Middle Earth upon those shoulders. No longer do I hear his speech at the bottom of a well [from GOONIES], nor do I see him in football pads [from RUDY]… Forever he will be the bravest of all cinematic characters, more noble than the The Cid of Valencia or even Boorman’s Lancelot… here you have on screen captured for all eternity as we will know it… the power of true friendship, duty and sacrifice. If somehow this performance is overlooked by those that give out awards, then it is only their own insignificance that is illuminated, not this role, because this role will be taken into the hearts of all that see it.

Miranda Otto’s Eowyn and Bernard Hill’s Theoden… Tremendous work here. There’s a resolved sense of finality to the way Bernard plays his role in this final film. Watching him play this you get the sense that he knows what is ahead, but that he also knows the price of avoiding it. Eowyn is so good here, with so little. Watching her steal tiny moments and take on fantastic gigantic moments… Great. The spears scene with Bernard is classic.

Elijah Wood in many ways has the thankless Mark Hamill role in these films, but if he wasn’t perfect… the whole thing would topple. His eyes in this film tell such sadness and loss. You can see the innocence he had 2 films ago completely ripped from him. There is something taking seed inside his soul here that places deceit, suspicion, fear, want and spite where once was cheer, song and love. The transformation is complete and that moment where [edited for spoilers]… absolutely killer.

Finally… there is Gollum and Andy Serkis… Here too you have a transformation, and to me… in this film there is truly no Gollum Visual Effects. Not once as I watched the film did I think for a second about anything other than the reality that he was there with them. Watching Gollum talk in his sleep, the conversation in the pool, where the Gollum personality is no longer a taunting jackal, but the resolute leader of the splintered remains of Smeagol. Here is a colder character, here we see the killer.

achievement has no parallel.


[Edited for spoilers.]


there's more and I'm posting it on the next page.

[Uncle Merry]

Here's the rest!


It is easy for many to overlook the enormity of the accomplishment in RETURN OF THE KING. It seems so effortless, but the concept that in spite of all the gigantic visual delights, that beyond all of that… above it all, the performances and the work of characters and actors and the constructed written scenes… for those things to shine above the battles and the beasts and the sets…. That this film is not swallowed up whole by the production design, that the digital effects do not make this film ring with the clunk of plastic… that the weight of what is at stake isn’t rendered mute and that the highlights of every battle are intimate personal risks of singular characters having to reach within to pull out that strength to face an evil bigger than they… well… that falls upon the shoulders of Peter Jackson and the astonishing spirit he placed into this spectacle that kept each piece of the puzzle centered on being exactly what it needed to be to create the whole.

While it seems I’m avoiding talking about the gigantic effects moments in the film, it is only because I feel words will fail me.

[Edited for spoilers.]

All of this… these things must be seen to be believed. Trying to describe them… well… you would need to be Tolkien to do it justice.

This film isn’t a movie filled with “Where’s Waldo’s” leaping about for the camera’s attention. This film is always exactly what it has to be from moment to moment. I don’t know if we’ll ever see a film series to match this. That is truly a sad thing to contemplate. Ultimately it will inspire others to mount impossible productions, but will they have the support, the vision and the resolute determination to pull it off? For me, the greatest trilogies have always been subject trilogies… things like John Ford’s Cavalry trilogy or Kieslowski’s Colors trilogy or Leone’s Man with No Name trilogy. However, as much as I love those series… This series surpasses it in terms of scale, intimacy, performances and just my own personal tastes. I still love the flawed, but great, trilogies like Coppola’s GODFATHER trilogy, Lucas’ STAR WARS, Spielberg’s INDIANA JONES, Karloff’s FRANKENSTEIN trilogy… but Peter Jackson’s LORD OF THE RINGS, for me, is without equal or parallel. It is just what it is… perfect.

And finally… The End Of The Film. I write about it, because so many seem to have issue with the alleged “multiple ending” of the film, but frankly… I feel they are completely missing the point.

THE MULTIPLE ENDINGS are in actuality one. You see the story is THE LORD OF THE RINGS and the end of this film is about the passing of the ring bearers. [Edited for spoilers.] THIS IS A SINGLE ENDING, following the narrative of the ring bearers and concluding as it began.

Absolutely perfect.

[Elf Girl]

Why edit for spoilers? You can grey them out, or just put a warning before the review.

[Nurvingiel]

That was a very well-written review. I would also like to read the spoiler parts. The code is (without spaces):
[spoiler ] text [/spoiler]

So it will look like this:

text

[gdl96]

That's Harry Knowles' review, (aint it cool news) right?

[Churl]

As Treebeard said, “[A]ll that I hear is good, very good.”

… So say Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.

I’m at least prepared for specific departures from the book (even though I’m not overjoyed by them), so I’m looking forward to an unforgettable viewing experience.

More soon in the appropriate thread!

[Insidious Rex]

some review comments Ive seen that I think certain people would find interesting/amusing/hair pulling:

"Tolkien and his representative on Earth, Jackson, really know how to get a tale roaring down the tracks."

"So in his [Tolkien’s] great books and in Peter Jackson's great movie versions…"

some interesting negative things said by a reviewer on the movie. These are interesting in that they dont necessarily reflect a purists point of view as to why they dont like the movies but a movie goers point of view. In fact dare I say some of the things said below would actually cause purists to come to Jacksons defense (because he seems to be suggesting even further changes were necessary from the text). So I post this in the interest of harmony. What do you think?

"In this version, Sauron has taken the form of the Lidless Eye, and he looks like something off a secret Masonic document, an eye bathed in fire and floating in space. Like the many effects in the film it's impressive, but it's static. We want a villain whose ritual death will delight us. (On the other hand, when someone takes out one of the Ringwraiths by driving a sword through his face, I liked that a lot!) Watching what is essentially a structure tip into the flames lacks dramatic impact.

A second annoyance is the occurrence so soon of a battle after the big one at Pelennor Fields. In the actual book, there were nine battles in 26 days, but Jackson rearranges or consolidates. Still, it feels like not enough or too much. Aragorn leads troops to the Black Gates, that is, to actually assault Mordor proper, as a diversion from Frodo's mission. It feels anticlimactic and somewhat hastily arrived at.

Then, finally, there are the endings, all six of them. I suppose if you're essentially making one 558-minute movie you're entitled to six endings. And for the members of the cult, each of those endings ties up a storyline and will produce unbelievable poignancy. For us outsiders, it seems like too much of a good thing. You keep awaiting the wondrous magical elven words "The" and "End" to bring the enchantment to a finish. Instead your mind's eye produces "But Wait: There's Still More Stuff!"

But all those are minor rants: The big fact is that "The Return of the King" puts you there at Waterloo, or Thermopylae or the Bulge, any desperate place where men ran low on blood and iron and ammo, but not on courage. "

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Two things...

Steven Whitty, reviewer from my hometown newspaper The Star Ledger was one of the few to give a bad review (figures).
Personally, I thought it was a bad review... his main complaints were that the film was racist, sexist, and that the best part was that they didn't have Frodo and Sam be gay lovers. They shouldn't have people review movies who are obviously so pre-disinclined to the books. There was about one full paragraph on the actual movie.

Also, if you liked the AICN review from Harry, read Moriarty's. I think he's one of the few out there who really get the end. (There are some spoilers though, so watch out.)

Katie