There’s Always One.

In the interests of equal time, a dissenting opinion on RotK: “The final entry in the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy reveals once more that what the chick flick is to men, this trilogy is to women…The well-calculated hype and exaggerated praise…has obscured what the series really is: an FX extravaganza tailored to an adolescent male’s fear of sentiment and love of high-tech wizardry…Who would have thought that Peter Jackson would direct such soulless films?” Sigh…I figured somebody would write a piece like this, but I didn’t expect it to show up in the Times, of all places. Just goes to show, there’s no accounting for taste. Update: Stephanie Zacharek responds.

Many Happy Returns.


Wow. If you haven’t seen Return of the King yet, go now. If you have seen it, see it again…There’s so much going on that the film, as great as it is the first time, improves vastly with a second viewing. The rest of this post is going to be full of huge, major spoilers, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet, come back here in three hours and twenty minutes, give or take.

I went into my second viewing of RotK knowing I already liked it better than TTT (which I also thought was superb) and wondering if it was better or just equal to FotR. By the end, I had decided the question was moot. On one hand, Fellowship and King are two very different films: the former a road-trip, men-on-a-mission travelogue of Middle Earth, the latter a full-on, apocalyptic war movie. On the other hand, Fellowship, Towers and King are the same movie, the three chapters of what has to be considered the best ten-hour film ever made.

So, in short, I loved it. As in the past two years, my inordinately high expectations were met, even surpassed. Of course, I had some problems with the film (which I’ll get to in a bit), but I’d be doing PJ & co. a great disservice if I didn’t make it emphatically clear that the positives far outweigh the negatives. In that spirit, some of the stuff I really liked:

Fear and Loathing in Minas Tirith: I thought one of the biggest surprises of RotK was seeing PJ’s background in horror films come to the fore. To take just one example, one of my major concerns going in was that Shelob wouldn’t seem qualitatively different from your average Kong-sized monster (for example, the Watcher in the Water in Fellowship.) After building Her Ladyship up since the end of Towers, it was crucial that She seem more ancient and malevolent than anything Frodo and Sam had yet faced, with the possible exception of the Balrog. And, while I think her lair was too brightly lit (there’s not much point in having the light of Earendil if we can already see around the place), Shelob seemed just as cunning and dastardly as I’d hoped. (It was also a nice touch for PJ to have a little fun wth the purists, and make it seem Frodo had escaped.)

From cascading heads to Grond to the pyre of Denethor to everything having to do with Minas Morgul and the Witch-King, PJ’s horror maven cred was put to great effect in Rotk and greatly enhanced the apocalyptic dread necessary to make the third book work. In fact, I thought Jackson made a great decision to place one of the most chilling moments in the movie right at the beginning. “We even forgot our own name…

The Tides of War: Another concern I had going in was that Jackson would short-shrift Tolkien’s characters in favor of long, drawn-out, and indistinguishable battle sequences. And, while some might think this is in fact the case (no Houses of Healing, for example), I was surprised by how engaging the battle scenes turned out. When you think about it, Pelennor Fields is written a lot like Helm’s Deep…a siege that, just when all seems hopeless, is turned by the arrival of the cavalry. But it is to Jackson’s credit that I not only found myself enthralled by the ever-changing course of combat but also oblivious to the memory of Helm’s Deep. There are plenty of searing images herein — the Ride of the Rohirrim (made sublime by the return of Howard Shore’s Rohan theme), the chunks of masonry flung from Minas Tirith, the berserker trolls leading the charge at the gate, the Nazgul air support diving down over the White City like Stuka bombers. Speaking of which, there’s a shot of a fell beast lunging for the head of one of Faramir’s retreating Gondorians that made me swing my head out of the way both times.

High Fidelity: One of the main reasons why I found RotK more enticing than TTT (other than the obvious plot resolution here) is that it seemed a return to Tolkien’s vision after the warg attack/Helm’s Deep-wallowing of TTT. (There are some notable exceptions, of course, which I’ll get to in a bit.) In particular, the Professor’s inimitable turns of phrase breathe through many more scenes here: “Did you think the eyes of the White Tower were blind?” “No tomb for Denethor and Faramir. No long, slow sleep of death embalmed. We will burn like the heathen kings of old.” “Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!” “Don’t go where I can’t follow.” “We set out to save the Shire, Sam, and it has been saved, but not for me.” Towers has its share of great Tolkien moments too, of course, but — as in Fellowship — I was continually reminded during King of how great the original books are, and how unique and absorbing Tolkien’s deliberately archaic prose can be.

The Crack of Doom and Beyond: “I’m glad you’re with me, Samwise Gamgee, here at the end of all things.” And, of course, there’s the payoff. While I thought Frodo and Sam hopped and skipped across Mordor entirely too quickly (I expect this will be rectified in the EE), I thought the failure of Frodo at the Sammath Naur was dramatized just about perfectly, right down to the evil smile on Frodo’s face and Gollum’s ecstatic Superbowl dance. As for the “too many endings” issue that seems to be a focal point of the criticism, I did feel it went on a bit long the first time (perhaps because it was nearing 3:30am by then), but thought it was paced very nicely the second time around. And, though the Scouring of the Shire (while critical to Tolkien’s narrative arc) seems justifiably expendable here, the film just couldn’t do without the Grey Havens. In fact, if anything, I thought Frodo should have been more recognizably damaged at the end of the film. He seemed all smiles at the Green Dragon and Sam’s wedding, which to me is something of a problem…I figured the idea, as befitting Tolkien’s “Lost Generation,” was that he never really made it back, and I don’t think this is emphasized enough in the film. Still, for the most part, I thought Jackson handled the resolution quite well, paying homage to the arch-Christian overtones of Frodo’s death and rebirth without necessarily wallowing in them.

Miscellany: The categories above just can’t do justice to all the moments and flourishes I loved about RotK. All of Smeagol/Gollum’s scenes were top-notch, even the film-added-framing of the fat one. I loved the dressing of the witch-king and his sonic scream atop Minas Morgul. The lighting of the beacons was great. Theoden seemed like he was missing a scene (he goes from anti-Gondor to pro-Gondor too quickly), but Bernard Hill was a standout (along with Billy Boyd’s Pippen and Sean Astin’s Sam…heck, everyone was good, except for a few minor players.) Minas Tirith was a marvel (and, unlike the too-small Edoras, seemed like a capital city.) Merry and Pippen at the gate of Isengard. “In fact, it’s probably best if you don’t speak at all, Peregrin Took.” Peter Jackson dolled up as a Corsair Captain. LotR: Return of the Moth. The angelic eagles come to rescue Frodo…

Well, I could go on for awhile here, but perhaps it’s time to accentuate the negative a bit.

Editing/Pacing: In the theatrical Fellowship, only one scene seemed cut all to hell, and that was Lothlorien. Here in Return of the King, though, the movie keeps eliding over cut moments in a way that can be seriously distracting. I’m not going to harp on this too much, because I expect a lot of this will be solved by the Extended Edition. But, still, it was clear here more than ever before that we weren’t seeing the whole story. How did Theoden change his mind about coming to Gondor’s aid? Why does Denethor talk about the “eyes of the White Tower” without showing his palantir? (For that matter, does Aragorn challenge Sauron in the palantir?) Why does the Witch-King claim he will “break” the white wizard without confronting him? (It was even in the trailer!) Why set up a head orc like Gothmog (Slothmog, the Elephant Man) and not show him killed? Where were the Easterlings (whom Frodo and Sam saw entering the Black Gate in TTT)? Why do Sam and Frodo get in and out of orc armor? How do they cross Mordor in a day? What happened to Eowyn and Faramir? Where was the Mouth of Sauron? Who’s wearing the three Elven Rings?

And so on and so on. I know PJ has to make some cuts for the theatrical version (although some might say that he’d have more time here if not for the warg attack/Aragorn’s fall in TTT), and some of the cuts — Voice of Saruman, the Scouring — just make cinematic sense. But others not only seem integral to Tolkien’s book but also integral to the story Jackson is telling here (particularly Denethor and the palantir.) Speaking of which…

The Steward of Gondor: I’m not going to complain too much about what’s not in the film until I’ve seen the EE. But, as for what’s actually in the film, Denethor is the biggest problem. I’ve never really been bothered about the changes made to Faramir (or, as the purist wags refer to him, Filmamir/Farfromthebookamir) in TTT…they heightened his dramatic arc. But I think Denethor kinda gets screwed here, and only in part because of the lack of palantir. John Noble is surprisingly good as the Steward, and does a great job with what he’s been given. But the single worst moment in the movie for me is Gandalf clocking Denethor to take over command of the White City. It’s goofy, it’s slapstick, and it cheapens both characters (Is all of Gondor really just going to stand around and let Gandalf exercise what is now basically a coup?) Similarly, I thought the pyre of Denethor was handled quite well until the last few moments, when Gandalf/Shadowfax kick Denethor to his doom!! That’s completely botched…Gandalf was trying to prevent Denethor’s suicide, but here he acts like the wizard Kevorkian. If the palantir is reintroduced in the EE, some of this is forgiven, but still…those two choices are the only times I was taken out of the film.

Miscellany: Not much in this department. I thought the whole Paths/Army of the Dead subplot was a deus ex machina and, as others have noted, Haunted Mansion goofy…but, y’know, that’s also a problem with Tolkien’s book. (I did like Stephen Hunter’s take on ’em here, though.) Very occasionally, one of the minor players came off like community theater (I’m thinking particularly of Shagrat (or is it Gorbag?), the orc who explains that the Shelob-stung Frodo isn’t dead.) As in TTT, we seem to spend a lot of time in Osgiliath, and perhaps some of it is unnecessary given the other cuts. Hugo Weaving has a Father of the Bride simper on his face at the coronation that’s completely un-Elrond-like. Um, yes, Legolas, we are talking about a diversion. Etc. etc.

But let’s not miss Fangorn for the Huorns. Return of the King is an amazing conclusion to a trilogy that’s surpassed all expectations and, I say this without hyperbole, redefined the medium — From the technical breakthrough of Gollum to the seamless intertwining of jaw-dropping FX and character-driven emotion throughout, these films have expanded our vision of the possible and set a new standard for epic filmmaking, one left by the wayside since the days of David Lean. I am eternally thankful to Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Alan Lee, John Howe, Richard Taylor, Barrie Osborne, Andrew Lesnie, and everyone else involved in The Lord of the Rings for making these films as good as they are. When so many eagerly-awaited movies have proven disappointments, perhaps none so glaring as the Star Wars prequels, it’s a beautiful thing that these films came along, surpassed even my extremely high expectations, and restored to me the type of cinematic thrill I once feared I might have grown out of. In sum, Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King — inarguably the best fantasy trilogy in the history of cinema — are a priceless gift not only to filmgoers and fantasy readers but to the memory and words of J.R.R. Tolkien himself, and it is one I will love and cherish until the end of my days.

It’s funny, though. I expected to suffer from some form of fanboy post-partum after seeing The Return of the King. But, in fact, I’m thrilled…I can now go see this movie any time I want to. And then there’s the Extended Edition to look forward to in November, and perhaps, some day in the not-so-distant future, The Hobbit (Being the tale of Bilbo Baggins and the Finding of the Ring of Power) will make the screen. Even after the end of all things, the road goes ever on.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

A light from the shadows shall spring;

Renewed shall be blade that was broken,

The crownless again shall be King.

[Fellowship][ Towers]

We come to it at last. Reviews and clips below for those of you who aren’t yet swayed. For everyone else, our wait is finally over, our journey at an end. But not before one last foray into Middle Earth, and I get the sense this’ll be one for the ages.


Update: Well, I’m back. In short, RotK is awe-inspiring, at times genuinely scary, and often overwhelming. As per the last two, it’s going to take another viewing to fully wrap my head around it (I’m going again this evening), but I already know it’s head and shoulders above TTT. A full report soon.

ONE (Ring to Rule them All.)

It is close now, so close to achieving its goal. (Yes, my count is a day ahead of most people’s, but I’m going at midnight tomorrow night, and for me that’s Tuesday.) A lot of the US press hasn’t weighed in yet, but as they do, check below. Update: One last scratchy, bad-quality clip, precious? Faramir runs into a spot of trouble. To be honest, the resolution’s so bad here that it’s almost not worth watching, but if you really need a fix… [9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2]

New York Film Critics Circle: Best Film of 2003.
Rotten Tomatoes: 98% (156-4)
Metacritic: 94% (40)

New York Times: “After the galloping intelligence displayed in the first two parts of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, your fear may be that the director, Peter Jackson, would become cautious and unimaginative with the last episode…But Mr. Jackson crushes any such fear. His ‘King’ is a meticulous and prodigious vision made by a director who was not hamstrung by heavy use of computer special-effects imagery.”

New York Post: “‘The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King’ rules as the crowning achievement of Peter Jackson’s awesome adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy, a majestic conclusion to a nine-plus-hours epic that stirs the heart, mind and soul as few films ever have…it’s also one of the most beautiful films ever shot.

New York Daily News: “With ‘The Return of the King,’ New Zealand director Peter Jackson has completed his trilogy of J.R.R. Tolkien’s mammoth ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ and can lay claim to one of the greatest achievements in film history. Taken as a whole, ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is the first masterpiece of the 21st century.”

Chicago Tribune: “One ‘Ring’ – finally – rules them all. In ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,’ a great mythic movie cycle gets the ending it deserves – and we can finally see this stunningly completed film trilogy for what it is: one of the major achievements of film history.”

LA Times: “It took one ring to rule them all, and now there’s one film to end it all, to bring to a close the cinematic epic of our time, the one by which all others will be judged…As a model for how to bring substance, authenticity and insight to the biggest of adventure yarns, this trilogy will not soon, if ever, find its equal.”

Washington Post: “one thing Jackson does brilliantly is capture the exhilaration, fatigue, heroism and despair of war. He looks at it as something not ennobling but exhausting, more ordeal than crusade but — completely necessary…’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.

Boston Globe: “‘The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King’ delivers on all the mighty expectations Peter Jackson created in ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ and ‘The Two Towers.’…[It] unfurls with the sprawling pageantry of the first two installments, movies in which Jackson reclaimed the fantasy epic as a source of headlong astonishment.

USA Today: “****….As good as each individual movie is, the third film vaults the work into the stratosphere of classic movies. Key characters are enhanced, new civilizations visited and battles fought more intensely, while feelings and motivations are plumbed more deeply and movingly…In its entirety, The Lord of the Rings surpasses other multi-part sagas such as Star Wars or even The Godfather.

San Jose Mercury Tribune: “‘Return of the King’ combines the best moments of ‘Fellowship’ and ‘Two Towers’ and brings the Arthurian trilogy to a rousing, satisfying finish. Taken alone, it’s a great movie. In conjunction with the other installments, it’s a historic movie event, one that the Academy Awards will have to work hard to ignore when doling out this year’s top honors.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “With ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,’ Peter Jackson brings his epic series to a glorious finish. And in doing so, he’s made the greatest movie trilogy in cinema history…Peter Jackson has taken us there and back again. And he’s done it with a masterwork that truly is the one trilogy to rule them all.

Village Voice: “The most hallucinatory of war films, The Return of the King concludes the Lord of the Rings trilogy with a burst of smoky grandeur…Peter Jackson’s hobbit epic is certainly the greatest feat of pop movie magic since Titanic.

Slate: “This is the best of the three Rings movies�more than that, it makes the others look even better. You can finally see the arc of the trilogy: not just J.R.R. Tolkien’s, with its blend of Norse and Christian myth, but Peter Jackson’s….The Lord of the Rings took seven years and an army of gifted artists to execute, and the striving of its makers is in every splendid frame. It’s more than a movie�it’s a gift.

San Francisco Chronicle: “With the possible exception of the Russian ‘War and Peace,’ such a combination of monetary resources, creative talent and technical mastery has never been brought to bear on a movie project, and nothing on this scale is likely to occur again soon….the movie reaches us with special recognition, even as it reaches both behind us and past us, with the universality of a classic. It is the old story, the timeless thing. The human struggle, made noble.

CNN: “This third in the series of the ‘Rings’ franchise is utterly breathtaking. Even J.R.R. Tolkien would be highly impressed…All in all, ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is the stuff that dreams are made of.

Philadelphia Inquirer: “Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is, by any measure, a crowning moment in cinema history…It is an achievement of bewildering scale.

Roger Ebert: “This is the best of the three, redeems the earlier meandering, and certifies the Ring trilogy as a work of bold ambition at a time of cinematic timidity…Jackson’s achievement cannot be denied. The Return of the King is such a crowning achievement, such a visionary use of all the tools of special effects, such a pure spectacle, that it can be enjoyed even by those who have not seen the first two films.

Miami Herald: “****. With the spectacular The Return of the King, Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film trilogy becomes the new benchmark against which all future fantasy movies must now be judged…The Return of the King feels like a miracle, a movie that exceeds even the most formidable expectations without straying from its singular path. All hail this King.

Charlotte Observer: “****. ‘Return’ is the equal of the magnificent opening episode, ‘The Fellowship of the Ring.’…[It] should convince even the most hardened skeptic that ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is one of the great achievements of film history…Jackson had the vision, persistence, insight and patience for this mighty job, plus the smarts to shape stage veterans and overlooked film actors into a seamless cast. He’s made himself as immortal as a movie director can be.

Detroit Free Press: “So hail this ‘King.’ It not only stands as fantasy filmmaking on a peak of previously unscaled proportions, it now officially takes its place in the Great Hall of Movie Mythology, the place we return to again and again to share our dreams.

Dallas Morning News: “But the trilogy’s real hero is Peter Jackson. The director and screenwriter brings unity to a somewhat unwieldy story and handles the spectacle scenes with flourish and coherence. The Return of the King is the best of the Tolkien-inspired cinema trinity. It’s got heart, soul and monsters.

Baltimore Sun: “[A]s the final chapter of, essentially, a single 10-hour movie, [RotK] has a narrative beauty and a sublime ensemble performance that put it in a class by itself…The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is so replete with imagistic and literary treasures that it repays re-viewing. After seeing it, I felt as I did after seeing E.T. – that unless the distributor wants to pull it back, there’s no reason for it ever to stop running.

Salon: “With ‘The Return of the King,’ Jackson, his remarkable cast and his enormous ensemble of collaborators have found victory at the end of their improbable quest…Packed with passion and heroism, the grimness of death and the hope of salvation, this final chapter flies past with the speed of Shadowfax…None of us is ever again likely to encounter a 200-minute movie we are so reluctant to see come to an end…this one is Jackson’s crowning achievement. It marks ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ without any serious question, as the greatest long-form work in the history of mainstream cinema.

Two (Towers)…

Reelviews: “There can be no greater gift for a movie lover than the one bestowed upon audiences by Peter Jackson, whose The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is not only the best movie of 2003, but the crowning cinematic achievement of the past several years. In fact, labeling this as a “movie” is almost an injustice. This is an experience of epic scope and grandeur, amazing emotional power, and relentless momentum…Not only is this motion picture an entirely worthy conclusion to the landmark trilogy, but it’s better than its predecessors.” Mori at AICN: “[T]hese films represent a high point for genre filmmaking that will be nearly impossible to equal or surpass…It’s overwhelming. It’s incredibly powerful, with battle sequences that will sweep over you like virtual reality and emotional crescendos that would be impossible to hit in a single film.

Three (Hunters)…

The Daily Mail: “How about amazing, stupendous, jawdropping and overwhelming? For this is wonderfully imaginative cinema on the grandest possible scale…There are sights here unparalleled in cinema…For its scale, imagination and passion, this is, without doubt, the greatest cinematic trilogy ever.” Financial Times: “This concluding film may be the greatest fantasy- adventure epic ever made. It is almost certainly the most spectacular.Harry at AICN: “This is frankly one of the greatest films ever made…for me, it is without equal or parallel. It does not diminish the others to any degree, it is just what it is — perfect. Like when Lean did BRIDGE OF THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and DR ZHIVAGO — there was just fate leaning over the shoulder and perfection was achieved.” Wow, after all that superlative madness (which, ok, we expected from Harry), how bout a new commercial? Beware: this one’s a money-shot trailer…there’s a very good chance you might not want to see some of this stuff until after Tuesday. Then again, maybe you do…

Four (Hobbits)…

BBC: “The Return of the King brings an overwhelming air of expectation and of consequence – and in almost every sense it dwarfs what has come before…This three-hour, 11-minute epic is an unqualified triumph, one that raises the bar for any spectacle-respecting director of the future. The Oscar, surely, must go to Peter Jackson.” CTV: “Are there enough M words to describe Lord of the Rings: Return of the King? Majestic, monumental, magnificent.” Times Online: “AND so it ends, the greatest film trilogy ever mounted, with some of the most amazing action sequences committed to celluloid. The Return of the King is everything a Ring fan could possibly wish for, and much more.

Five…

Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly: “All hail The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King! I can’t think of another film trilogy that ends in such glory, or another monumental work of sustained storytelling that surges ahead with so much inventiveness and ardor. The conclusion of Peter Jackson’s masterwork is passionate and literate, detailed and expansive, and it’s conceived with a risk-taking flair for old-fashioned movie magic at its most precious.” And, we’ve got another clip! Gollum connives above Minas Morgul…relatively spoilerish. (If you do watch it, notice how he licks his lips. It’s amazing CGI.)

Six…

Stuff.NZ: “It is now possible to view the three films as one movie, and the three combined are a spectacular triumph. The devotion of cast and crew to Tolkien’s work shines through, and through their dedication movie history has been made.” UK Mirror: “[Peter Jackson’s] challenge was to make it bigger, better and more spectacular than the first two – and, hobbit-like, he has triumphantly succeeded against all the odds.Courier-Mail (SPOILERS): ” It unfolds with the majesty and power of all great movie experiences. The result is we have an epic that sets a new benchmark for battle sequences…”