by Allan Fish
(New Zealand/USA 2003/2004 249m) DVD1/2
One film to end them all
p Peter Jackson, Barrie M.Osborne, Frances Walsh d Peter Jackson w Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Frances Walsh, Stephen Sinclair novel J.R.R.Tolkien ph Andrew Lesnie ed Annie Collins, Jamie Selkirk m Howard Shore m/ly Annie Lennox, Frances Walsh art Grant Major cos Richard Taylor, Ngila Dickson fight ch Bob Anderson
Elijah Wood (Frodo), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn), Ian McKellen (Gandalf), John Rhys Davies (Gimli/Treebeard), Sean Astin (Sam), Billy Boyd (Pippin), Orlando Bloom (Legolas), Dominic Monaghan (Merry), Miranda Otto (Éowyn), Andy Serkis (Gollum), Bernard Hill (Théoden), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Liv Tyler (Arwen), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), David Wenham (Faramir), Karl Urban (Éomer), John Noble (Denethor), Ian Holm (Bilbo), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Brad Dourif (Grima Wormtongue),
Coming out of the cinema in December 2003, having watched the theatrical release of Jackson’s final Tolkien instalment, it’s fair to say that emotions were mixed. On the one hand there was the ecstasy at having seen something beyond your wildest dreams, a film to, as many critics said, totally reinvent both fantasy and epic cinema; a film that topped the previous instalments, which had to be content with being mere masterworks of the seventh art. And yet, through all this handing out of garlands and superlatives to its director, and hoping that he would finally win the Oscar he lost to such unworthies as A Beautiful Mind and Chicago, there was a nagging feeling. After watching Fellowship and Towers, one didn’t feel cheated at the cinema, but when the extended versions came out they embellished the tale. With King, you really could see the cracks, you almost imagined in your head the sequences that were transparently missing – Saruman’s death, the capture of the Black Ships, Faramir’s romance with Éowyn and the avalanche of skulls in the mountain dwelling – and yet still it was a film for which the term magnificent was unworthy. So would the glaring omissions be worthy of the film? Silly question; with the single exception of Sam and Frodo briefly joining the orc armies, each scene enhanced the plot and all the cracks were filled and all doubts put firmly to rest.
More than merely an epic, King set a standard which few could hope to attempt to match, let alone succeed. There are so many scenes here that achieve immortality that it’s impossible – not to mention unfair – to pick one. The battle scenes are, in the computer generated age, the greatest ever committed to celluloid, the romantic asides are soulful enough to not seem like an interruption to the battles, and, miraculously, Jackson even manages to prevent the battles from swamping the real heart of the story, as our two hobbit heroes climb slowly to Mount Doom to the magical moment when Gollum gets his first hot bath in centuries (or the gorgeous fade out at the Grey Havens, aka. Avalon, Valhalla, Elysium, etc.). A testament to its brilliance is that the encounter with Shelob the giant spider is not that extraordinary, despite being infinitely scarier than the similar sequence with spiders in the second Harry Potter film. Every single person behind the camera does their bit (Shore’s music particularly hitting new heights), and the performances are exceptional to a man. Wood, McKellen, Rhys-Davies, Otto and Serkis if anything outdo their earlier work here, while the majestic Lee is given a send off worthy of him. Mortensen personifies epic heroism as a man who, like his friends, has to reach within to find the strength when all seems lost (and gives a speech at the Black Gates to make Mel Gibson’s at Stirling seem like a summoning of his mates to the pub), while Astin is simply a revelation as Sam, bringing regular lumps to the throat. Compared to this, the previous two classics seem, to quote Gandalf, merely like “the deep breath before the plunge.” As Christmas approaches again, the lack of a new Rings film leaves a massive hole, but Jackson’s legacy will shine brighter than Galadriel’s Phial for all time.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
DID ANYONE HERE THAT LOUD BANG???? Oh, wait… That was SAM’s head exploding. I can hear it now… “GOD, what is that misantropic maniac doing now???? Doesn’t he know RETURN has to be higher. GOD, this placement is embarrassing!!!!”. Yup, yup… SAM will be sucking on TUMS and ROLAIDS all day long after he sees this one! LOL!!!!! I can’t wait for the fireworks to erupt. MAURIZIO-This is EXACTLY what I was referring to in my comment to you on the LOST IN TRANSLATION thread. The clash of the titans may happen soon. PS-I think this film is terrific, but it falls short of the FELLOWSHIP. IMO.
Why Allen Why?
Multiply this placement by 5 and you would have the number I would slot this overrated mess in.
MAURIZIO-I respect all opinions. Everyone’s entitled. But, really, a MESS? Far from it. I have to agree with ALLAN and, of course, this films BIGGEST supporter, SAM, on this one. This is a perfect example of the epic form working on visually operatic terms. Then, take into consideration the EXTENDED cut of the film and it gets tighter and flows even better. Allan rightfully caught it when he alluded to the grand battle sequences not usurping the bigger emotional themes of friendship and duty. I liked FELLOWSHIP better, but even as a pure fanb of that one I can still see the gargantuan brilliance of this epic adaptation. This was probably the best film of its year of release.
I shudder at the thought of an extended cut.
Maurizio, I agree and most, if not all around here already know that so I’ll hold my tongue. 2 things that I’ve thought about in regards to Jackson and the love he gets around here:
1. Most would say his early gore comedy films are ‘rubbish, shit, etc.’ (as was said a few weeks or so ago), as well as his one with Michael J. Fox (name escapes me and I haven’t had coffee so I don’t care to look it up), and his most recent LOVELY BONES. So what I find so strange about three Jackson films in the top 100 for the decade is did a maker of so much shit suddenly one day become a fantastic visionary? Or are the early films not nearly as ‘shitty’ as earlier claimed. It seems like it has to be one or the other, and either way the ground the argument is based on isn’t that solid.
2. The 90’s clear winner was Kieślowski, 4 films in the top 100. These placements of three Jackson’s make Jackson the 2000’s ‘auteur’. When put like this, with Kieślowski I am further amazed at the love for these films here. They are nowhere near the talents in any conceivable regard.
and on point 1, another thing must be said, could it be that many that love this film were so enthralled with the idea of a LotR series before they were actually made that baring a huge disaster would have loved these films?
“The Frighteners” on its own is only worthwhile if you want to watch Michael J. Fox play “Ghostbusters”– it’s decent fun, but eh. It’s more fun, frankly, to watch the outtakes where he keeps flubbing a line and seems to think that he’s on the set of another “Back to the Future” movie (oh, if only). “Doc!”
115 would still be too high actually. Don’t bite my head off Sam but I don’t see what’s so great about this movie. The last thirty minutes are so dragged out I wanted to jump in the fire of Mordor along with the ring. A fiery death would of been preferable than to see the hobbits giving out bro-hugs and loving glances for what seemed like an eternity. Every scene is bigger and more blown out than previous installments. It feels like a dinner at the Cheesecake Factory where you end up hurling in the bathroom because the plate sizes are beyond normal human consumption. Its all so summer blockbuster and geek boy wish fulfillment. I truly think the two previous films were better, while no masterpieces themselves.
Maurizio: I am hardly the only one who praises this masterpiece to the heavens. In 2003, this won the New York Film Critics Circle prize for Best Picture, which all things considered is incredible. Check out this thread if you have time. The battle over this film produced of our greatest threads under my own review of the film last year:
https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king-is-the-best-film-of-2003/
Frankly, I think there’s a decent movie in this trilogy if you cut away a lot of the fat involving the humans, elves and dwarves. Frodo, Sam & Gollum have a really compelling story in the quest to destroy and possess the One Ring, but it gets lost in all the theatrics involving Aragorn and Legolas (a character who might’ve been interesting with all his perfection IF HE HAD DIED AT THE END). There’s just so much that obscures the lean, mythic story at the center, too many distractions from the only emotionally resonant and intellectually stimulating part of the narrative. As such, everything comes off as rather anticlimactic. Honestly, did these movies really need to be three hours long each?
MAURIZIO-be forewarned. Sam penned an extensive review of this film a few months back, lovingly praising it. I believe, although I may not have the numbers exactly correct, that the total number of comments left for his review was the largest in WITD history. Think it was over 300. AKIRA by Allan either matched the number or may have even bested it. Hope you have all day to blog your backup when the shit hits the fan later. Sam usually rises and shines about 10am on Sunday. As Scar in THE LION KING sang: BE PREPARED!
Wasn’t that Baydn-Powell?
Both the USA and Italy got knocked out of the World Cup the last three days. I’ve been in a really bad mood and decided to take it out on a couple of movies I don’t like at this site lol. Sam will understand the biggest sporting event only happens every 4 years and a palpable amount of venom is expected. I went to the Catskills for a couple of days to enjoy the country and got back today. I even badmouthed the actual Woodstock site at Bethel. I was telling the ever patient Yolanta how overrated the place was in a very high voice. A couple of old hippie couples were giving me evil sideway glances as I walked by. I’m sure my cantankerous attitude will pass eventually. I just hope someone can beat Brazil…………………
Irrational vitriol is pretty much the life’s blood of this place. Amd don’t worry, England will be joining them in approximately 8 hours.
Ah Maurizio, I quite understand. When I heard the news of the USA defeat to Ghana yesterday (from Allan on the phone in fact) I had a sick feeling in my stomach. I don’t blame you for emoting the vitrol.
And Allan must surely know that England has an excellent chance of topping Germany.
Dennis, it was 214 comments, but I get your drift.
Hey Maurizio, to save you (and particularly poor Sam) the trouble of re-hashing old debates, and perhaps giving you the opportunity to come up with some new lines of attack (and defense) here’s links to the original post on the film (looks like Allan leant Sam his screen-caps!)
Sam’s review:
https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king-is-the-best-film-of-2003/
And the lively discussion which began when I rained on the parade:
https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king-is-the-best-film-of-2003/#comment-10492
MovieMan–“the hobbits cavorting homoerotically on a bed while Gandalf peeks in thru the door with a weird expression on his face” LOLOLLOLOL!!!!!! I remember thinking the same thing. The whole ending is an overwrought disaster. Its like a bunch of dominoes toppling over each other. Is it me or would Middle Earth have been a better place if the Mordor monsters/orks won the battle? The Shire seems like the most miserable place ever inhabited.
You have obviously never seen the works of Bill Douglas. There misery is a steady diet.
Hobbits and homoeroticism– well, my sis and her friends couldn’t help themselves from making one gay-joke after another whenever Frodo and Sam came up on the screen, looking into one another’s eyes and sharing one long, aching pause after another. By the time the last one was out, it seemed like eveyone was happy to stop taking them as seriously as the movies seemed to take themselves.
My least favourite of the trilogy, the most plodding. Glad that’s out of the way. Still fun, mind.
Why is it HOMOEROTIC? The Hobbits cavorting on the bed was a moment of resplendant relief over the fact that their dear friend had not perished from a severe wound in battle. If your brother was shot in the face next to you in a war-time battle, would you not jump up-and-down in joy knowing he survived and would live to grow old. That kind of non-sensical bashing is just a nit-pick basically trying to find any flaws when few come to mind in that montage. The deep looks of worry and grief between Frodo and Sam at the end are moments of bonding in the shared realization that their live will most probably end on that lava engulfed crest they are positioned on. I find their expressions, words, grief and acceptance of their assumed fate anything but homo-erotic. Like opera, the big dramatic moment of fate often has the players bonding in shared experience.
Aye Dennis, I quite agree with you here. Nice!
Wow. I’d actually forgotten about this, and thought somebody was just being sarcastic about Hobbits “cavorting in bed”. Politically incorrect joking aside, now that I can remember this scene clearly, I can also remember rolling my eyes at the sight of it. Jackson has a really schmaltzy side to him that I can’t stand, giving in to every melodramatic slow-mo whim. “The Sound of Music” is more clear-eyed and unsentimental than this.
Yeah there is nothing wrong with homosexual hobbits if that was Jackson’s goal. The problem is that his strained attempt at seriousness is beyond hamfisted. Those final scenes seem so awkward and ludicrous. Can’t he just end the film already. This movie has an inflated sense of greatness like the England national team. Just like that 4-1 thrashing they endured from Germany (that disallowed goal from Lampard wouldn’t of changed anything) this movie will eventually be exposed of it’s shortcomings by the eventual passage of time.
Aye Maurizio, I heard that England-Germany result on the way back from the Film Forum, where I just watched RAW DEAL and T MEN. I was shocked to hear the score, since just about every score is 1-0 or 2-1. Getting my car from the theatre back to Jersey was no easy task, as today was the Gay Pride parade over there, and there was gridlock in spots.
Maurizio, the England football team are the Gus Van Sant/Tim Burton/M Night Shitamalan (take your pick) of sport. They have an inflated reputation built on precisely sweet feck all. I personally found it hilarious and wanted the Germans to score more just to show them how shit they really are. The only people I feel sorry for are the fans who shelled out thousands to go to South Africa and support a team so sulky, so full of their so-called greatness, so overpaid, so egotistical that they didn’t seem to even want to be there. If Lampard’s goal had stood, it would have been a massive injustice for England to have been level anyway. They seem to have the chance of stringing two passes together of a Tourette’s sufferer to string together two sentences without profanity. It was like watching Derek Jacobi’s Claudius complete a sentence. As for Rooney, he’s just a sulky neanderthal thug who got away with it in 2006 when the nation had Ronaldo to hate, but Ronaldo didn’t tell Rooney to stamp on Carvalho then and no-one told him to diss the fans after the Algeria as he shamefully did.
The problem lies at the lack of youngsters coming through academies, the lack of decent coaches in the English set up, and more importantly the proliferation of foreign players in the game. Italy are going the same way and look what happened to them. Inter Milan won everything before them WITHOUT A SINGLE ITALIAN IN THE TEAM. Problem is the fans want success for the clubs, that means short term gains, overpriced foreign stars, and hardly anyone coming through the ranks. We’re paying the price we deserved to pay, ignominy and abject laughable failure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/06/the-wonderful-self-loathing-of-the-english-fan/58801/
Italy are going through the same thing, you are 100% right. The one bright spot for them is that they have been able to win 4 world cups. At this rate it will take England about 200 years to reach that number. I just think that countries like England and Spain don’t have a winning mentality on the pitch. Italy and Germany have won 7. This has not been achieved because they are vastly more talented then other European nations. They simply have the confidence and arrogance to get results (maybe not this year for Italy). England’s biggest problem is that they always expect to fail and don’t ever persevere when the pressure starts to mount.
I like the subtle point you make here Dennis… one calls this film homoerotic (I won’t state whether I agree or not, or if I even care that art is ever) but then you compare it to two men of the same sex WHO ARE BROTHERS celebrating after battle. Is homo-eroticism akin in the sexual realm as incest? And why do you take a claim of a film being ‘homoerotic’ quickly as a negative critique? I could call L. Anderson’s ‘If….’ homoerotic and mean it as a compliment….
I suppose the point you make over all is correct and I agree with it, but damn did you state in poorly IMHO.
Oh how we inadvertantly state our sexual preferences/beliefs…
Let me make something clear here– when I pointed out the homoerotic perceptions many viewers had of the films, I wasn’t mocking it for that reason itself, but rather I was using it to point out how little audiences were taking the movies seriously. I’m not sure if LOTR fans are really aware of just how many people were laughing at these films, instead of with them. I mean, have you seen the TBS “Secret Lovers” commercial?
Oh yes, Bob I understood your point, and I’m also going on things you’ve said in the past in similar circumstances. I feel you have a progressive outlook on such matters.
Yeah, I’d like to think so. If anything, I felt like there was some sort of weirdly homophobic aspect to the way people were laughing at and joking about the Frodo & Sam thing during these movies (not that everyone who chuckled was a bigot– my sister and her friends are all theater people, many of them gay or lesbian themselves, and they were practically rolling in the aisle). And granted, it’s common for characters from just about any modern movie to be cut-and-pasted together for a parody video of some kind (just add “Brokeback” as a prefix and Google away), but YouTube is one thing. Nationally broadcast cable is quite another. In the realm of viral video, the Frodo & Sam meme is positively pandemic.
Lovely. I illustrate a point and they keep bashing.
We’re just illustrating our own points. Jackson may be skilled when it comes to mixing adventure and emotional drama, but he sabotages his own enterprise by losing any kind of subtlety and giving in to all the most over-the-top soap operatics. He spends the last thirty-to-forty-five minutes milking every last ounce of pathos from the story that after a while there’s little left for the viewer to reach their own conclusions on. He’s hitting you on the top of the head with all of the drama like Capra, Spike Lee or Spielberg, but everything else is so completely divorced from any semblance of reality that it’s next to impossible to take seriously unless you’re already drinking the kool-aid. In fantasy, it pays to show a little more restraint.
Hang on, this is soap opera, but Luke-Han-Leia isn’t – I love her like my sister, he’s my brother, dad, dont’ give in to the dark side, you’re a goodie – PUR-LEASE. I’ve seen better written episodes of Brookside. Your argument mighjt carry more gravitas if you didn’t forgive a million times worse with Star Wars and that kaboodle of incestuous bollocks.
Well, that’s what happens when you make your story up as you go along, that’s true (a clever way to work in the traditional mythological incest angle, though). Still, at least the melodrama of any given “Star Wars” movie is straight and to the point– that’s the issue I’m raising here. Lucas always keeps the pace brisk and quick, even at the slowest moments, and Jackson seems to have forgotten how to do that (he used to– “Heavenly Creatures” doesn’t waste any time, even in its longest cut). I don’t begrudge anyone for standing up on a soap-opera box– it’s just best to know when to get off instead of sticking around too long by milking every last moment like an amateur theater group hogging the stage with so many death scenes. The problem with LOTR isn’t the soap per-se, but that it overstays its welcome.
This is our modern epic. Kids and youngsters that growed through those three years, as myself, crown it as one of the most magnificent experiences at the movies that one could ever imagine at their (not anymore) young age.
I find it funny, given the troubles Jackson is having putting together his HOBBIT package, that he had a chance to do a follow-up immediately and threw it away because he had no clue what to do with “The Scouring of the Shire.” That could have been his fourth film right there and RETURN wouldn’t have had quite so many endings.
Anyway, for those who can tolerate fantasy this one has so many great moments that it’s ranking seems nearly correct — nearly because I don’t think it tops the titans of 2007, including No Country for Old Men as well as films yet to be revealed. But it has a multitude of breathtaking moments, from John Noble’s barnstorming turn as Denethor to the Gladden Fields extravaganza. I dare say that the siege of Jerusalem in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN nearly tops the battles here (and in its depiction of siege warfare surpasses the sometimes flimsy effects Jackson provides), but there are details like the mass cries of “Death!!!” as the music swells before the charge and Miranda Otto’s mighty work throughout that keep this sequence as the standard for others to match.