Tackling a great epic such as Lord of the Rings was never going to be easy; it
is just too big to fit into feature-length pieces, so aficionado's of the
literary work will complain of missed set pieces and deviation of story, while
those unfamiliar with the work want to be entertained without pointless
side-tracking and overly complex plot.Jackson's approach has been to create a movie for movie goers, and extended DVD
versions for the hardcore; or that has been his recently stated intention.
Which doesn't explain why Return of the King runs for as long as
it does. It was overly long and the potential for cutting was clear, and where
cuts were needed was obvious. Over an hour of footage could have been snipped
from the film without damaging the cinemagraphic release, and it would have been
the better for it.
That Jackson defended the cutting of Saruman's scenes at the end of the film and
depriving us of the chance to see Christopher Lee in action, as being only
seven minutes, and some pretty unimportant scenes at that, is hard to justify
when put against the long drawn out ending he does give us.
At the end of three hours, no one is particularly concerned about how the story
is wrapped up; the ring's destroyed, all the heroes have survived, we know it's
a 'happy ever after' ending ( even the title gives it away ), so let's just end
on some up-lifting line and some powerful music - Roll credits.
Like A.I., this film just wouldn't end when it should. Jackson has to keep
hitting us with another, "And then this happened ...", ending, and then another,
and another, and by then it's hard to care. A terrible ending can undo a film,
and the more that are thrown in, the worse it will get.
The continuous stream of endings did nothing to enhance the story we'd been
told, they were foregone conclusions, and therefore a waste. That the ending
skipped much of what was in the book will do nothing but alienate those who
do care.
When reviews start by heavily criticising the end of a film, it means that they
have left the film less than impressed, and it is unfortunate that
Jackson destroys what could have been a good film so badly.
The rest of the film, in fact the great majority of it, was impressive, and
would have held together well had there been much more ruthless cutting to get
the film down to a comfortable, and more normal, feature length; two hours tops.
I can appreciate that a great deal of effort, and not least money, went into
some of the fantastic special effects, but that's no excuse for stretching
scenes out to keep everything in.
The battle at Minas Tirith was one of epic proportions,
but we understood that, and it didn't need to be dragged out, as wave after
wave of various CGI creatures and hordes were thrown into it. Okay, the
elephants were good, but they weren't really needed plot-wise, and I had
no idea which force they represented or why. More so the dragon-like
Nazguls, and the giant eagles. The Witch King played no obvious plot part other
than to serve as a vehcle for the, "No man can kill me", "Ha ha, but I'm a
woman !", line.
The Witch King was just a minor part of the unexplained which filled the film;
what was this 'seeing sphere' ? How did it get to where it was ? Why was Aragorn
proclaimed King ? Why did Gandalf keep hitting people with his staff; does he
know no magic ? Who is Sauron ? Why do we never see him ? When Frodo was spiked
by the spider, why didn't he have a hole the size of a house brick in his back ?
The cause of the madness of Denethor, the steward of the throne, was never
explained and, Pippin, running around, shouting, "But he's not dead", as
Faramir, Denethor's youngest son, was to be prematurely burnt on a funeral
pyre, was inferior Monty Python material.
And what was the Elven tart's dream in the forest all about ? I've never really
got to grips with what the Elves are doing in the plot anyway. Okay the one
who's with the merry band of men because he's 'good with the arrows' is
understandable, but what the hell are the rest of them doing there ? It seems
that their only purpose is to run the last taxi service out of Middle Earth
at the end of the film, taking Frodo, Bilbo and Gandalf off with them, and who
knows why or what that was about. And didn't our fellowship standing on the
quay look - and there's no politically correct way to put this - so gay !
When Pippin started singing, I expected the film to suddenly turn into a
musical, and was waiting for them to bring on the tap-dancing Orcs, but we
were thankfully saved from that.
What looked to be a giant, flaming vagina in the trailer turned out to be some
magic ethereal eye, which was a little bit of a personal disappointment, as
was the sight of Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo. What works well in the
imagination conjured up by good writing can easily look tacky and pathetic on
the big screen. This was case in point.
The occasional CGI matting of the Hobbits into a scene to make them look
smaller than their compatriots was noticeable by its presence, and jarring, but
not as bad as the child 'body doubles' used elsewhere.
Some of the burning
beacons were equally weak on the CGI front, while, as a technical point, a
burning beacon on the top of a mountain, above the cloud line, is of no
practical use to man nor beast. And just how many beacons do we need to see
being set alight to get the drift ? It's not as if they were trying to signal
the other side of Middle Earth. Or were they ? One thing the film seriously
lacked was any concept of physical distance, and passage of time, except for
the audience whose backsides were becoming more numb with every passing minute.
The merging of CGI with real action was one of the great successes of the film,
though the massive sweeping pans became a little repetitive. Gollum remains
one of the great masterpieces of CGI, but, perhaps strangely, didn't seem to be
quite as realistic nor effectively done as in the second part of the trilogy.
The early fish eating scene was a gem in its own right, and the animated spider,
Shelob, was fantastic, if over used. This is not the place for pantomime, "It's
behind you", and this prolonged showcasing scene for CGI could have been easily
condensed without losing its impact.
The one advantage that CGI did give the film, was the ability to have a heavily
destroyed Minas Tirith rebuilt and spotless, and the battlefield before it
cleared, before the end of the film. Rather
noticeable that was I'm afraid. But not as annoying as the continuity errors
as the hobbit's cloak clasps continually changed direction mid-scene.
The film generally lacked emotion and enthusiasm. The most powerful scene for
me was when Gollum misleads Frodo into believing that his faithful companion
Sam is plotting to take the ring from him. But still, it
was hard not to put words into Sam's mouth when Frodo told him, "Go home,
Sam"; "What ? We're hanging on a cliff face virtually by our finger tips, miles
from f--king anywhere, and you say, 'go home' !". I was wondering if Sam would
leap up and poke Elijah Woods in those over inflated eyeballs we've had to
endure for ten hours of our lives, while shouting, "Get a grip, man !". It's
ironic that one of the few scenes I actually thought was done well has no
basis in the book.
Unlike many reviews I have read since seeing the film - and try finding a
professional reviewer who isn't sycophantically fawning over how wonderful it
is and telling us how they cried with joy at the end - I can't call this
the greatest feature film I have ever seen. In contradiction to others though,
I think this was the best of the trilogy, but I cannot condemn the film
for failing to follow the book, as I haven't read it ( I rely on those who
have to tell me where Jackson has drifted from the written word ). I can only
judge the film
for what it was; a film, a screenplay acted out by actors, wrapped in costumes
and surrounded by real and imaginary sets, directed and edited by those who
give us the product that they want us to see.
My verdict, which is equally true of the trilogy, is that it was "okay" but
went on for far, far too long. The
multiple endings are a real killer, and it frightens me to think that the DVD
may have additional alternative endings, but not apparently the scouring of The
Shires. The CGI was excellent, the acting was
so-so but up to the task, the screenplay was weak, through inexplainably
incorporating things a casual viewer of the movie could not hope to understand,
and for failing to avoid straying. The direction was excellent, and Jackson
weaves the various threads well, but he failed miserably in ending the film and
failed to cut elsewhere; that he was the primary editor of the film, puts
those failings clearly on his doorstep. He would have done well to have stepped
back from the film, seeking advice.
At the end of the day; how can Return of the King, and the trilogy as a
whole, be described ? One long drawn out, but technically well done, battle
scene, with a bit of filler, and precious little message. Great eye candy, but,
strangely enough, it all seems so unmemorable, and little more than a dull
sensation of intolerable boredom lingers.
