Slashdot Mirror
A Return Of The King Review
I must have read the trilogy three or four times since I was first introduced to it via The Hobbit back in grade-school. I am not a purist, but some of the changes Peter Jackson has made along the way weren't to my liking. For example, I didn't like the deviation in Faramir's character during the Two Towers, despite Peter Jackson's claim that he needed to create additional tension and discord beyond what Tolkien included.
The Return of the King has same flaws, but overall I thought it was a more engaging movie than the previous ones. Beware, there are a few spoilers ahead; obviously, most of the Slashdot crowd knows the story in the books, but what will follow should be considered a spoiler, as I am describing Jackson's adaptation of the book.
The movie opens at what I thought to be a strange spot - Smeagol's killing his friend for the Ring; why not put this in the first movie? I think this may have been foreshadowing one of the more prominent departures from the book: Jackson decided to increase the tension between Sam and Frodo over the Ring, with Golem playing on Frodo's Ring-induced distrust. This tension did exist in the book, but Jackson makes it more overt. Personally, I thought it was a little over the top.
Obviously, the book is too large to be made into even a three-hour movie, but I found that one large part is missing that I hoped would be covered: the Battle of Bywater. In the book, when Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin arrive back at the Shire, they discover that Saruman and his thugs have enslaved the Hobbits. I have hope that this may be added into an Extended-Edition (probably due out this time next year).
A good chunk of this movie is spent on the moments leading up to the battle, the battle itself, and the immediate aftermath. As a result, I noticed that there were a lot of speeches of the sabre-rattling kind made by principal characters that I'm sure weren't there in the book -- a kind of Holywood-ization in the Gladiator spirit. It probably makes the movie more interesting to people who haven't and won't read the book.
The humor that could be found in The Two Towers (specifically, Gimli) carries over into The Return of the King. I didn't mind the humor, though I know it's an addition that Jackson made.
Along the way, I noticed other small deviations, but I'll leave those for Tolkien fans to argue over.
Enough complaints; there were a lot of great scenes, and many of the plot lines were handled deftly by Jackson.
Shelob getting Frodo, and Sam taking him for dead, is done particularily well. Jackson didn't change much at all here, and the effects are great.
From the book, I remember a strong impression of bleakness as Sam and Frodo take the final stage of their journey to Mount Doom -- Jackson got that dead-on. Jackson does an excellent job showing the toll that the Ring is taking on Frodo.
The battle outside the walls of Minas Tirith puts the battle of Helm's Deep to shame. The high walls of the city built into the cliff, with a huge army of orcs outside the walls, have to be seen to be believed. I don't actually remember any in-depth description of the battle outside Gondor (in fact, I don't remember any great battle depictions from any of the books -- bad memory?), but Jackson does a great job of providing one. The trebuchets are particularily engaging.
Overall, I would have to say that this was my favorite of the three movies. The movie was a little more grim, a little darker, and showed some of the violence and fighting in a more disturbing fashion. I am hoping that some of what I perceived as shortcomings will be fixed in the Extended Edition (the Two Towers's Extended Edition was a much better movie that the theatre version). I can't wait to see it again.
How did EA get ahold of an advanced screening? Can any company get one?
Personally, I always thought this part didn't flow well in the book either. It didn't seem to "fit". The style was different, the main plot was over, it didn't seem to matter. I am glad Jackson chose this section to cut from the movie. It will make a better movie, and IMBO (In My Blasphemous Opinion) would have made a better book too.
Most books are too big to fit in a movie, and these books are bigger than most. By big I mean big with details, plots, characters, etc, not just big in pages. If Jackson had to cut something out without changing the main plotline, Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire were the best choices.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
I think changes between any movie made from a book or books, even the beloved Tolkien trilogy, are a necessary evil as part of the media switch. I guess I'm even geek enough to rather have seen Glorfindel instead of Liv Tyler on Frodo's crossing to Rivendell. The problem, time and space notwithstanding, is the style of book, and whether or not that can be adequately expressed. Whether it's Lowry's "Under the Volcano" or Herbert's "Dune," it's difficult to transform words and thoughts into pictures and movement without some loss. As a fan, I'm willing to give the director/creative team a lot of leeway and will suspend my interior cinema of what I think the characters should look like in order to enjoy what's on the screen. So, on with the show.
The Battle of Helms Deep was also described in great detail in the Two Towers book. It was a hard chapter to read though and I had to read it with a dictionary and draw a map at the same time; a map which I refined many times while reading. He used many words from Old English that are no longer used, or have changed meaning over the years. H.P. Lovecraft used a similar technique to give an ancient air to his stories: writing in an older, more formal, style. I can't remember all the antiquated words right now, but certainly, "gore" was one which he used to mean, "A small traingular piece of land" and I have never heard anyone else use it to mean that.
Thanks for your review. I can't wait to see the movie!
Two words: Library Card. It's free and widely available in most "civilized" countries.
Matt Damen in "Good Will Hunting" made fun of a student for paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Harvard education you could get for $1.97 in late fees at your local library. As a non-college graduate who works with people whose average education is a Masters in CS, and whose wife has a Masters from Harvard, I can tell you he has a good point.
The books are great. Start with The Hobbit. They are my favorite books I have ever read.
P.S. If you should think from my post that a college degree is unnesecary, you should know that I am painfully finishing my college degree after a 10 year absence - one course at a time while working 40 hours a week and commuting 1.5 hours each way. I thought I was smart enough to drop out of college, but now I'm eating my humble pie - and I can tell you it tastes like shit! I think those people with MS degrees make more than I do even if I work harder and know more than some of them. It can also really help when applying for jobs. I want one (an MS) but I need my BA first.
*SPOILERS*
;-) See the symmetry, one Palintir abuser serving another.
I'll be VERY dissapointed if they cut out the confrontation at the doors of Orthanc. This was strongly hinted at on the Two Towers extended documentaries.
This confrontation is EXTREMELY important because:
1) It's the last time you'll see Saruman.
2) It's where Perry gets a gander at the Palintir which forces him to go with Gandalf to Minas Tirith. He winds up as gaurd for Denethor's chambers (actually more of a bard, Denethor keeps him around to tell Shire tales). Ultimately, he ends up saving Faramir when Denethor flips out because he's been hitting the Palintir too hard
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
In the 1970's there were things called 'Midnight Movies'; showings of unusual films at 12am. They were actually quite popular then, but now it's hard to believe that anyone would want to see a movie at midnight.
The 1970's were also an era of a certain type of movie that can only be called an 'anti-date' movie. These films were all but guaranteed to make you feel so weird and repulsive after seeing them that you ran the risk of associating the shock induced by the movie with the person whom you went to the theatre with. Often you wouldn't know this was going to feel this way until the film was almost complete.
Movies in the 1995-2003 era are more-or-less engineered to induce precise emotions in the audience. There are few real surprises either good or bad. Everybody knows fairly well in advance how they are going to feel after the movie's over and they're leaving the theatre. You may not know what is exactly actually going to happen in the movie, but you have a fairly good idea how it's going to make you feel. Compared to the rollar-coaster risk that you took with 1970's movies, this is not really a bad thing.
Some examples of the 'anti-date' midnight movies of the 1970's are:
Clockwork Orange (1971 Stanley Kubrick)
Seven Beauties (1975 Lina Wertmuller)
El Topo (1969 Alexjandro Jordokoski)
Taxi Driver (1976 Martin Scorsese)
Chinatown (1974 Roman Polanski)
The list can go on and on. I'm amazed now that there was any romance at all in the 1970's. The fact that childern were still born to people who went to lots of movies is a testament to the human spirit.
Indeed. The author of the review could learn a lot from your attitude.
For example, he didn't like Jackson and Company's decision on making Faramir a jackass initially. I vsn sympathize with that, I didn't either. Neither did the actor. And then they explained to him (and to the viewers of the documentary DVDs) the problem with Faramir in the book.
One of the many reasons Faramir is so kick-ass in my mind -- as well as being Tolkien's favorite character -- is because, when told about the presence of the Ring in his patrol territory, he answers, "I would not pick this thing up even if it lay by the side of the road." Think about that for a moment.
See, while it's a great moment of personal integrity, it completely undermines the horrible eroding strength of the Ring. What, here's someone who's not tempted at all by the most powerful artifact in the Third Age? Fuck the Hobbits, then -- give it to this dude, he can stroll into Mordor and toss it into the fire without a moment of doubt. Instead of failing, as Frodo technically does.
If you think that hordes of moviegoers wouldn't be talking about this "massive plot hole" as they left the theatre, think again.
So, they decided to make Faramir as vulnerable as everyone else to the lure of power. And instead of a static Faramir as in the book, where he's strong and good and self-disciplined when we meet him, and in the end is still strong and good and self-disciplined (and married), here we get to see Faramir overcome the temptation of the Ring, and progress to being more self-disciplined than he started out. I think Tolkien would count that as a victory.
Personally, I don't consider either version of Faramir superior to the other. The incredibly powerful "I do not love the sword for its brightness" passage can still be read without the movie "tainting" it or anything like that.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
He used many words from Old English that are no longer used
No, not Old English. Old English isn't recognizable to modern English speakers. Here's a bible verse in old, middle, and modern english:
Old English:
And tha laedde se deofol hyne. and aetywde him ealle ricu eorthan ymbehwyrftes. on anre byrhmhwile
Middle English:
& e deuel ledde hym in to an heiy hil, & shewede to hym alle e rewmes of e roundnesse of ere in moment of a tyme
Modern English
The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
The orthography doesn't show up correctly here; The thorns and eths don't appear. Sorry about that.
I think what really matters is how these films survive over time. Long was it Tolkien could not be done: you could do Star Wars, you could do anything, but you couldn't do Tolkien. Others tried and failed.
A few movie critics are beginning to talk not about the fantasy of JRR but the fantasy of Jackson, as if the latter's interpretation will in some way supersede the literary accomplishment of the former.
This can very well happen, although it certainly is not Jackson's intention. What these movies must do over time is enhance the LoTR experience, not replace it.
Only time will tell.