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.
"...and whose girlfriend couldn't make it to the screening."
Because you hit her with a cinderblock ?
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
How did EA get ahold of an advanced screening? Can any company get one?
i cant read the article...no spoilers for me....i havent read the books...aw, hell...Dec 17th will bring the answers for us commonfolk
nothing.can.stop.me.now
Seriously, anybody who's been to any of the 12:01am showings for movies like LotR or Star Wars knows what I'm talking about. You'll get hordes of people dressed up like Gandalf (albeit some morbidly obese variant of him) trying to hit you with a broom handle that they insist on calling a quarterstaff.
On a side note, what sort of self-respecting /.er would be wary of spoilers regarding LotR?
Most of you already know this, but: The scouring of the shire scene will not be in the extended edition - Jackson didn't like it and never filmed it...but 10 minutes of other scenes with Saruman and Wormtongue will be back for the DVD.
The ride of the Rohirrim, the chapter covering the beginning of the battle of the Pelennor fields, is an incredible passage; probably my favourite little bit of fiction ever. I suggest you re-read before claiming status as Tolkien fan.
Yeah, right.
I heard there's a book that tells the whole sotry of the three movies... And more!!!
And it's written by a good author, too...
Kriox
Spoilers? Like what? Gollum is Frodo's father? Sam tying the deflector dish to the warp drive to escape Mordor? OTOH, with what I've heard is being cut, maybe I shouldn't be suprised.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Oh man! That just ruined it for me!
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
Wasn't this film originally going to be called "Revenge of the King", but they changed the name after some marketing material had already been prepared?
I have two exams on the 17th day and seeing as how I flunked the midterms for both classes, I won't be given a B.Sc in May if I go.
That being said I have tickets for 12:01.
Who cares if you flunk a couple in the long run anyways?
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.
I don't know about anyone else, but I personally would miss the hobbit-battle at the end against the orcs. There's just something cool about little guys getting all ferocious and kicking the ass of bigger, evil types. I can just imagine a line of hobbits lined up with pitchforks and rakes, charging at half a dozen orcs, and the orcs turning to run. Good stuff. :)
I imagine that this end battle is what Lucas shaped his Endor battle after, to a degree - at least in concept. Little 'cute' guys kicking the asses of much bigger, more agressive baddies in a humorous manner.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Apparently the same ones who don't read the articles. :)
I saw it about 2 weeks ago. Peter Jackson was there afterwards with the two writers for an interview moderated by Carrie Fisher (who not only hadn't read the books, but I got the feeling she hadn't seen the previous movies either. In any event, she really had no interesting questions or comments of her own and relied on the audience to supply them.)
Okay, now that you all envy me, here's my mini-review:
It was really, really good. 3x the special effects of the last one. Spider (Shelob? or something like that) was AWESOME. Battle scenes were great. The Orlando Bloom elephant takedown will be talked about (and certainly parodied) for years. Gollum is constantly good in every scene he's in. His acting is awesome-- he gives Sam this one look look (it's in the trailer) that basically says "you're so screwed" while simultaneously kissing Frodo's ass. Sean Astin gives his best performance ever as the devoted best friend. There's a real cool "woman vs. funky snake-headed dragon" faceoff. The end battle sequence is cool, as is the volcano stuff-- flaming lava balls flying through the sky like giant comets. The sound was cranked up when I saw it, and the screaming, screeching audio was top-notch.
The bad: Some boring/slow parts, including the Liv Tyler subplot and the now-notorious "thirteen endings" featuring tons of Unexplained Stuff-- giant eagles, a mysterious boat trip to...somewhere. And at three hours and twenty minutes, you really really start to feel it at the end.
That said, I'm getting to see ANOTHER advanced screening tomorrow! It's my favorite of the three by far, and certainly one of the best movies of the year.
As far as Peter Jackson-- much of what he said at that screening has been reported widely already-- he's doing king kong (one of the films that got him interested in filmmaking in the first place), he wants to do Hobbit but there are legal challenges at the moment, and he talked a bit about making LOTR vs. "Meet the Feebles". He said LOTR was infinitely more complex, but it was just as difficult to do MTF because he didn't have all the people working on it. What else... he talked a bit about adapting the work-- the first thing he did was summarize the books into a ninety page outline-- 30 pages per book. He also talked about getting the rights to the book, working with the Weinsteins (apparently Bob didn't get the concept until he realized that the guy with the sword, axe, and arrows were "specialists") at Mirimax before switching to New Line, and how sometimes he'd be shooting four units simultaneously.
I don't know if anyone's even gonna read this, so I guess i'll finish with that. The point is, it's good. See it. You'll like it.
The movies are a lot more about humans than the books were. Tolkien created the hobbits and so had an affinity for them. So the entire book really is about how different the hobbits are from the humans.
For example, the book starts out with Frodo sitting on the most important thing in the world for 20 years. Then Gandalf tells him he must leave the shire immediately and he still stays for another 6 months.
The movie is much more human-centric. See how Boromir and such are changed.
As such, there really is no way to put the scouring of the shire in. The climax is when the entire world is saved, especially the human world. There is no way to follow that with saving a small group of shut-ins.
If I were filming the books, I'd do the same thing.
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.
This is one of the changes that occurred after they started shooting the first one. Originally, Gollum was going to be computer animated with very little mo-cap... but Andy Serkis changed all that, and turned Gollum's portrayal in the movies into a fully fledged character with true depth.
Of course, they'd already started shooting the first one when they discovered this, so this scene with Gollum and Smeagol was put in later.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Have to agree about the ending(s). I too attended a preview last week (with digital projection, I am pleased to say) and there were so many false fnales, that I heard a few people actually chuckling. It was pretty cheesy in a way, but after all, we've been through a lot with this whole damned LOTR saga and I guess I can forgive a bit of overindulgence at the end.
On the whole, I'd have to say that ROTK was a strong finish for the series. I loved #1, got a bit bored with #2, but was truly riveted by #3. We all expect the FX bar to be raised with each new mega-budget blockbuster and this was certainly no exception, but for me, the triumph of this film was the nearly seamless integration of the effects. The extensive digital offline work really paid off (with the exception of a few wonky bits of compositing were Hobbits met reality) and the color work was spectacular.
Individual geeks may take issue with this or that infidelity or liberty taken, but in general, the triumph of the LOTR digital post-production pipeline is the stuff that will keep many of the geeks here in the chips for years to come.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
Darth Vader is Luke's father. Apollo 13 makes it home safely. Hal9000 kills the crew. Sarah Connor crushes the Terminator in a metal press. Khan is killed in the Genesis explosion while Kirk escapes. Spiderman kills the Green Goblin. ET phones home and a spaceship comes to rescue him. Ripley blows the Alien out an airlock. Major Kong rides an H-Bomb to the target and the Doomsday Weapon is detonated. The Planet of the Apes is really Earth. Butch and Sundance get killed by the Peruvian Army. Spartacus gets crucified. Frodo throws Gollum and the Ring into the pit, defeating Evil.
Can we all just get over the idea that movies are not going to be the same as books? I mean it's been, what 100 years, and we're still shocked?
If we look at LoTR as just a movie, which is bringing some of Tolkein's characters and stories to life (though not all of them, and not in the form that Tolkien wrote them... OF COURSE) -- I think you will find that these movies measure up well against just about any other movie out there. Certainly compared to the absolute CRAP we've been treated to this year (with very, very few exceptions), RoTK has to do very little to rise above the crowd. The first two movies were better by far, IMHO, than Ladyhawke, Krull, Legend, Willow, and a host of other fanstasy movies that we've seen in the last few decades. I have a soft spot in my heart for some of the Jim Henson work from the 80s, but even those are at best no better than LoTR.
I even enjoyed them more than the Sinbad movies of old, and that's saying something.
So if you must compare LoTR to something, compare them to other movies. There have been better, and will be again, but I think these movies will prove to be as memorable 20 years from now as any other fantasy (original or adaptation) has been.
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)
Look, people, this has been stated since 1998--there will be no Scouring of the Shire. It was not filmed. It will not be in the Extended Edition. The homage to it was the vision in the Mirror of Galadriel.
In every single LOTR article, someone brings up how they hope for the Scouring, when it's already been covered that it won't appear. Peter Jackson has been open about this since the very beginning. Stop talking about how you hope it appears!
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.