Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The
People seem to be entranced by this film, and I wish I was too. But trying to explain its flaws, all I get is "it's a fantasy movie", which I suppose means "anything goes". People don't want the romanticism of this world tainted by having to think about it. And maybe that's how it should be, but I couldn't help sitting in that cinema and thinking the worst. I couldn't turn off that analytical side of the brain and just look at the pretty people and pretty pictures.
In short:
Most disappointing film of the year. Weakest film of the trilogy.
In long: (and I mean long!):
I have heard Peter Jackson say in interviews that the first two films were just setting the stage for this film. Now this sounds like the usual "This film is the best because it is the film I am promoting today" type of PR, but I also think he genuinely believed it – which is a pity because it means that the near-pointless first half of the movie was intentionally made so stagnant. My interpretation of what he is saying is that he was right, the first two films did set the stage. They did all the hard yards, but when it came to the third film the momentum stopped dead (until we reached the big battle). If you were to write a synopsis of the first half of Return Of The King it would read as such: Frodo and Sam continue their journey while the others go back and forward organising an impending battle.
There seemed to be a lot of piss-farting around where Gandalf, etc. were just trying to get their army up. And surprise, surprise, after it looks like the army of men will not unite against the forces of darkness one army comes to the aid of the other in their darkest hour. Nice stuff, but didn't that already happen at Helm's Deep? Not really a huge pay off considering how much time was devoted to this cause.
Still, this is a minor gripe considering the utter stupidity of the 'army of the dead, cursed men'. Is this Pirates Of The Fucking Caribbean ? Where did these ghosts come from? I fucking hated them. Hated, despised, loathed. Sure, Lord Of The Rings is a fantasy, but up until this stage it is all tangible fantasy. Orcs, Elfs, Hobbits are all believable within the context that the films/books create. They are just different races inhabiting the same world. An army full of dead, cursed men – to me anyway – did not fit into the context of Middle Earth that I had been sold on up until that point.
And you would have to agree that only the laziest of storytelling introduces something like this mere minutes before we see it.
Scene 50
"Hey what's making the horses go nuts?"
"Why that would be the caves of dead, cursed men who form an unbeatable army when united by the heir to the throne in a very convenient act that cements his place as the true ruler of men."
"Oh, cool"
Scene 51
We are introduced to said dead, cursed men.
Perhaps if their existence had been mentioned in the first two films I would not have had a problem with them, but as it was they stuck out like two very sore, stupid, convenient thumbs that just serve as an easy story-arch end for Aragorn (wow, they followed him, he must be the true king – after all, he has a cool old broken sword!) and also to the battle.
Also what was with the witch king? Speaking of bad build-ups: Gandalf informs us that there is a bad-assed dude out there that may stand in their way of success. He appears and is disposed of in mere minutes, pretty pitifully truth told. What sort of tosser goes around telling everyone "no man can kill me" when a simple sword to the head does the trick? Dickhead.
And while the battle was far from totally boring, it gave me a sense of 'been-there-done-that' (including the milking of the 'body count' battle joke between Gimli and Legolas that I loved in The Two Towers ). The use of slo-mo and other questionable editing methods sucked me straight out of the world I was in and reminded me again, and again, that I was watching a movie (bad move in a fantasy film). Helm's deep was the shit. Perfect pacing, good sense of comradery between the characters and nice sprinkles of humour with the best action direction of all three films. In the first I complained that the battle scenes were too grandiose, big swooping pans with little detail. In Helms Deep the battle was laid out to us in gritty detail with a brilliant sense of impending doom and hopelessness countered with blind heroism. Even with the orcs present it felt like it was a historical battle, a medievil recreation.
The fight in Return Of The King felt like the other end of the fantasy spectrum with ghost armies and elfs skateboarding down elephant trunks. All a bit goofy really.
Legolas and Gimli had nothing to do in this film, their story should have ended at Helm's Deep. Their friendship had reached an endearing level by Two Towers end, however everything they said or did in this film felt like a re-hash of something they had already said or did in the other two (with the exception of aforementioned elephant trunk half-pipe). And for a film called Return of the King Aragorn really didn't do a fuck of a lot besides giving a few rousing "natural leader" speeches and holding a cool sword that won him the respect of some stoopid ghosts. I expected much more in his story. Instead I got an hour of a demented would-be-king who kept trying to burn his clearly-alive son to death.
Funniest part of the film? Gandalf telling Faramihr that his father did love him. Uh, did you get that impression from one of his "I wish you had died instead of your brother" speeches, or was it when he made him go into a hopeless battle where death was seemingly inevitable while he slurped tomatoes and made hobbits sing? No wait, nothing says I love you like being nearly burnt alive.
The whole thing with Faramihr's dad was ridiculous to the point of hilarity. I was trying not to laugh when he took a nose dive off the mountain side. Which brings me to the needlessly melodramatic return of Liv. I have not wanted to ask for fear of being laughed at, but why is she dying? It would appear the answer is "because she is in love with a human" which really isn't an answer at all. In fact I have never understood any of the Elven stuff. Did they all leave to ride a boat to heaven? Voluntarily commit mass suicide with Gandalf and Frodo in tow? I don't know what it's like in the books, but it seems the films have not wanted to explain anything about them because it may distract from their romantic mysticism. Which I can stomach fine except the Liv part. We are told her fate is tied to the ring? WHY? Because it's good melodrama. And do they really expect us to believe that Aragorn helps save the world and then is more worried about getting his crown than finding out if his girlfriend lived or died? Oh look, here she is behind a sheet, better have a schmaltzy kiss. That'll rub it in Ellowyn's face.
It's hard to point a finger at anything these days and say "dude, thats gay" without the PC police jumping on you, but what's up with these hobbits? Look I'm an open-minded young man who loves a good group hug with his mates as much as anyone but I am sure no two heterosexual men have ever shared as intense lingering stares as Sam and Frodo. After the first two films I was like heh, did anyone see the gay subtext there, but this was no subtext. Their relationship became a parody of what it had been previously. It's called slash fiction, people, but it only works when it stays in SUBTEXT. I loved the nice let's-get-Sam-married-so-people-don't-walk-out-of-here-thinking-the-hobbits-are-gay bit though.
But did we have to see him get married? I know weve travelled a long way with these characters and want a proper send-off for them but Jesus Christ that fucking ending went on. And did they have to rub our faces in it by continually fading to black for 5 seconds after each ending so everyone thinks okay film over – wait! There's more! The guy next to me kept hopping up, in obvious need for a piss, then having to sit back down after it faded back into yet another where-are-they-now moment in Hobbitsville. In the end he cracked it and just left after the fourth false-end. It should have done the Star Wars end and just finished with the crowning of Aragorn with nice cuts to the smiling faces of all the main characters. Instead we get such captivating moments as Sam getting married and a bizarre near-orgy with everyone jumping on Frodo in bed. Saucy.
So what did I like about the film, you may ask?
Gollum.
It was clear into the second film that the whole story is his. Everyone else is incidental. He has the true story-arch.
EXCEPT
As much as I loved the flashback that opened the film it was baffling that Smeagol talked like Gollum before he even got the ring. It sort of tarnished the character a bit for me that instead of being a normal hobbit that the ring corrupted and demented over time, he was already a freaky hobbit before the ring. In fact, if anything the ring made him more likeable. And it was odd that he was calling the ring "my precious" before even touching it. It just reeked of in case there is anyone really dumb in the audience we are just trying to illustrate that this guy and Gollum are the same person. Understood?.
Despite what you have just read there still was loads to like about the film. The visuals alone kept me captivated for instance, and there were some very good scenes mixed in there somewhere. It just felt it was a whole film of cheap emotional payoffs. I walked out of the first one thinking it was good, but not great. The extended edition changed my mind. I loved The Two Towers and couldn't wait to see the extended edition of that one. However with Return Of The King I am hoping that the extended edition is actually a reduced edition. There could be a really good film in there if they chopped out the filler. I am hoping a second viewing will change my mind but I am scared it will make me dislike it further.
Oh well, I know one day I will make my peace with it and be able to enjoy it on some level because, hey, it's Lord of the Rings, dammit! Right…?