The Lord Of The Rings Motion Picture Trilogy Blu-Ray Review And Giveaway

The Return of the King

When I reviewed the first installment of The Lord of the Rings, I said that the movie was almost sideways about its own plot. That it was not ‘here is something that happens, and these are the people involved,’ but rather, ‘here are some people, and here is something that happened to them.’ I don’t purport to be original there, because all I’m really saying is that the story is a character study more than anything else, but even for a character study, it’s really more ‘about’ its characters than usual. I also said that it was one of the best movies I’d ever seen. When I reviewed the second movie, I said I was surprised that it was even better than the first. The third movie, though there are problems, is the best yet. One of the reasons it is the best, is that what I was saying above becomes not only so much more apparent (and it was rather apparent to begin with), but so much more true.

There is much that happens in this third movie, and though events may move along in their normal course, the vast majority of what happens is best described in terms of character actions and reactions. More importantly, where the second movie left off further developing our characters to a certain extent, the third movie picks up again, showing the further development our characters undergo as a reaction to their experiences.

That said, the ending was something of a disappointment to me. The return of the Hobbits as it happens in the book, seems to me one of the main points of the entire affair. The unspoken comparison you’re intended to make between how the Hobbits do react, and how they might have reacted to similar circumstances before any of this happened to them is, I think, a main point Tolkien was attempting to convey. My disappointment aside, the movie does manage to work a certain amount of that point into the ending it does have, and in fact into this entire movie, starting at about the midway point.

The plot is pretty straightforward, and somewhat irrelevant to discuss at this point. Frodo and Sam are still trying to make their way into Mordor in order to destroy the ring, and everyone else is attempting to stave off the hordes of Orcs as they try to destroy the world of humans (and others). The focus this time is on Minas Tirath, a city of Gondor, which is the target of the next Orc attack. A problem arises, similar to the last movie, because the ruler of Minas Tirath is officially only a steward, and obligated to relinquish his power should another King show up. Thus, he’s a man unhappy with events from the first moment he learns the movie’s title.

The plot revolves around preparations for battle, confronting the past, confronting oneself (in a variety of forms), and eventually the battle. On Frodo’s end of things, the entire plot is almost exclusively about confronting oneself, though there is also the preparation for battle, the confronting of the past, and eventually the battle. The best parts of the overall story (plot arcwise) are the ways in which the characters confront themselves, and the fact that it almost never goes well. Faramir’s confrontation with his father is perhaps simplistic, and his ensuing ride into battle (which is brilliantly absent from the film) may be teetering on the silly, but the related inner workings of everyone involved (including a hobbit) are portrayed extremely well.

Fans of the book will be glad to know that Sam finally takes his rightful place in the overall importance of the story. Arguably (and I think easily) the most important character of the story, Sam finally gets the chance to truly convey his worth, and it isn’t until this movie that we can, in retrospect, understand the emotional arc he is meant to relay. I should perhaps say the ‘emotional non-arc’, because that is really the point, that he is unwavering, but that doesn’t translate well until this movie. Though I think there is very solid acting all around in these films, I don’t think anyone especially stands out as being so good that they deserve special kudos, or say, an award. Everyone (with the exception of Elijah Wood who has always felt slightly wrong to me) does well above-average work, just not work that I would say blows me away in and of itself. Except, that is, Sean Astin in this movie. A fantasy movie is a strange sort of entity to really find yourself taken in by a performance. Perhaps that’s why it doesn’t bother me to say that no one else really stands out as doing an exactly spectacular job. Be that as it may, Sean Astin hooked me with his portrayal of Sam this time around, though things do go on a bit much in areas. He didn’t have enough to work with in the first two movies, but he gets more here, more even than the second movie which tried to lay groundwork for the character, and he nails it. As I said, being a fantasy movie, it is odd to say such things, but the movie was worth it to me just to watch him (much like, for a semi-recent example, ‘Secretary’ was easily worth it to watch Maggie Gyllenhaal).

Other hobbits get wonderful treatment here as well, even if Elijah Wood’s Frodo never comes through perfectly. Merry and Pippin spin off to something like a new arc in the final movie. The point of Sam may be that he more or less stays the same, but that is not at all true of Merry and Pippin. In the first movie these two served to show us what Hobbits that are more the norm than Frodo and Sam are like, and they did a very good job. Now they serve to show us, through their (individual, unique, but similar) transformation, the more general transformation Hobbits (theoretically) must undergo. Dominic Monaghan (Merry) and Billy Boyd (Pippin), held their own in the first two movies, but here they shine. They prove what solid choices they are, and that they mesh with the overall approach of the film. Each of these movies (and I’ve mentioned this before), grand in scope as they may be, are largely about the subtleties, and Merry and Pippin prove to be masters of this. They are able to translate almost perfectly, not the expressions, reactions, and subtle attitudes of a ‘person’, or ‘character’ in a situation, but a Hobbit in a situation, and that to me is possibly one of the film’s best achievements.

Miranda Otto (look for her in the upcoming ‘The Flight of the Phoenix’) as Eowyn also stands out. The foundation of her character and motivations laid in the last movie, builds to a respectably engaging character here. She delivers a quiet suffering, and determination which embodies all women who do (or did) more than their share, yet sit the sidelines. Though many aspects of the movie intend to portray bravery, and part of the aim of the entire story is doing what must be done whatever the cost, Eowyn is where we see this best in the film. Frodo’s entire journey, and Sam’s battle with a few orcs (as well as most everything that happens in some way or other) exhibit these things just as certainly, but there is something more palpable in Eowyn’s subterfuge, uncertainty, and wide eyes that bring it all to the audience in a way that is more meaningful and concrete. Unfortunately, though her character ends up in the same place as the books, we don’t actually a get any idea how she gets from A to her ultimate B.

There is really very little else to say about the film itself. The effects are as good as ever, and in many ways improved, though even that can be its own sort of detriment. Gollum works better than in the last movie, and it’s because he stands out less. On the other hand, a wonderfully depicted, especially real-looking and wondrous giant elephant makes charging toward it seem all the more stupid. The battles are still edited, and I still say much to their benefit, in a very choppy way which makes them somewhat difficult to follow, but feels much more like a battle than much of what we as audiences have become accustomed to. The pacing is actually a bit off, especially the Frodo side of the story and the ending, but not so much as to cause serious problems.

When I reviewed the last film (and I realize I’m saying such things overmuch), I felt obligated to confess that I didn’t know what to say, and it seems we’re in the same boat here. The truth is, that I don’t know what to say is perhaps (in some odd me-specific way) what is best about the film. The movie counters my ability to talk about it, because it succeeds at its most important feature, which makes the others seem so much less important. Its most important feature, like the books it comes from, is not the story, or even the characters, but the way the story is told. More correctly, who is telling it. Tolkien’s works do not survive as popular, important works because they are great stories (though to at least some degree they are) so much as because a great storyteller tells them.

I’m reminded (and I’ll share, because the difference I aim for may not be obvious) of Baum’s ‘The Wizard of Oz’. ‘The Wizard of Oz’ is not a great story (in my opinion, not by a longshot), but it doesn’t need to be. It’s a good story, possibly even a very good story, and it is being told by a great storyteller. If you’ve read the Oz adventures beyond that one, or other works by Baum, you know that it almost doesn’t matter what he’s writing (‘talking’) about. He pulls you into the wonder he builds, and at some point what happens becomes largely irrelevant. This translated to a certain degree with the classic film, but there we had a pretty good storyteller telling the story of one of the masters. Oh, it’s a very good movie, but the effect of watching the movie is an order of magnitude removed from reading the book. I take into account there the obvious difference in the experience of watching vs. reading in general. This, however, is not a fault of ‘The Lord of the Rings’. Peter Jackson works off of one of the all-time masters, and though I am not willing to say that he is also one himself, he is a great storyteller. The things that are good (or bad) about the film in specific ways become overshadowed by the majesty and wonder that happens in the watching. That is not to say that this is necessarily one of the all-time best films (though maybe it is), but it is without question one of the most intensely watchable things that has ever happened.

It’s a strange way to think of things perhaps, and I suppose my entire review might have consisted merely of my mentioning that I consider him a great storyteller (because, my god, what else is there?), but that would have been a review by me, for me, and only convincing to me. The thing to know here is that, much as I’ve always thought I would read anything by Tolkien (or many others), I will be most willing to see any movie Jackson cares to make, no matter the subject. There is some greater endorsement I could give this movie, I’m sure, but I don’t know what it is.

Where there is a great storyteller, in movies, there is a magic beyond what is on the screen. Even in a grandiose epic riddled with high-tech special-effects, a great storyteller knows this, and knows that it cannot be upstaged, and he shouldn’t try. When Gandalf uses magic to drive away dragons, we see a simple light which has no real ‘value’ other than to portray “Gandalf uses magic to drive away dragons”. The possibilities of what might have been done there are endless, but the magic is there already, and a more flashy attempt at showing it to us would negate it. There is more magic in a soldier taking flowers, or the sudden gasp of a woman posing as a soldier than in all the effects trickery in the world. This is even more positively exhibited with Pippin and a certain magical artifact. When Pippin touches it, something very magical happens, and there’s no doubt about it. But, in some sense almost nothing at all actually happens on screen. The magic has been built, and you’re there, in a world where magic happens. You don’t need huge flashes and hocus-pocus at this point, just as the characters themselves don’t need it. This, in itself, is the exact opposite of the vast majority of all films made today.

Is it good? Is it bad? I obviously think it is exceptionally good, but I can’t really say. On some level, it has problems if you want to look for them. Certain effects remind me of the worst we saw in ‘SpiderMan’, which were certainly bad. Overall, the effects are an unprecedented achievement. The story could be nitpicked to death, and so could the pacing. The score, I think, is very good, but it is occasionally too intrusive. I don’t think I’ll give you the acting though. No one really can be said to fail on that score.

So, after all that, is it ‘really’ good? I don’t know. But, it’s magic. And, I don’t really know how to rate that.

RU?