While trilogies such as The Godfather or Indiana Jones contain parts that can easily stand alone, The Lord of the Rings trilogy really is the sum of all of it's parts. Each individual film is highly entertaining however, watching just one or two of them will not leave you any where near as satisfied as watching the whole trilogy. (A small note here, DO NOT try watching all 3 in one day! Heidi and I tried that after Return of the King was released and by the end of the day we felt like death!)
Now, regardless of what Kevin Smith may think, there is much more going on here than people just walking around. The Lord of the Rings is set in the fantasy world of Middle Earth and opens with an amazing intro to the world that focuses on the ring of power. The ring was forged by the Dark Lord and has the power to control all of middle earth for evil. Sauron however was defeated and lost the ring, however, the weakness of man would not allow the ring to be destroyed. It was lost only to be found thousands of years later by Gollum who loses it to a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. The ring gives Bilbo unnatural long life so when he decides to leave his home for one last adventure he leaves the ring with Frodo.
And so begins the tale of Frodo and the men, dwarfs, elves and wizards who would come together to prevent the return of Sauron and destroy the ring once and for all. Considering how much detail I have entered setting up the saga I have no intention of doing that with what amounts to the remaining 8 plus hours of the films. Instead I just want to hit some highlights.
With The Fellowship of the Ring, director Peter Jackson introduces the audience to the world of middle earth and allows the audience to get to know each character and their role in the story. There are some incredible sequences, in particular my favorite sequence is in the mines of Moria, and we get the foundation for the next two stories to come. I had never read the books before hearing about them being made into movies and I always feel a little empty with the way this one ends. I remember hearing people complain about that when it was first released but the quality of film making going on here made it easy to get excited for the stories continuation with the Two Towers.
The second movie is arguably a fan of the book series least favorite. Huge portions of the book (including some of the best sequences for Sam and Frodo) were left out and moved to the third movie so it's easy to see how a fan of the book could walk out furious. But, like the unfulfilling ending to the first film, it's a flaw that is easily overlooked when you consider that by the trilogies end you still get the bulk of what you wanted to see. Also, the Helm's deep sequence remains my favorite of the entire series and the tension created just before the battle as rain begins to fall is incredible. One small complaint I do have with the film is that Gimli is turned into a comic relief character, a decision which is frustrating on repeat viewing. And of course, the scene stealer's of this second installment include the return of Gandalf and Gollum's role in helping Sam and Frodo. Andy Serkis, who provided the motion for the CGI character Gollum actually garnered some Oscar consideration for his truly unique role in the film. It's doubtful someone will ever get a nomination for playing a CGI character, but I think everyone can agree that as CGI characters go, Gollum was infinitely better than Dobby or Jar-Jar.
The Return of the King is essentially everything you would expect form a trilogy of this magnitude. It is bigger, grander and louder than the other two. It is also nearly 30 minutes longer in run time and still manages to leave fans of the book longing for a few of the scenes that did not make the film. I leave this one wishing actors like Viggo Mortenson got more attention from the Oscars but considering this film one 12 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director it certainly wasn't ignored. There is very little here that disappoints as story lines are tied up and the film gives it's audience the type of closure you would expect after over 9 hours of adventure.
If you are wondering, the answer is yes, the books are better (shocking, I know). But that shouldn't take away from what Peter Jackson has done on film here. Books are a medium that allows an author to do more while Jackson's film trilogy shows the limitation that exist in adapting a novel even when given 9 hours to do so. It some ways it's an apples to oranges comparison, but ultimately the books are more fulfilling which should only be read as high praise for the books and is not intended to be a knock on the film. After all, Jackson puts a lot more on screen for you than just characters walking around.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment