So, there’s this ring, right. And it’s, like, an evil, powerful ring belonging to the Dark Lord Sauron who wants to conquer all of Middle Earth and enslave, like, everyone. But the ring only really seems to turn people invisible, which I guess is kind of cool. Anyway, the ring is in the hands of some Hobbits who are like small, simple-minded village people who smoke and drink and eat a lot. But Sauron’s awaking from a 3000-year coma or something and wants the ring back, so the Hobbits, along with a wizard, an elf, a dwarf, various human armies, and some talking trees have to fight off Sauron’s forces and throw the ring into a huge mountain/volcano in order to destroy all evil once and for all. Got it?
Doug says...
I have never seen Lord of the Rings before, and to be honest I’m not a massive fantasy fan. I often find it too steeped in virginal religion with token roles for women that rarely pass the Bechdel Test. Paul insisted I watch the first two films before we watch the final one that actually nabbed the trophy and I found them a slog - particularly the second one.
However I was pleased to find that I didn’t hate the final installment. There’s less stilted monologues about honour (it all feels a teensy bit false and incel-y to me, so I get very turned off) and some great set-pieces, including a nobleman going demented and nearly burning his own son alive. Ian McKellan’s having a lot of fun beating people up with a stick while rocking a giant beard and Andy Serkis trundles through the film as the mad obsessive thing Gollum.
The acting is shoddy, with lead Elijah Wood being particularly terrible. McKellan’s probably the only one being convincing, but I find myself forgiving it. What Peter Jackson is focusing on here is the scale of it. There’s scenes with giant elephant warriors, mountain top battles and Cate Blanchett even turns up as a Token Woman to deliver a line about something or other at the end. It’s old school fantasy done very well, and while Game of Thrones far surpasses it in terms of better characters, more realistic plotlines and stronger women, it’s clear how this was a step on the road to getting there.
There’s some gaping problems. Saruman apparently dies but we don’t see it. Apparently the scene is included in the extended edition but it makes for quite confusing viewing in the cinema cut. The film also doesn’t know how to end with about five too many surplus scenes. One gets the feeling that Peter Jackson might not know how to land a plane - I’ve also heard there’s three alternate endings.
It’s beautifully shot and a clear predecessor to the better things we have access to now, but overall I couldn’t escape that it was (once again) a bunch of white men standing around and talking about honour before embracing each other in a manly fashion. There’s no harm in it, but it doesn’t particularly pique my interest.
Highlight
I enjoyed the storyline where Denethor is hell-bent on burning himself and his supposedly dead son alive, then gets saved by Gandalf, only to actually set on fire and then run off a cliff into the sea. It may not have been purposeful but it had great comic timing.
Lowlight
Still too many speeches about Honour and Dignity. They come across as silly rather than powerful, particularly when compared to more realistic dialogue in more modern shows.
Mark
6/10
Paul says...
Oscar winners don’t come more expansive and expensive than this. The Lord of the Rings blasted world records on budget, scale and special effects. It even equalised the record for most Oscars won, a record already set by Ben-Hur and Titanic, although it notably won for every category it was nominated for. It’s also the only time that a “threequel” has won, but it can be argued that, like the novel, it’s simply the third volume of a 9-hour epic, so it can be argued this Best Picture award was for the three films as a whole package rather than the final instalment alone.
I have fond memories of The Lord of the Rings being released. Having never read the turgid work beyond page 100, and preferring it’s prequel, The Hobbit, which is half the length and ten times the action, I remember being swept up in the lavishness and attention to detail that went into these astonishing works. Middle-Earth was already a fantasy world popular amongst readers, but Peter Jackson and his creative team go all out to recreate it visually on screen. The architecture, art work, landscapes, cityscapes, armour, costumes, even the handwriting has intense influences of Anglo-Saxon England (just like the novels) but with various subtle differences to remind us that this is far from a period drama.
In fact, that’s one of the biggest selling points of the whole trilogy- the look of the thing. Just when you think Jackson can’t surpass himself, out comes an army of giant elephants, or a monstrous spider, or a Ring Wraith wearing a pointy metal helmet riding a sort of lizardy-dragony thing in front of his green-lit sinister palace. On the big screen, it was jaw-dropping because something on this scale had never been achieved. And with Marvel and DC starting to release their new wave of superhero recreations at the same time, and Harry Potter topping the profit charts, the summer blockbuster was starting to have a standard much higher than expected.
It’s true, when it comes to character and acting, these are not the most supreme examples. No acting awards were won for it, and only Ian McKellan was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for the first instalment. You see this film for the spectacle, not for Meryl Streep-style tour de forces. Admittedly, I’ve always loved Andy Serkis who flits skilfully between the more humane but corruptible Smeagol, and the diabolical Gollum. It’s a superbly realised character and he really does steal it (not hard to do when paired up with Elijah “try-hard” Wood).
The other amusing aspects (I hesitate to call them “faults”) are noticeable now that George Martin’s Game of Thrones has become the titan of epic fantasy. Compared to the sex-and-violence-ridden HBO series, Lord of the Rings feels suffocatingly chaste. Both Martin and Ian McKellan bemoaned the fact that you never really see anyone washing, or stepping out from behind a tree having taken a much needed piss. The most we come to any kind of sexual reference is a well-rehearsed snog between Aragorn and Arwen, and surely someone, somewhere in Middle Earth knows what a swear word is?!
The result is a story where the characters are so perfect it’s sometimes difficult to care about them. There were a few moments where I could’t help pining for the flawed nature of Jaime Lannister, or the incredible character arc of Sansa Stark.
But I shouldn’t be too harsh because re-watching this whole trilogy was a wonderfully nostalgic experience. The action sequences still have the power to make you cheer and gasp, and special effects remain convincing for the most part, and I was never bored. The Lord of the Rings is a rigid cornerstone of blockbuster film-making, setting a new standard for the amount of effort required from film-makers if they want to make a profit, and it will retain a special place in my heart for many years to come.
One last thing, why are there only two wizards in all of Middle-Earth?!
Highlight
I’d forgotten about the scene in which Faramir, working on the orders of his delusional father, leads a suicidal attack on a town that has been seized by Orcs. Their attack, which we know is doomed, is interspersed with Merry singing a mournful song and Faramir’s father stuffing his face in the comfort of his throne room. It’s an unexpectedly tragic and moving moment.
Lowlight
Yes, there are about 100 final scenes. I think Peter Jackson couldn’t decide where to stop the camera rolling. But seeing as this is a pretty big passion-project of his, it’s easy to understand why.
Mark
8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment