A Dissenting Voice

Rating: 1/10 (17 December 2003)

Lord of the Rings should be a good movie. No, a great movie--the next Star Wars, the next Terminator. But it's not, not even close.

This review will anger many, and before I rip into the film, I will admit that I can understand this film's appeal, with its epic scale, its solemn tone, and its origin in a book beloved by many.
That said, however, this is a bad movie. One reason is that all the characters have the same personality--and a boring one at that. This problem is what I call the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Fallacy." In the first live-action theatrical film based on the turtles, all the turtles had the same personality. Not only did they resemble one another physically, but they all acted the same, all of them little more than green surfer-dude clones, constantly spewing unfunny wisecracks and slang-peppered sentences. If their masks were all the same color, no one could tell them apart. At least, though, their shared personality was an interesting, semi-entertaining one--unlike the mono-personality in LOTR.
Like the turtles, every character in the latter film acts the same. Unlike the turtles, unfortunately, they all share a boring personality--that of a stodgy British English professor. All the characters utter each sentence with the utmost gravity, never displaying even a hint of a sense of humor. Although it's fine for a film to have one or two gravely serious characters, a movie filled with nothing but such characters quickly becomes tedious. And tedium abounds in LOTR, with each humorless character intoning innumerable lines of dull exposition.
Because all the characters possess the same personality, it's difficult for me (someone who has not read Tolken's books) to differentiate among them. In many cases, to sort out the characters, I must rely on appearance alone. For instance, the only difference between the Spock-eared archer and the sword-wielding warrior is their appearance; they act and talk the same.
Not even the main protagonist--Frodo--has a likable or memorable personality. Like the other characters, he's deadly serious at all times. In addition, he's too sissy to come across as a main protagonist, constantly fleeing from danger, usually too frightened to act. Since many people have compared the cinematic exploits of Frodo and friends to Star Wars, the inevitable comparison of Frodo and Luke Skywalker comes up. Like Frodo, Luke is young and inexperienced. But, unlike Frodo, Luke has a personality; sure, it's an annoying, whiny personality, but a personality nonetheless. Frodo is a cipher, a boring weakling incapable of carrying the crushing weight of a massive sci-fi trilogy on his tiny shoulders.
Perhaps, though, an action/sci-fi epic doesn't need a hero with a strong personality. After all, a strong villain can sometimes carry such a film. But LOTR lacks even this necessary component. For whatever reason, not even the venerable Christopher Lee could imbue his character, the evil wizard Saruman, with an adequate level of villainy. Shrouded in a white robe, his long gray hair flowing behind him, Lee looks impressive but is given little to do, merely issuing commands to prosthetics-covered henchmen, never able to establish a menacing tone. Nor does Saruman's deadly-serious personality differ from that of all the other characters.
Many will no doubt counter my criticism of Saruman by pointing out that he is not the main villain, a role reserved for Sauron, the mighty embodiment of evil. Granted, Sauron makes an impressive, albeit brief, appearance, single-handedly annihilating entire battalions of soldiers. Unfortunately, this appearance, little more than a two-minute cameo, fails to save an otherwise dull movie.
It's too bad that, because Peter Jackson had to stay faithful to the book, he couldn't save Sauron's appearance for a climactic battle to end the film. The ending, as it stands, is a non-ending, the type of ending that provokes the viewer to say, "What the? The movie's over just like that?" In fact, when I saw this film in the theater, several moviegoers made statements similar to this one as the movie ended. The non-ending is especially infuriating in an epic of this scale, for the viewer, after investing three hours, expects a pull-out-all-the-stops conclusion. And, yes, I realize that, because this epic consists of several films, the best climax must be saved for the final part, but part one could nevertheless have ended on a stronger note--perhaps on the battle with the flame demon.
This film contains innumerable flaws, but because I can write only 1000 words, I can't cover them all. I can only hope that, one day, most movie fans will see this movie for what it is--three hours of tedious torture masquerading as a classic.