Very Mediocre

Rating: 9/10 (24 September 2007)

The concluding chapter of the critically acclaimed Lord of the Rings series further establishes the trilogy as the most over-hyped pieces of work since.....well ever. Since Peter Jackson has fully redeemed himself in my eyes with 2005's terrific King Kong, I don't understand how he managed to make the Lord of the Rings so poorly. I also don't understand why they are all over-hyped by critics and film viewers alike. Okay, I can understand why so many people find them entertaining, but this in the Top 10 films of all time? What is going on?? Okay, the special effects are moderately impressive, and for the most part nicely integrated with the live actors, but I don't see why so many modern directors have this obsession with using so much CGI. Whats wrong with the effects from say Jurassic Park and The Thing? That said, most of the CGI in this is necessary, but at times it seems that Jackson is just showing off how much he can put in. The part with Legolas climbing the elephant....thing is one example of him going too far - it's ridiculous and doesn't look that good either.
Also the god awful acting has returned as strong as the King himself. Casting Elijah Wood as the main character was probably Jackson's worst mistake in the trilogy. He hardly exudes the charisma needed for a 'hero', especially when he's supposed to be saving the world. He also delivers several lines as if it were Ed Wood behind the camera. Cate Blanchett can also be singled out for criticism. The hobbits Sam, Merry and Pippin are seriously annoying as always; and their supposedly 'emotional' and 'heroic' moments are quite frankly pathetic. Also, the less said about Gollum the better, so I'll steer clear of wasting time talking about it.
There are also numerous things that baffle me. Is it some kind of rule that everybody in Middle Earth must have long hair? Must hobbits persistently annoy everyone they are with and put their friends in jeopardy? Why would Frodo and Sam sleep 3 inches from a 10,000 foot cliff face? Are they deliberately trying to make their allegedly impossible task more difficult? Why does every building have to be built on the edge of a cliff? Then, of course, there is the problem with the film's length. Seeing as most of the film is in slow motion, including acts such as sword making, which require no emphasis, they could have easily knocked off at least 30 minutes by filming it normally. Also, after the main story is over, the film drags on for about 25 mins of unnecessary plot, which could have been done in 5-10 mins. I don't mind watching long films, but only if it is interesting. Scenes with any moderate length of dialogue in them seemed to inevitably lose me, due mostly to the weak acting. The battle scenes also could be better. Although they're good, I'd take Braveheart, The Last Samurai, Gladiator et al any time over this. Above all though, the lack of Saruman totally confuses me. The lack of a master villain who isn't a computer generated eye or an immensely ugly orc really hinders the film in my eyes, especially as Saruman is consistently mentioned throughout.
Having just written 3 paragraphs of criticism, this isn't all that bad a film. I thought about fast forwarding my DVD at several points but couldn't bring myself to do it, which is more than can be said for the horrific first instalment. I just don't understand how it merits a place in the Top 10 films of all time, or even a 10 rating from anybody. It would have been better if it didn't take itself so seriously, and had more emphasis on the battles than the characters, as the poor acting makes the 'emotional' scenes annoying more than anything else.
Many of the visuals are fantastic, especially the long shots of the armies, the volcanic Mount Doom and the shots of the New Zealand mountains. But I can't help but think that instead of watching this, you could be viewing Schindler's List, Heat or making your way through most of Once Upon a Time in America - they are masterpieces, but not this.