Grand pop entertainment

Rating: 8/10 (23 December 2003)

Peter Jackson pulls out all the stops in the finale to his 'Lord of the Rings' adaptation, and the result is pretty satisfying. It's hard to say whether this is because of anything uniquely brilliant about this film, or because Jackson simply doesn't drop the ball with this closing chapter, as we've seen happen in many other movie series. By now, these characters have become so familiar to us that the film almost has its emotional effectiveness pre-programmed, built in. Even the score seems like an old friend--Howard Shore's variations on his own themes makes those themes seem better than they actually are.
But there's more to it than that, I think; the movie's actually not at all bad on its own. After the effective setup of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' and the rather plodding development of 'The Two Towers,' Jackson directs like a master here, spinning what feels like eight or ten subplots together into a swirling, thrilling, chaotic Armageddon of a picture, truly capturing the apocalyptic character of Tolkien's epic conflict. His hand is sure; his style and good taste rarely falter. For all its overstuffed quality, the film gives us quick flashes of special-effects wizardry--a surging river of horsemen, a black jabberwock thing fleeting overhead, a giant spider pushing its front legs out of its trapdoor--rather than laboring any particular effect. (This is even true with the CGI Gollum, which I was nearly alone in finding embarrassingly overdone in 'The Two Towers.')
The cast returns to the uniformly high standard that was so impressive in 'Fellowship'; in fact, some of them (notably Sean Astin, Andy Serkis, and Billy Boyd) improve on their performances in the earlier films, and only Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn begins to show signs of strain. The twinkle is back in Ian McKellen's eye as Gandalf, and Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd are thankfully given more to do this time around (even if Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies are not). John Noble contributes a nice low-browed glower to the proceedings as the nutcase Denethor, a truly flawed character who makes a welcome addition to Tolkien's pantheon of mostly pure goodies and baddies.
As others have pointed out, it's hard to judge these films individually, and that works both in their favor and against it. Perhaps there's never been a film series in which the forest has been made as much a priority as the trees, as it has here; 'Star Wars' certainly doesn't do it, nor do 'Planet of the Apes' or 'Indiana Jones' or even 'Alien,' not really. In fact probably the only one I know that might come close is 'The Godfather,' which, like this series, covers three films with a blanket style, but which uses each one of those films to a different end, tonally, thematically, and structurally. 'Godfather 3' was a semi-disaster, of course, and 'Return of the King' is not, but the comparison stands, and the two series also have in common the fact that they are ascribed a measure of depth that probably isn't there. More than anything, the 'Lord of the Rings' movies are grand pop entertainments, aesthetic marvels that amaze in terms of technique and style, but that only work on deeper levels if you are one of the devout, or if you are willing to be very, *very* indulgent. There are times when Peter Jackson's unfailingly reverent, unwinking approach to Tolkien's stodgy, creaky, borderline racist adventure story seems a bit silly, especially coming from the creator of the subversive 'Braindead' and 'Bad Taste,' as well as his one genuine masterpiece of psychological depth, 'Heavenly Creatures.' (Those of us who wish Jackson would leave the kids' stuff behind and make another film like the latter may be in the minority, but we are right.)
Still, pop entertainment is not without its pleasures, and they can be intense ones. As pop entertainments go, 'The Lord of the Rings' remains strong, and 'The Return of the King' shows off the best the series has to offer. Movie: 8.5 out of 10. Series: 8 out of 10.