Non-Epic: Horses and Mountain tops can't always make something memorable

Rating: 8/10 (24 December 2003)

When someone says epic, three movies immediately come to mind, "Dr. Zhivago", "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Seven Samurai". Never in my life will "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy" be viewed in my opinion as epic. Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie failed to capture what determines an epic. From their MTV-style of cutting to the lack of original shots and lack of long takes, to the over-abundance and poor use of CGI effects and 'over the top' lighting make "Return of the King" just another Hollywood movie. Maybe a little better done, but in essence, devoid of art and a far cry from J.R.R. Tolkien's vision. It's disappointing when the original cartoons have better screenwriting than the filims. The last third of "Return of the King" really started to come apart. Here, an in tune audience can actually see right around the time when Frodo, Sam and Golem are climbing the stairs that the story is taking a turn for the worse. At the end of the film things really start to come undone, bouncing here and there from Gondor, to the Shire, to Rivendale, trying to give the audience a sense of closure, but instead leaving an film enthusiast dizzy and spinning and wondering and waiting when the film will finally just end. Don't get me wrong, the "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" is the best thing to come out of Hollywood since Paul Thomas Anderson's "Punch-Drunk Love", but to put Peter Jackson into a category of filmmakers that includes the likes of PTA, Wes Anderson or Francis Ford Coppola or even Terrence Malick is to lie. Peter Jackson is just another Spielberg or Lucas, lacking in artistry and shining when it comes to gimmicks and thrills.
There was so much good that could have come of this trilogy if it were planned out properly, but instead it's just slightly above-average and in no way, ever, an epic (just for clarification, The Star Wars Trilogy are not epic films either, sorry).