Errol Flynn meets JRR Tolkien

Rating: 9/10 (29 September 2009)

This commentary on 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' is really a summary on the entire trilogy as filmed by Peter Jackson. This was a mighty effort on the part of Jackson's production team and it deserved all the awards it has received. The art direction, cinematography, costumes, music (especially the music by Howard Shore), the editing... every aspect of this monumental creation is not to be faulted, unless it be the screen writing, but even that is so expert that it would be unfair to single those people out for criticism. They have made an unfilmable book into an exciting and compelling experience, and it is clear that they love the original stories and did their best to be faithful to the spirit of Tolkien.
But Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' has been greatly altered to make it more cinematic. Many characters have been cut for the film version, the shape of the original story has been altered almost beyond recognition for people who have been long familiar with the books, as I have for over 40 years. Events have been added to make the movie more exciting and emotional. I am not a purist, however, and I don't mind that Jackson has made these extensive changes, adding modern psychological elements to the story line to justify these changes, but sometimes I wished he had perhaps taken a different, less battle-focused and sentimental approach to this epic tale.
For instance, turning Arwen into a soap-opera-ish figure with her self-sacrificing devotion to Aragorn, appearing as a major character in all three films, was almost a betrayal of the original point of the drama. In Tolkien's book 'The Fellowship of the Ring' Arwen does not speak a single word. Nevertheless, Jackson and his co-writers make it work, and the love of Arwen and Aragorn does not slow down the action or become overly maudlin, out of keeping with the more cut and dryed story-telling of the books. I suppose the film-makers felt compelled to include the usual romantic interest which, to be quite frank, keeps these movies from attaining true greatness. This is formula screen-writing 101, but it's masterfully done within that context.
Much dialogue has been invented, and much has been switched from character to character, from the books to film. I think too much emphasis has been put on the battle scenes, which are very long (in the uncut version) and almost boring, if they weren't so hair-raising and grippingly done. These movies were written as action-adventure epics and they succeed brilliantly in that respect. It is understandable that the melodrama had to be 'upped' to keep the audience from dozing off with too many council scenes and the like, but much subtlety is lost in the translation.
The acting is mostly excellent. Best is Viggo Mortensen's complex and quietly virile performance of Aragorn, the lost King of the North, part elf, part man. He is partnered by strong performances from Orlando Bloom as Legolas, the wood elf, and most especially by the wonderful and very funny John Rhys-Davies as Gimli the dwarf. And casting Christopher Lee as Saruman was divine inspiration. And Andy Serkis is incredible, no other word for it, as Gollum.
Cate Blanchett is perfectly cast as Galadriel, and Ian McKellen is a joy to watch as Gandalf. Mirando Otto Shines as the Valkyrie like Éowyn and Craig Parker makes much of the small role of Haldir, an elf from Lothlorién. The four Hobbits are good. Sean Astin is the most convincing little person, as Samwise Gamgee. Elijah Wood is oddly irritating as Frodo. There is something too smug about him, but Frodo is not the endearing creature his Uncle Bilbo (Ian Holm) is. Only Brad Dourif's Wormtongue seems out of place. His acting is straight out of Stella Adler's method classes and it jars.
I don't think I will live to see this gargantuan tale filmed again so splendidly as Jackson has done. I can read the books when I need to experience Tolkien's Middle Earth.
Not recommended for young children.