Girlish behavior and tantrums override the wisdom of the hobbits...

Rating: Null/10 (18 December 2003)

Sure, this is one huge CGI swamped extravaganza that succeeds in hosing in as much emotional scenes for all the characters. Very ambitious treatment by Director Peter Jackson, no doubt, but is it the best on my list? Absolutely no. This film is so heavily hoisted up with too much of chronological shuffles from Tolkien's book that moments, I had felt from the books, can't be pinned down as beautifully from this last film. Essentially, ROTK is over whelming and too congested. Besides, Jackson has taken too much liberties on the characters changes as well, it would be a short coming for anyone to believe that he/she is well versed with Tolkien's works by basically watching the film.
Is Tolkien supposed to show the hobbits are childish rather than childlike by nature? Take a look at Samwise's treatment of Gollum and his interactions with Frodo. Sadly, Sam, at times, comes through as a kid throwing tantrums. I can't understand his tearful emotions at the most precious moments when he is supposed to be the guiding light of strength and courage. Frankly, the tears of Sam and his howling are inclined to show the weakness of his soul than pump up the illusion that Sam shines and actually becomes the important player in the 'bearer of the ring' analysis. Sam's character fails for me. His mental wisdom fails to come through on screen. It's Tolkien's wise choice to put the safe keeping of the ring, in not one hobbit, but four. Jackson is not portraying the developing wisdom (that produces the internal courage and strength of the hobbits versus the brawn of the other Fellowship members.)
Of course, the scene with the tears to show that 'parting is such sweet sorrow' scene is fine. But, overall the tear-jerking false endings only suggests that Jackson is very hesitant to declare 'ciao' to his troupe of 'beauties.' The boat pulling out of the shores scene is cheesy. Are the background landscapes of 'temples' meaning to suggest a mighty, classically Greek poetic departure? Truthfully, the scene makes me think more of a lovely angel leading a horde of fairies to heaven. How do I assess the behaviors of the hobbits to one another? They do create insinuations of male fellows who are physically as well as mentally attracted to one another. Is this part of Tolkien's ploy, or just Jackson's? Why is Denethor's role so simplified? Wasn't we supposed to recognize a noble man's falling out of grace rather than see him come through the screen as the villain's villain? I felt that too much concentration has been placed on the development of characters that can be put out into the commercialized toy markets, that Jackson has sacrificed his directing talents on this film's villains. Leaving Saruman and Wormtounge out of the film does Tolkien's book no justice. After all, Tolkien readers shouldn't be cheering for Jackson's intention to show that real wars belong only in battlefields and forget that wars can come as close to the Hobbits' homeland without the visual destruction of Saruman and his evil advisor. As for Faramir's love for Eowyn - Jackson seems to flip-flop with their interactions.

Of course, any film's inclusion of humor is appreciated. But to humor the audience at the expense and ridicule of Tolkien's little fellows does contradict the author's need to show them as the wise little creatures. Of course, I'm fine with Gimli giving the audience some humorous dialogue that is not befitting his book character. As a film over pouring with substances, I can't help but feel that the most scenes are rushed. Even the battles seem to bring sense to the alarming moments for the audience. Slip and slap cuts and hurried blurry swipes between crucial battling interactions of characters in so many battle regions don't play well with my eyes! Plenty of crushing and slaughtering to sustain the audience's excitement! A good promotion of CGI special effects skills, of course! Oh yes, Jackson takes a lot of liberties towards the film's end and he has forgotten the devastation to the forested land as one of the vital results of war. By leaving the Ents out of the picture does not create this impression! I want to see the Sam sowing the seed, rather than shuffling his new family into his cool little cottage home!
Jackson, nevertheless, succeeds with his 'dark' scenes. There are moments when the characters do force me to look at them closer. His Gollum is precious, but Gollum does tend to come through more as Jackson's principle character than the title's King, or even the true bearer of the ring. It's cool to see the real image of Andy Serkis in this film. I do like Jackson's way of treating the flashback story of the Smeagol/Gollum character. Miranda's Eowyn shines for the sake of giving the female audience pride to understand the importance of a woman's role in the battlefront. Overall, I felt that friendship and loyalty fashioned out in this film is rather confusing to define in Jackson's version. Almost as if they are sculptured to the individual's own judgment and pleasure!
Does this film live up to my expectations? In terms of the flashes of familiar characters to promote the toy market, I'd say yes. Special GCI effects to raise the blood pressure? Yes. The character development? Too much liberties taken by Jackson to stress that no one should watch his version without reading the book. The events? If only he'd not decided to fill this film with the events that should have been in his previous films. It's a good film to watch, considering it to be Jackson's version. A good film not to be missed, but it's not my best film seen this year.

A-