doesn't belong in the top 250

Rating: 1/10 (9 February 2005)

first, i am a huge fan of the LOTR series by Tolkien. it is one of the most richly detailed and wonderfully written stories of all time, and it pains me to see the dreck that peter jackson has produced. i didn't mind 'the fellowship of the ring'; i thought it was definitely the most concise and well-directed of the three films. also, the visual aesthetics of the films are excellent. the set design and choice of locale is impeccable, and i applaud the people involved for their dedication to recreating the surreal wonderful world of tolkien on screen. however, it is the technical aspect of the project, what should be the real beef of the film, that puts the knife in.
'the two towers' marked the real beginning of jackson's self-righteous altering of tolkien's noble story, and left many fans and serious film-goers wondering what went wrong. but 'return of the king' takes the cake for what could very possibly be the worst adaptation of a novel in film history. jackson changes large portions of the plot of the novel for no apparent purpose; even friends of mine who had not read the book asked me why certain scenes resolved the way they did. the character development is excruciating, as some of the major character-based events from the book seem rushed and inconsequential in the context of the film. jackson has done a great job at remembering the characters' names and their titles, but has drawn a blank on their behavior, values, emotions, and relationships with other characters. the script is pathetic; tolkien's majestic storytelling and tasteful use of pathos and emotional turmoil is replaced by long-winded, sappy, cliché monologues, complete with the exact same musical score used for the previous two films. entire scenes are based around petty arguments and melodramatic emotional breakdowns, and filler dialog is rampant; it seems that jackson did this simply to keep the 3-hour running time.
the action sequences are grandiose and somewhat true in objective form to tolkien's telling of them, but jackson employs cinematography that is on par with a nickelodeon miniseries, using cheap close-ups and nauseatingly swirling camera angles that leave the viewer feeling more confused than involved in the action. jackson throws in some cheap action film comic relief during the battles, giving the viewer the impression that the characters are not fighting for their lives, but rather swashbuckling for swashbuckling's sake. very simply, this is not the 'lord of the rings' that i grew to love years ago when i read tolkien's masterpiece. i am a supporter of artistic freedom in the adaptation process (i.e. kubrick, coppola), but not when the adapter simply has no artistic ability in his craft (jackson, genius behind such film classics as 'the frighteners' and 'dead alive'). this film does not belong in the top 250, nor do the other LOTR films. knowing that this film is above 'seven samurai' and 'casablanca' (and that the first two LOTR films are the reason 'citizen kane' sits at #11) sickens me.