Much weaker than we'd expected or hoped for ...

Rating: 2/10 (4 January 2004)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
What a disappointment the 3rd film is. We greatly enjoyed films I and II but this is a massive let-down. There seems to be little or no character development in ROTK, and this exacerbates the latent weaknesses is the first two films. I'm afraid that a lot of this is because of perverse alterations from Tolkien.
First, Aragorn. In the book he is both a ranger from the north, but also a man destined to be king. He knows who he is, and he has an expectation of that destiny. Likewise in the book he has 'spiritual' awareness. Aragorn is descended, not merely from men, but from Numenor: so he already has in him some of the blood of the Elves. Now, Jackson gives all foresight to the Elves - making the men merely, men. But the whole point is that the-man-born-to-be-king has the spiritual awareness of the great kings of old. Thus, in book II at the river it is Aragorn, not Legolas (as in Jackson's version), who is aware of a shadow growing in his heart. And, more significantly, it is Aragorn who in the book takes the palantir by his right (Gandalf actually bows to give it to him). Gandalf counsels him not to use it, but Aragorn knows who he is. So he looks in the palantir and shows Sauron the sword. He challenges Sauron, and then wrenches the palantir away from the Eye to use as HE wills. In so doing he sees the black fleet, and so knows the threat. That's why he takes the path of the dead (Elrond never turns up at Dimholt). And when he takes the paths of the dead he REALLY summons the dead. The exchange in the film between Aragorn and the Geoffrey-Rush-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-look-alike ghost is feeble in the film. In the book Aragorn does not doubt who he is: he calls them, not barters with them. Aragorn's action here is part of a much larger cohesion in Tolkien that is entirely absent in Jackson. Result? We're left with a desperately anti-climactic coronation. Why? Aragorn's character been denuded of a sense of who he is.
Second Sauron. It's true that in the book he is mostly referred to as the Eye. But he also has personality. In the film, apart from the opening sequence to film I (which was brilliant) all we have is a plasma lamp sometime searchlight. Since in the book Gandalf has told Frodo that 'Sauron is taking shape again' why didn't Jackson develop Sauron from the figure in film I? In the book, we are told of Sauron's gnawing doubt. We hear of reports about 'spies' entering Mordor. We know that he is consumed by fear of the upstart heir of Elendil. None of this is developed in the film. (And the Ring seems to lose power on entering Mordor, not gain it!)
Result? There was no sense of elation at the fall of Barad'dur.
Now this is a serious theological error that I suspect Tolkien would have detested. Personify good, and you must also personify evil. Tolkien's epic was all about those forces being personified: and how you discern them. Sauron's not actually the worst form of evil - that belongs to Morgoth (of whom the Balrog is a servant). Whilst Tolkien rightly loathed allegory, he nonetheless never would have countenanced such a weak and ineffectual portrayal of the enemy. Tolkien's point is that evil in many guises takes human form: something that Jackson shouldn't have missed in today's world.
The same lack of characterisation in Aragorn and Sauron goes on with many of the others. Jackson made a mistake in cutting Saruman out of III having made so much of him in I and II (more than the book). Arwen is drippy throughout. Eowyn is changed in the film. Jackson plays up the love between her and Aragorn so much that we are left wondering how Eowyn is apparently beatifically happy to see him with Arwen. On the subject of Eowyn it's such a shame Jackson didn't do the slaying of the witch-king better. In the book the battlefield pauses - a cloud goes up and everyone in Minas Tirith is happy. It's one of the truly great moments, lost by Jackson. The reports even leak back to the orcs in the tower above Shelob's lair (as they would of course) so that Sam and Frodo hear that 'No.1. has been done in'.
As for the hobbits . I think this may be a question of preference. Personally I think Sean Astin's acting as Sam is execrable, but some like it. For me, the simple gardener becomes a mini-philosopher and I find his soliloquy both at the end of film II in Osgiliath (to which they never go in the book) and on the mountain (twice) truly toe-curlingly dreadful: pap I'm afraid. And, oh dear, we even veered towards Titanic-music-moments at the end of film I and again on the mountain. Bilbo was fine until the end. Yes, we know he ages fast now he's lost the ring, but the Salieri-style prosthetics are poor. Jackson loves the slow-motion work so much that we have to endure some particularly dreadful sequences with the Hobbits (most notably the already infamous bed scene) and at the end (where I really thought Frodo was going to give Sam a full-on smacker!). A similarly tacky piece of directing occurs when the elves appear - the soft focus lens is deployed with 'celtic' singing. Argh - this is kindergarten film production.
I expect the film will garner the Oscars ceremony. But I hope some people in Tinsel town have the courage to acknowledge that whilst some of the visuals are outstanding (though many are not - e.g. the oliphaunt descent by Legolas, the Merrick-style leader of the orcs, and the Army of the dead), the film is not actually very good at all.
Peter - I'm afraid you've let us, and J.R.R. Tolkien, down.