Not a bad movie, but not as good as the other two

Rating: 9/10 (6 January 2004)

I read LOTR for the first time about 25 years ago, at a time when you had to look for the book in the darkest corner of your local bookstore. It was a time when reading SF or Fantasy resulted in funny looks from your pals, and raised eyebrows from your teachers.
Now Peter Jackson turned this book into a mass phenomenon, and it is suddenly very trendy to out yourself as a LOTR fan. I have watched the directors cut of the first two parts at least ten times on DVD. Both extended versions are very good, and I do not know which one to prefer. My expectations for the third part were of course very high. After all, Peter Jackson liked it best, so it should be the best part of the trilogy.
However, I do not think it is better than the first two parts. It is certainly a very good movie, but there are parts, which I did not like. This review contains spoilers, is more a nit picker's comment, and may also not be very helpful for people without a certain background knowledge of the books of Tolkien.
1. Intro: Each of the three parts starts with an intro. In the first we see and here the background story on the war against Sauron with Gil Galad and Elendil. Brilliant. In the second, we see Gandalfs fight with the Balrog to a wonderful soundtrack. Brilliant. And in the third? Smeagols transformation into Gollum, mainly pretty disgusting...and not necessary for the understanding of the plot (we heard all about that already in the second part). Also, I found the acting not convincing. All together a week start, and not in the same league as the first parts.
2. Isengard scene: Where was Saruman? What was that scene for? Just for Pippin to find the Palanthir in the muck? I surely hope that we get to see more on the DVD.
3. To much of weary, dirty hobbits in the mud. The pacing is pretty slow, Gollum's schizophrenia was well established in part II. Not necessary for the plot and the movie.
4. Arwen: My most loathed character of all three movies. Named third in the credits for a few unnecessary scenes. She acts like a young American girl (what she is) and not like a three thousand year old grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-aunt of Aragorn. What a difference in the few scenes we see with Galadriel!
5. Aragorn: The title is the Return of the king. However, Aragorn does not get much to play this role. In the book, he challenges Sauron in the Palanthir and announces his return, whilst in the movie, he can barely hold the thing, and gets unconscious looking at it. I look forward to the DVD to hear Jacksons explanation of this unnecessary change. Also the path of the death story line is not convincing. If you read this in the book, it has a different flavour to it. The Death never fought in Minas Tirith, but for the movie it may have been useful, since it allowed to clean Minas Tirith of Orcs within a few seconds (Orcs, who had no business being there in the first place!). The unforgivable omission in Aragorn's character is that they did not show him as a healer. The Hands of the King are the Hands of a Healer. This is one of the most important parts of the third book, because it establishes Aragorn's right to the throne of Gondor, and gives him almost God like powers. To leave that out whilst wasting so much time on other redundant parts is very sad.
6. Battle scenes: I must admit that the attack of the Rohirim is one of the best scenes in all three movies. (and Theoden a much better king than Aragorn, it was the other way round in the Two Towers! So Aragorn did not develop whilst Theoden did). But there is too much fighting. Too many lovely details of Orc gimmicks. From a story tellers point of few, the siege of Minas Tirith (saved by the cavalry!) is a larger copy of the siege of Helm's deep (saved by...the cavalry). In the book, the focus is not so much on this battle. It is a small part of the Return of the King (albeit a highlight), but in the movie, the battle seems to never end, the Orcs conquer almost the entire city (they do not even enter in the book), and Gandalf has lost his superior, god like powers of the book (after all, he is a Maiar, a sort of lesser angel), except in his lonely charge to help the returning Faramir.
7. Denethor: What a caricature of the figure in the book! The steward is portrayed as a Shakespearean Richard III type villain, who is totally mad. Nobody bothers to explain, that he is fighting with Sauron in his personal Palanthir (just to have the power to look into such a thing repeatedly and NOT betray his people is something in his favour...)
8. The fight with the Witch king: Very good movie adaptation, but still one of Tolkien's inconclusive scenes. At Amon Sul in the first movie, Aragorn chases away the witch king and four other wraiths with a burning stick and a lesser sword (although the ONE Ring was within inches of their grasp!). On the Pellenor field, the same Witch King is almost as powerful as Sauron himself, and no man can kill or defeat him. Why and where has he gained so much power?
9. In the trailer we see Theoden knighting Merry on the top of Edoras. Did I miss this in the movie?
10. Shelop's Lair. All together a very good adaptation, three nit picking comments: Shelop smells strongly in the book, so it is unlikely she could sneak up on Frodo like in the movie. In the movie she stings him in the chest or back (clearly in the middle of his body). But there he should be protected by his Mithril chain mail! Also, Sam could not get the ring out without destroying the cocoon.
11. Finally, why on Middle earth did they not use the eagles in the first place for this quest? I am sure Gwaihir, or what his name is, would be understanding enough to fly Frodo from Rivendell to Mordor, if this would save Middle Earth. But this is of course a question, I should have asked Tolkien 25 years ago...
Bottom line: I will wait eagerly for the extended DVD. Hopefully (as before with Lorien in part I and Treebeard in part II), this will add the much needed depths to the movie.