Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, James Bond and Star Trek

Rating: Null/10 (24 December 2002)

It used to be that the big action films and their sequels came out in the summer but that seems to be changing. Recently, the latest entries in four of the most famous film series of all time were released and I decided to see them all and perhaps compare them. The two older ones, James Bond and Star Trek, have shown their age in recent years, both of them often rehashing old plots and situations. The two newer ones, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, have caught the imagination of the public and have produced some of the most popular and admired movies of our time. To my surprise, I liked the old geezers better than the now more celebrated newcomers. I just found them more exciting and more entertaining. Isn't that what you pay a ticket for?
I didn't care for the first Lord of the Rings, called "The Fellowship of the Ring". I was amazed by the special effects, which surpassed anything that I had seen before. The story, however seemed more like a protracted nightmare than an adventure. The heroes lacked any sense of esprit de corps. They looked more like the victims in a horror film, wondering if they were going to survive through the next scene. I just wanted it to end. Critics and friends said this one was better and I did like it more. There were more scenes that took place in the daylight. there was more humor, such as the Yogi Berraisms of the walking trees, ("You are small so you could be right"), and a fascinating character in Gollum, with his split personality paralleling the story of the ring, with the characters battling their darker natures. But it's still a three hour tour through a nightmare given by a cast of Lears. The battle scenes are spectacular, (the effects are even better than in the first film) and horrific. The army of Uruks with their Freddy Krueger faces and mounts that are described as wolves but snarl like grizzly bears are far more frightening than the Cylons of the Star Wars films but not much more effectual. Frodo Baggins has to be the least interesting epic hero of our times. I grew up with D'Artanian and Luke Skywalker. This is quite a comedown. Elijah Woods brings a worried look and little else to the role. Lord of the Rings has more meat on it's bones than other action films but it's not really entertaining in the truest sense.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was much more enjoyable than the first Lord of tthe Rings. It has plenty of action and was full of British whimsy and humor. The child-heroes had real charm. I looked forward to the new one, "The Chamber of Secrets". I liked it, too but not quite as much. The whimsy and wonder was more sublimated to fright-night horrors and an ending that seemed more like something out of Lord of the Rings. Perhaps they are trying to compete? They even have a dwarf character who is somewhat the equivalent of Gollum but not very similar or as interesting. I think Harry should use his wits and his magic to save the day, not a sword.

The last James Bond film I saw was on a plane to Hawaii. It was called "Tomorrow Never Dies" and gave me no desire to see another one. It was all chase scenes and violent students while a glum-looking Pierce Brosnan never seemed to ruffle his Arrow shirt. There was no discernible plot or characterization. the whole thing simply seemed like an ad for a video game. "Die Another Day" proved to be a pleasant surprise. Bond is humanized by being captured and tortured for 14 months in a North Korean prison. He then is accused of spilling secrets by his own people, from whom he escapes and goes on a one man quest for revenge. As the movie goes on, this promising beginning evaporates and we go back to the video game absurdities, including Bond wind-surfing a seismic wave. But Halle Berry is worth a look and the film is never boring.
Star Trek: Nemesis, while dismissed by critics, (as usual), proved to be the pick of the litter. It has as much action as the other series, (without overkill). It provides us with human characters we can really relate to and a story that is about something. In this case, it is about the very thing the film's critics complains it lacks: youth. The hero used to be a cocky, ambitious young officer wanting to make a name for himself. He's grown beyond that and now confronts a cloned version of himself with all the traits he used to possess, magnified by a childhood ordeal and now possessing great power. Captain Picard has to use what he knows about himself and what he has learned to win the day. He's helped by Data who effectively regresses to an earlier version of himself and will now have to retake the journey of experience and wisdom. There is more useful thought in this film than in the others combined and just as much excitement.

But now I feel a great desire to see something about real people living real lives with real problems. It would be a welcome change.