More action, less acting makes TTT very good, but not great

Rating: Null/10 (20 December 2002)

What to make of TTT? For over a year now I have been listening to the arguments about whether and where The Lord of the Rings trilogy will justly rank among the pantheon of all-time great movies. Unlike so many of the most impassioned reviewers of these films, I had never read any of Tolkien's works before the movies began arriving (and am now, sometimes reluctantly, holding out until after being surprised by each of the films). In short, I am a movie buff but not a `ring nut'. That being said, one year later I am still in awe of the accomplishment of FOTR and wouldn't hesitate to rank it as one of the greatest movies I've ever seen, particularly the extended version. In the year since its release I have heard Peter Jackson and others repeatedly say that they expected the first of the movies to be the least appealing of the trilogy, so it was genuinely hard to temper my expectations before seeing TTT. Now I have seen it, and the sentence that kept forming in my brain as I watched TTT was `this is a good movie, but I cannot believe it is nowhere near as good as FOTR.' Here, in my opinion, is why.
Consider, for a moment, Shakespeare's Hamlet. It shares some elements with fantasy and action movies - ghosts wandering the night, murder plots, sword fights, poison, and one heck of a body count at the end. Is that what makes it great? It is ridiculous to even suggest this - Hamlet is a masterpiece for its words, its soliloquies, for the opportunities it gives to each generation of actors to express universal human truths and reveal just how good they truly are as actors. No matter how imaginative the sets or exciting the final sword fight, any production of Hamlet will succeed or fail based on the emotion the cast pulls out of Shakespeare's masterful dialogues. As wonderful and amazing as Peter Jackson's visualization of Tolkien's world has been, what made FOTR great in my eyes were Tolkien's poignant words (often helped by Jackson and his co-writers' skillful editing) and the moments of acting brilliance they inspired. Even after a dozen viewings certain scenes still make me ache with emotion: Ian Holm contemplating mortality `like butter scraped over too much bread', Sean Bean transfixed by the nature of tragedy `so much fear and doubt for so small a thing', Cate Blanchett expressing the potentially crushing evil of beauty `all shall love me and despair', Ian McKellan on the perils of rash judgment `many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?' and continuing soon after, hopefully, `all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us'. All of these moments utterly move me, every time. (And for you `Tolkien purists', do you realize that Jackson et al transposed three out of four of these scenes? And to great effect - I would daresay Jackson the editor has actually improved upon Tolkien in these instances, giving these memorable lines added impact, so give the man some well-deserved credit.)
And what about TTT? In my opinion it has only one scene that holds a candle to all those riveting and heartfelt speeches from FOTR, and ironically it is pulled off by partially computer generated Andy Serkis as Smeagol/Gollum wrestling with his dual nature. I get the feeling some of the other scenes should have been electrifying, but somehow fell short. Theoden's speeches were just good. The sad chance of Arwen long outliving Aragorn was rendered in a visually stunning way, but its narration seemed cold and pitiless, never reflecting how much Elrond should care for Arwen and respect Aragorn (compare it to the virtuoso range of emotions Blanchett hits while narrating the prologue in FOTR). And Sam's speech near the end about the good things worth fighting for had me actually cringing in the movie theater for all its sappiness. Not yet having read the second book of the trilogy, I don't know whether TTT the movie's shortcomings stem from the writers not uncovering the gems, the actors not delivering, or Tolkien saving his best stuff for other parts of the trilogy. So even as Peter Jackson's breathtaking visualization of Middle-earth holds constant across both movies, for me FOTR transcends its genre to achieve movie greatness, while TTT seems merely a very good action/adventure movie featuring a strong cast. It looks good (so good!) but lacks the soul of FOTR.
The LOTR films will no doubt be long-cherished by many viewers. But are they among the best ever? If it hadn't followed FOTR I would never even consider TTT for such a boast, but if viewed as part of a trilogy one could at least give it credit for not dropping the ball entirely between epics. Hopefully ROTK will rise again to FOTR's lofty levels; if so, the LOTR movie trilogy will deservedly be critically hailed by future generations too, not just for technical achievement, but as one of the all-time greats. And for those of you that would belittle the Lord of the Rings as mere fantasy and not to be taken seriously as either literature or movie, remember that Shakespeare himself used to deal heavily in ghosts, kings, witches, sword fights and midsummer night's dreams, and his works are no less masterpieces for it.