Clumsy direction - but worth the ticket price

Rating: Null/10 (30 December 2002)

A popular film. Almost 1000 imdb.com comments within the first two weeks. Sellout crowds at the theaters. However, as with the first part of the trilogy, Jackson is clumsy in his direction. The movie drags at times, and comes together in strange, disconnected ways - so unlike Tolkien's novel. It's been said that the film is boring. It's been said this is because Tolkien was boring. No one who has ever tried to read just one page of Lord of The Rings could believe that. Tolkien's casual style insists on telling a story, drawing one instantly into that world, and not calling attention to the novelist writing his novel (or the filmmaker calling attention to the beauty that is New Zealand, rather than the story of Middle Earth). Tolkien isn't to blame. Jackson is. This movie required a great director, with craft and a vision to work with. Had Jackson really paid his dues to direct Lord of the Rings?
Editing could help Twin Towers and a few flybys could be scrapped entirely. The film would move faster and flow better. The much maligned Bakshi cartoon of the 1970s, while weak on effects and hired extras, certainly makes the Jackson films seem plodding and leaden, by comparison. Bakshi was on pace to tell the entire Lord of The Rings in under four hours, not nine, had his money held out. The ideal Lord of The Rings movie, in other words, would take the pacing of Bakshi's telling, or more to the point, Tolkien's, the effects of the 21st century and Jackson, etc., and stick more faithfully to the plotlines and story Tolkien developed, as well. Those were well thought out.
The flybys suggest something else, as well. A disconnect. The audience isn't shoulder to shoulder with the characters, as in Bakshi's version. We are not running along, or fighting the fights. The audience is watching. The shots are wide shots. It's not an adventure - but an arena. There aren't story arcs, and subplots. There aren't characters, consistent in some ways, and changing in others. There are simply contests, and comic relief between the next show or bout. It's not that much of an exaggeration to compare Jackson's version of Tolkien's classic to Vince McMahon's World Wrestling Entertainment.
Given the rewrite, then, of Tolkien's novel, by Jackson, and the emphasis in a George Lucas world much more on special effects than anything else, how did Jackson do? In my opinion, the Gollum was well done, but somehow cold, and mechanical. I know this has gotten rave reviews. But something was missing that you had in the snippets of Bakshi, by comparison. His Gollum, as a film version, even if a rotoscope, was more engaging. Jackson's approach of Saruman's army was impressive, as was the Battle at Helm's Deep (something Bakshi couldn't hope to rival with what he had). I did miss those magical mortars of Saruman, though. I thought that was what breached the wall in the book. The conclusion of Eomer's ride with Gandolph the White was cut short, I think, considering how much time was spent on the points of the battle beforehand. All of a sudden, it just ended, and Saruman had been defeated. But the charge down the hill was very impressive, as well, even if a whole bunch of the original '10,000' had disappeared (shades of Bakshi).
One could argue about Fanghorn, as well. I believe it was called bright, and interesting, in the book. In Jackson's view, it was forever forboding and decrepit. One of the ents seemed geared for the funny papers. But generally I thought the Ents were well done. On the other hand, the inclusion of the elves at Helm's Deep seemed gratuitous. They didn't change the outcome. The Rohanim still rode to the rescue. There were just a bunch of dead of elves to show in the gloom. I didn't understand the point of any of that. And Tolkien wouldn't have, either. Show the 'fires of Isengard', instead. Spend the scripting, and the money, on that. Jackson is not Tolkien. Jackson didn't write Lord of the Rings. Maybe as something of a hack, by comparison, the man is jealous of Tolkien. But that doesn't change anything.
Again, the question is whether Jackson is fit or qualified to direct an epic like Lord of the Rings. I think Bakshi did far better, with a paltry few resources by comparison. Speilberg, perhaps. Others. You don't know. But sticking to the book is probably something new for Hollywood. This is a case where they should have done so, and tried to understand Tolkien rather than impart their own dim sense of things onto a work adapted, at best.
Still, for being boring, and a misstep, and an exercise in the pride of someone who thought he was Tolkien, but wasn't, there's still a lot to appreciate in the film. It is certainly worth a matinee price, even at six dollars, or so. It's worth that. On the other hand, the huge Christmas/New Year's sellout crowds, which doubled the gross compared to FotR, might only encourage more of this sort of treatment of the classics, rather than something with today's f/x, but perhaps yesterday's more profoundly human and interesting filmmaking. If only someone could be found to put those two together, and then attempt something like - The Lord of the Rings.