The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
My hopes for The Return of the King were not especially
high, but I felt an obligation to see it, not only as a reviewer
but also for the sake of closure. Thus, the theater lights dimmed,
the projector rolled, and found myself pleasantly surprised.
Of course, many of the entrenched flaws of the first two films
are present in the third film of the trilogy, but since they
are also expected, they are more easily overlooked.
Overall, The Return of the King is less marred by narrative
tangents and therefore, proves a more streamlined and energetic
film than the previous two. Some of the characters come off better
in this film, as well. For instance, Eowyn proves a more interesting
character, and the bond between her and King Theodin rings genuinely
true. Best of all are Eowyn's scenes in the battle of Pelennor
Fields, where she comes face-to-face with the chief Nazgul, whom
she gloriously vanquishes-with Merry's help, of course.
As Sam Gamgee, Sean Astin gives a stand-out performance. Frodo,
his heart ever failing, is only able to fulfill his quest with
Sam's unwavering help. Indeed, Sam displays great valor in the
film's most horrific scene, when Frodo is caught by the giant
spider Shelob and Sam must fight it off. This is the kind of
part that could become annoying in its tireless optimism, but
Astin never misses in a single scene, and it would not be much
of an exaggeration to say that this final chapter is more Sam's
story than anyone else's.
Gollum also continues to be one of the strongest characters,
as well as a superlative and seamless blend of actor and CGI
animation. The opening of the film is also noteworthy, as it
takes us back hundreds of years, in a flashback which explains
how Gollum came to possess the ring (permitting actor Andy Serkis
to play the part in his own form, sans digital embellishment.)
Viggo Mortensen is a fine actor, but he simply lacks the commanding
presence and arresting voice that Aragorn should have. Mortensen's
attempt to do a British accent also leaves a bit to be desired,
and his oily hair and beard does not help, either. (To think
that Russell Crowe actually turned this role down!)
As Gandalf, Ian McKellen clearly had more fun with his character
this time. Previously a Christ-like healer and spiritual guide,
Gandalf now turns warrior-general as he takes charge of the defense
of Minas Tirith, astride his trusted Shadowfax.
The visual effects are also a vast improvement over the previous
films, both in their realism and their application. Unlike Fellowship
of the Ring, this film does not go quite so overboard with
wacky aerial shots and other gimmickry (which gave the first
film the feel of a video game). And the scenes with the giant
spider Shelob are amazing and almost too convincing in their
hair-raising realism.
The landscapes have a greater realism than in the previous films
as well. Mordor is especially chilling to behold, a wicked realm
of jagged, sooty peaks, the aptly-named Mt. Doom vomiting forth
the very fires of Hell itself. The heat and smoke are tangible,
and evoke much empathy for the weary Frodo and Sam.
Considering the runaway success of the first two films, I am
sure New Line Cinema pumped more money into this film's post-production,
which accounts for its higher quality . This is not to say that
this is a perfect film. Like the first two films, The Return
of the King is, visually speaking, not especially original.
Aragorn rides before the troops to inspire them in a scene that
bears more than a passing similarity to the battle scene in Braveheart.
Likewise, the climactic battle of Pelennor Fields, in which the
enemy charges forward astride great elephants, brings to mind
the Imperial Walker attack in The Empire Strikes Back.
If visually derivative, however, the battle sequence nevertheless
packs in much excitement and action, and proves a much more stirring-and
technically competent-sequence than the Helm's Deep battle in
Two Towers.
Although decidedly less tedious than The Two Towers, The
Return of the King does suffer from the inclusion of sub-plots
which may have worked in the book but slow the film to a crawl.
The character of Denethor is awkwardly handled, and too much
time is wasted on his bizarre behavior and relationship with
Pippin. And the scene where Denethor immolates himself and subsequently
plummets to his death must rank as the most unintentionally hilarious
thing I have seen in a long time. Likewise, the viewer simply
cannot suppress giggles in the scene where Pippin and then Aragorn
run around with palantir stuck to their hands, looking utterly
ridiculous as they attempt to shake it off.
The resolution of The Return of the King also proves rather
odd. Owing to the culmination of multiple storylines, the film
feels like it is about to end several times before it actually
does (and this could easily have been smoothed over by a better
use of transitions).
Additionally, in the book, the hobbits come home to find that
Saruman has transformed the shire into a kind of police-state,
and our protagonists deal with him accordingly. But other than
a vague line at the film's opening stating that Saruman is bereft
of power, there is no mention of him at all in this film. Why?
It baffles me to no end that Peter Jackson included endless scenes
of Denethor acting like a looney, yet the final, grisly demise
of one of the chief bad guys is discarded.
Ultimately, The Return of the King is a good film yet
it fails to convey the depth, weight, and the enchantment of
Tolkien's work.
Paul Andrew MacLean
© 2004
Shelton CT 06484 USA
(800) 232-2224 voice
(800) 775-2729 fax
LadyJanet@RenaissanceMagazine.com