2003--Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Peter Jackson

2003--Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King—Peter Jackson

Nominated: Lost in Translation, Master and Commander: The Far side of the world, Mystic River, Seabiscuit

Should have won: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Be sure to see: Big Fish, High Tension, House of 1000 Corpses, The Hunted, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Monster, Open Range

“Sorry, uncle. I'm afraid I've lost it.”--Frodo

     One of the most anticipated and largest productions of all time is The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The books had been around for decades and there was even an animated version being considered with The Beatles voicing the parts (thank God that never happened). I watched all three movies to get the full scope of the Oscar winning third chapter. The first entry in the trilogy was upset by A Beautiful Mind, a decent film but in no ways up to snuff with The Fellowship of the Ring. I found Fellowship mesmerizing yet at the same time a little draggy. The second in the series is The Two Towers was enthralling and satisfying. I have said that Forrest Gump and Chicago are two best picture winners that should have placed third in their years. Chicago should have taken the bronze behind Gangs of New York as the runner-up, with Two Towers winning. I didn't think it could be topped by the third but I was wrong. The story's well-deserved Oscar finally was awarded to the third entry, Return of the King. It also became the third sequel to win best picture after The Godfather part II and The Silence of the Lambs, the follow up to Manhunter.

     It would be difficult to give a synopsis of this movie without filling in the parts of the previous two, however, that would require ten hours worth of story. There are massive fans of the books and movies and, while I am a huge admirer, I can't say I'm a hardcore fan. I know there are numerous plot points that bypassed me and others I think I might understand. The movie starts with two men fishing and one hooks into a whopper, is pulled under, and discovers one of the sacred rings. It is my understanding one of the men is Smeagol who is the creepy Gollum in a more human form. Meanwhile two hobbits, Sam and Frodo, are still trekking through the woods and up the mountain like they were in the previous films. However, Smeagol is leading them. At least that is what they call him even though he is in the form of the creepy Gollum. If there is a good creature in Smeagol and a bad one in Gollum, then the human at the beginning is connected to which one? What character went with which name? Look, I'm admitting right now I'm a little confused with the story. Those of you who adore the books and films know what I'm trying to say though. Smeagol seems friendly and helpful but Sam (and we) know differently. In once scene, while the hobbits slept, he throws their last remaining piece of bread off the cliff and frames Sam as though he ate it. My question is why didn't he eat it himself? I can somehow picture Homer Simpson throwing it off the cliff in a “Take that!...D'oh!” fashion. Ha, and I think Ace Ventura did that with a torch in When Nature Calls.

     From a movie making standpoint, it is brilliant. The effects crew does an ingenious job of using the right amount of special effects to make it possible to pull off a film like this but not too much to make purists cringe with the non-authentic feel of the real world. I’ve heard it said a special effects technician has done his job when the viewer doesn't know it is an effect. Now obviously the visuals in this movie are impossible in the real world, thus making it obvious it is an effect; however, they are pulled off so well they might as well have been real. My favorite part was the attack with the giant elephants (and the walking trees in The Two Towers). These are two of the coolest sequences I've ever seen. The elephants rival the AT-ATs in The Empire Strikes Back. Just an amazing sequence of these humongous elephants stepping on horses and then, ultimately, being defeated. My question, however, is who is going to clean those things up? In a few days the area will be most unpleasant. I like to call it a “Yeah but then...” moment. Great battle. Yeah, but who is going to clean up the giant rotting elephant carcases? Ever see The Wizard of Oz?The best “yeah but then...” moment for me is the end of that movie. Everyone is happy and it ends. Yeah but then Mrs. Gulch is going to come take Toto away. Did they forget about that?

     The movie also does a fantastic job of making the actors who are playing hobbits look smaller next to other normal sized actors. They aren't always small stunt doubles; sometimes it is an effect trick. Even the use of locations to show distances make for spectacular visuals. Take for instance the relay fires on the mountaintops, indicating how far apart characters are or the location Frodo and Sam are in relation to the ensuing battle. The movies are just visual wonders. And I haven't even mentioned the spider fight.

     There are more than visuals to keep the film afloat, however. The important part of any movie is the story and this one juggles different story lines together with ease. We follow Sam, Frodo, and Smeagol on their quest on the mountain but then the movie goes back to Gandalf and his men and I enjoyed both stories. Other movies might keep you more interested in one than another. It got really interesting when Frodo, in a sense, fired Sam and went on alone. This is where the meeting with the giant spider occurs which is another thrilling segment. But the end of Frodo's fight with the spider and the end of his fight with Smeagol (well the first fight) both seemed underwhelming. Both had false payoffs but I won't spoil how, maybe I just did. My bad. But they are still good fights so they will be worth a look.

    The movie is fantastic but not flawless. The dwarf, Gimbly's, one-liners got old, even though he only delivered a few. And in a battle scene, there is a nice overhead shot of the armies charging each other and all of the bodies that should be lying behind them have disappeared. Also, there never seems to be any blood on the swords after someone is stabbed, not even the giant spider's.

     The only other part that irked me was the ending...all six of them. The final 20 minutes had tons of spots where the movie could have ended and there were a bunch of sappy, though perhaps necessary, moments.

Peter Jackson, who directed these movies and the surprisingly great King Kong remake (much better than the first 1976 remake but still not as good as the brilliant 1933 one) got his start in less respected but equally entertaining movies. After you check the Lord of the Rings movies out take a look at the disgusting little goodies Bad Taste and Dead Alive. Quite different styles than his recent work. It must be nice to not be typecast to one genre.