- Peter Jackson’s magnum opus adaptation of Tolkien is one the seminal works of the 21st century. I’ve seen it a half dozen times at least—and my appreciation for it grows with each revisit. I’ll be treating it as one 10-hour film here as it was shot all at once, and I find it pretty fruitless to talk about the differences between the three separate films except for when it comes to description
ambition incarnate– in storytelling and visuals
- As I reread some of the initial reviews in 2001 when the film was first released—I’m so impressed with some of these astute critics comparing it to 1977’s Star Wars in real time. It is easy to do this with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight—but to do this in December 2001? —it is inspiring. One of my greatest fears is missing out on a masterpiece that’s debuting right before my very eyes—it happens.
forget “pop-art” as a backhanded compliment. LOTR hits the heights of any cinematic art- popular or not
- There is so much to praise- Jackson is both faithful to Tolkien and clearly stimulated by it. There’s an attention to every detail- from the performances, costumes, to the visual world-building.
multiple viewings let the complex plot (if you aren’t already familiar with the book) and brilliant photographs take hold
- Gorgeously photographed in New Zealand- helicopter crane shots—valleys, mountains, rivers
I often say I don’t look to be entertained– but to be awed– and Jackson’s epic provides that in spades
- It works as an epic, a war film, a fantasy film (just wrapping up a Gilliam study so it would be foolish not to note just how ‘unfilmable’ this work would seem if we didn’t already have it). The pervading theory is that Jackson became obsessed and burdened with technology as the years have came and gone since LOTR and it sort of undercut his career- but this is the perfect synthesis of live action and technology blend here- boundlessly creative.
the perfect synthesis of live action and technology blend here- boundlessly creative without being excessive or obstructing
- An Oscar production design nomination here but loss initially to Moulin Rouge– what a great year for that category in 2001. LOTR would go on to win in just about every category in 2003 for Return of the King— sort of a lifetime achievement award for the ambitious undertaking.
it is not just the long shots and establishing shots that wow
- Cate Blanchett’s chilling seven-minute voice over to start the saga with a boom. Even within this montage scene-setting—there are stand-alone stunning photographs (like the one here with the nine men)
a strong photograph here pulled from the opening prologue
- The first shot of Gollum’s cave with Jackson’s spotlight on him
The first shot of Gollum’s cave with Jackson’s spotlight on him
- Howard Shore’s score has many highlights — but none greater than the shire melody
an inspired choice by Jackson with the rack focus and use of foreground/background here ultimately in shallow focus
- One of Jackson’s greatest strengths is the establishing shots- working with miniatures
- Jackson’ deftly uses the dolly zoom (a la Vertigo or Scheider at the beach in Jaws) as Frodo hears the nine horsemen approaching – the “get off the road”
Jackson’ deftly uses the dolly zoom (a la Vertigo or Scheider at the beach in Jaws) as Frodo hears the nine horsemen approaching – the “get off the road”
- There is a sublime cinematic painting as Aragorn and Arwen embrace. Jackson is always in service of the narrative (a narrative that rock and rolls up until the last hour as well as just about any other film), and the performances are exemplary (especially Sir Ian McKellen, Viggo and the pioneering work of Andy Serkis) but even with hundreds of pages to cover, 10 hours to fill, and countless locations, costumes, set-pieces to design—Jackson has time enough to pause and bask in shots like this—there are many of these 30-50- especially in the first three hours (Fellowship)
There is a sublime cinematic painting as Aragorn and Arwen embrace
countless shots that would be at home on the wall in any art museum
after the Blanchett voice-over opening— Jackson settles in with this frame
- Instead of getting stagnant, Two Towers starts with a flashback/dream to the balrog battle (and the gorgeous shot of the two falling in the cave) and then we are quickly introduced to new great characters like Brad Dourif’s Wormtongue and Serkis’ Gollum
- The dream of Arwen has a stunner for a frame – the grave of Aragorn
The dream of Arwen has a stunner for a frame – the grave of Aragorn
- The Return of the King and Two Towers with the focus on the battles may not luxuriate in the cinematic paintings as much as the opening (as Jackson introduces us to the world)—but one of the best shots in the entire running time is a shot of staggered faces blocking each other- foreground right Viggo, and, also in profile, is Orlando Bloom’s Legolas next to him—at night
Jackson is never content to just tell the story
simulating the camera falling on top of Elijah Wood’s Frodo in a great sequence
- Return of the King also has the lighting of the beacon sequence and the gorgeous miniature set piece Minas Tirith and the white tree in the citadel
the gorgeous miniature set piece Minas Tirith
epic filmmaking— a 10-hour Lawrence of Arabia
- A towering Masterpiece
I have been reading the series (I’m up to Return of the King now) and it really does sink in just how monumental a task Jackson had set himself when deciding to create these films. I just wish I had been old enough to appreciate them properly when they came out.
You have these at #16 of the 2000’s at the moment, but do you see them going higher on your next update?
@Declan- quite right- a monumental task indeed. I was old enough to appreciate them when they came out but had a genre bias at the time– I wouldn’t say I wrote them off- but it has taken too long for me to fully appreciate them. I’m still a look shook from this viewing but I can’t see them moving down. They’ll most likely move a little higher up
If The Lord of the Rings was shorter but still maintained the same level of cinematic quality, how would it be ranked? I suppose this question applies to many different films. If the best moments of LotR were somehow recut into a cohesive three hour movie, I surmise it would be considered a better film. However, I wonder how much it would drop if the movie was shorter and the average level of quality was preserved. The question also applies in the other direction. If Battleship Potemkin was extended to the length of Jackson’s expansive epic with equal quality per minute, would it land at the same rank as it is currently, slightly better, or far better?
@Graham – I talk a lot about “stylistically quiet” periods in film- regardless of the length of the film if we’re looking at long stretches of time where we’re just watching a camera capturing acting and writing (regardless of how good it is) — well— there are just so many films going for more.
So to go to your comment- I mean if you can make a 3 hour, 5 hour, 10 hour film where you can sustain that level of cinematic energy– well great. If not, I’m usually in favor of a shorter film that has fewer dead periods. I think here with Jackson’s LOTR we have plenty to awe us throughout.
I agree regarding stylistic highs and lows. How about a different hypothetical: imagine two films, both having an equal amount of high-quality minutes as well as some mediocre moments. However, one has the standout periods all clustered into one or two long sections of sustained brilliance and the disappointing moments all placed together in a long, lackluster middle (Some critics said La La Land was like this, though I definitely disagree). The other film rapidly switches between high periods and low periods, thus having no point where one has to wait more than a minute to reach a great scene, but also never having a great scene that lasts more than a minute. Which of these movies would be better? I would be inclined to say the one with short bursts of greatness is the greater work (I suppose this would align with your views on stylistically quiet periods), but I expect that I would find myself irritated that it could never maintain the stylistic standouts for very long. What do you think?
@Graham– it is an interesting question but without examples that fit I’m not entirely sure which option I would choose. I do find that the further I get from a film the more I remember the highs and forget about a film’s shortcomings.
I understand the need for examples, as the situation was very hypothetical. I’ll devise a more specific group of films. Start with Raging Bull and Lawrence of Arabia, two masterpieces that are relatively similar in quality (I generally agree with your #4 and #16 rankings). However, imagine if the first half of Lawrence (most consider it to be the greater half) was the same level of quality as it is currently, while the second half was bad or mediocre. For Raging Bull, imagine if the boxing scenes were still the all-timer sequences of incredible cinematic style that they are now, but the moments in between were entirely forgettable. In this situation, are the two films still nearly equivalent to each other? I believe that Lawrence would drop slightly more than Raging Bull if the two movies were this way, but I cannot be sure.
Along with the above non-existent films, I’ll mention WALL-E as a real movie that is like the “long periods of both good and bad” situation (great beginning, cheesy second half).
@Graham— well the Lawrence of Arabia and WALL-E ones are excellent examples– haha. Impressive that you can just recall stuff like that.
As for your hypothetical- I think I’d agree with you– you give me that one moment that I’m still thinking about for weeks and that has a tendency to rise to the top
Thank you!
I agree. I love a movie that is steadily very good throughout, but even better is one mind-blowing moment, however short it may be. There are the ones that make you smile, the ones that send a tear rolling down, the ones where you can’t help opening your eyes wide with awe, and the ones where you almost want to pump your fist in the air. That’s the beauty of cinema.
What are some of the cinematic moments that cause you to want to do each of the things I mentioned above the most (this question is for everyone)? Here are some of mine, with some new emotions added.
Smile – The very ending of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in which “Chief” finally hurtles the water feature through the window, though bittersweet because of the event that occurred just before
Cry – I’m not much of a movie cryer, but one almost wants to share Watanabe’s wistful tears when he sings in the bar in Ikiru
Open Eyes Wide with Awe – When Lawrence of Arabia finally transitions to the titular location and the epic theme gradually builds
Pump Fist in the Air – At the ending of Manhattan’s brilliant opening monologue, where Woody triumphantly exclaims “New York was his town… and it ALWAYS WOULD BE.”
Lean Forward with Anticipation – The final standoff in TGTGaTU where no one is sure when to shoot
Nod in Agreement – The iconic taxi scene in On the Waterfront (“I coulda had class… I coulda been a contender… I coulda been somebody”)
Tap Your Foot Because You Have to Pee Because the Movie is Very Long – Near the end of OUaTiA. Almost there!
Grit Teeth in Anger – The fateful yelling of Daniel Plainview’s sins in the church of TWBB (“I’ve abandoned my child!”)
Punch the Screen Because You Think the Movie is Lagging – All of the freeze frames near the opening of Goodfellas or in Jules and Jim.
I will probably have more soon.
Did you see the extended versions for this movies?
Most people think of it as three movies, not one.
How would you rate each part? are they all masterpieces?
@Aldo- I have seen the extended versions, yes– and I certainly think of them as one– but understand others don’t. I don’t think it ultimately matters how you classify them
According to you who was better ian mckellen or viggo mortenson? I think viggo was.
Ian Mckellen is undoubtedly better in Fellowship of the Ring. Got an oscar nomination which he should have won.
@Malith- This was a very strong supporting category in 2001. I remember all the prognosticators thought Ben Kingsley would surely win for Sexy Beast. Remember that though Broadbent won for Iris- this was also the year of Moulin Rouge– so the academy may have chosen the right actor– but just maybe for the wrong movie.
I tend to agree with Malith that McKellen gives the greatest performance in Fellowship. However, his lack of screen time or riveting moments in The Two Towers leads him to the back seat, behind Mortensen and arguably Andy Serkis as well in that section. In Return of the King, he rebounds and gives a great performance, but one still slightly lesser than his work in the first film. Mortensen’s Aragorn has a more even path of quality, beginning as an intriguing mystery in Fellowship, leading the second film in narrative heft and acting greatness, and becoming a strong figure of earned power in the third. I’d say the achievements of the two actors are rather equal, with Serkis close behind. Viggo’s acting is more well-balanced, while McKellen’s shows the most raw skill. Other standout performances include Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, and Sean Bean.
@M*A*S*H– it’s McKellen Fellowship, but those two actors are tied if you consider the whole work. LOTR is loaded with strong performances but these are the two very best.
[…] The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King– Jackson […]