- 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
There is a good description on The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim (impressive film) on this list.
https://www.tasteofcinema.com/2025/all-10-middle-earth-movies-ranked-from-worst-to-best/
Jackson also uses the dolly zoom on The Hobbit (in one of the Necromancer scenes) but it’s done in a different way and not as effective.
The Rising of the Undead/Vampires scene with slow-motion shortly after the ritual in The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974) seems to have been an inspiration for the making of Orcs scenes at Isengard in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
I’m yet to see or find an Extended Version of The Fellowship of the Ring with the original colors restored. I think it’s a pretty well known fact Jackson ruined the color grading with a green filter when the Extended Version was released on BluRay in 2011. Later versions have this green filter removed but the original colors are not there. In the Extended Version, Rivendell and Shire looks the same. It’s striking how poor it looks when Gandalf talks with the healed Frodo at Rivendell in the Extended Version. It’s a much less immersive and expansive world when the colors are not there. Even worse is the added scene at Rivendell where Elrond wishes the Fellowship farewell. It looks really bad.
There is a scene/shot in Scars of Dracula that is reminiscent of Gandalf and Balrog falling out of the sky in The Lord of the Rings (at the begining of The Two Towers). Of course Christopher Lee is in both.
This one
https://imgur.com/a/lord-of-rings-scars-of-dracula-lp2xNwo
@Drake- Have you seen The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim (2024)?
I’m not an expert on Anime films and the animation style takes a bit of time to get used to. But I think it looks quite spectacular. It’s a very good story as well indeed. A really good addition to The Lord of the Rings cannon.
https://imgur.com/a/lord-of-rings-war-of-rohirrim-2024-ImbOw9Z
@Malith- I have not seen seen this
Yeah. The film is heavily underrated. The heroine of the film is named after the Mortal Engines’ lead actress
Hera Hilmar. Some of the Lord of the Rings alumni is back with Miranda Otto doing the narration and Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan voicing a couple of buddy Orcs.
While I do ultimately agree that this is really just 1 long film — for the sake of the yearly pages, the fact that most outside of this community view it as a trilogy, and because I just do find it interesting to discuss it as 3 separate parts, I decided to take some notes for just Two Towers:
I’ve been revisiting these with the extended editions (for the first time) during its release into theatres
Perhaps the greatest example of formal brilliance (and one of the most ingenious uses of shot-reverse-shot in cinema history) in the film is the shot-reverse-shot framing and staging of Gollum talking to “himself” that visually conveys his split-consciousness and split-personality psychology … https://youtu.be/NB2CNr692RE?si=d4G_eJO0C3fBubMr
Where Two Towers actually does excel in a way that Fellowship (an overall superior film to this one) never got the opportunity to quite do is in its cross cutting. Fellowship was often a lot more linear… the fellowship worked as one team on one journey; but in Two Towers the fellowship has split into really 3 subgroups and 3 narrative threads (Sam/Frodo/Gollum, Merry/Pippin/Ents, and Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas/Gandalf/Rohan). It’s by far the biggest difference between the two films. And I particularly find the cross-cutting in the final third between the IMMEDIATE urgency of the Battle of Helm’s Deep and the delayed deliberation of the Ents (a unique species that thinks in centuries and not minutes) to be a nifty way of showing to the viewers just how different the Ents were from the rest of the world around them (like I said, an exceptional worldbuilding aspect exaggerated because of what it was cross-cut in relation to)
To that above point, one of the reasons I have always preferred Fellowship of the Ring the most is because of the group dynamic and the impeccable chemistry that the Fellowship cast has with each other. All of them together creates such an undefeatable, and often charming comfort
THE best achievement in motion capture innovation is the one of the earliest (Gollum).. who would have guessed?
I think the film would be significantly worse if it was made 5 years earlier (the digital effects were not advanced enough to bring alive this dynamically grand vision (or Gollum’s motion-capture-brilliance) or later (Peter Jackson likely embraces it too much and we end up with The Hobbit issues again. It’s actually a miracle to us, that production started right at the time it did
The sense of geographical and tactical clarity during the Battle of Helm’s Deep is staggering. I am positive that I could verbally, or via drawing by hand, the entire landscape and phase-by-phase breakdown of the fight if asked. And that is immensely impressive given the visual scope and temporal length of the battle. This has always been my favorite battle of the saga, and arguably in film history (talking favorites here, but it is objectively still among the best)
Like atleast 50 wall-art establishing shots alone
Biblical parallels galore. The flooding of Isengard. “Gandalf the White” returning on a white horse and also returning for the final battle at dawn from the east (Matthew 24:27). Among many of the overarching ones across the entire trilogy (Frodo carrying the burden of mankind through the ring), etc
I view the “3 films” as really just 1 long film, but for the sake of the yearly pages (that will hopefully drop soon) I’ve been tracking the ‘best of the year” worthy performances for each individual installment and I think Andy Serkis is the sure fire one from here. The next tier that warrants real consideration I thought was mainly Sean Astin (primarily for that dazzling, tear-jerker (I teared up) monologue at the end) and Bernard Hill. Elijah Wood (who handles the added psychological depth of the ring’s corruption very well!) would exist between that above tier and the below tier of performances (that I don’t think are best of the year worthy but stand out from the rest of the (brilliant all around the board) cast) of Viggo Mortensen again (of course) and actually Miranda Otto
My favorite expanded edition addition (tongue twister) was the flashback Borimir scenes. It adds an immense amount to Faramir’s character (I never thought he was a great character in the theatrical cut, but he is here) and adds an extra element to the ring’s power (being desired as a political tool for Gondor) that was otherwise not explored much (only briefly hinted at in Fellowship)
I am never going back to the theatrical cuts. Immense narrative propulsion was hardly a feature of this film in the way it is for say an Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark; a greater strength for the franchise is the worldbuilding and narrative depth, so I will absolutely slow down the momentum a little bit to further enrich the narrative (one of the great narratives in all of fiction) and simply give us a higher volume of superb sequences
I actually think this film (we’ll see if I still agree after I watch ROTK extended edition this weekend, but FOTR is fresh off my mind) is probably the funniest (?) and best example of a perfect synthesis of tragedy and comedy (two tones that (usually) absolutely work better when paired) from the trilogy. Gollum is honestly comedy genius. Him slamming the fish against the rock is some of the hardest I’ve laughed in awhile
Peter Jackson said this was the installment that worried him the most.. it doesn’t have the novelty of Fellowship or the climaxes of Return of the King, so he was unsure on how to make it stand out at first…but he clearly manages to pull through and give us just that. The exploration of Gollum’s psyche (with the motion capture innovation), the Battle of Helm’s Deep (arguably the best battle of the entire franchise), and just the all-around continual exploration of Tolkien’s fascinating world (everything with the Ents and Isengard is great) grants us that exactly
Could Peter Jackson have picked a better shot to end Two Towers on if you tried. I mean holy shit
A standalone Masterpiece, but certainly weaker than Fellowship overall (couldn’t be much farther from an insult)
The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim (2024)
https://imgur.com/a/lord-of-rings-war-of-rohirrim-2024-ImbOw9Z
https://imgur.com/a/funeral-scenes-middle-earth-QoIoCH1
I’m surprised Jackson removed the Funeral scenes from the Theatrical Cut of both Middle-Earth movies (The Two Towers, The Battle of the Five Armies) because they look good and is quite powerful as well. This happened in FF Coppola’s Apocalypse Now too with the Laurence Fishburne one. But that is quite understandable because it leads up to the “love it or hate it dinner scene” both in the French Plantation.
Jackson and writers have a tendency to go around in circles for some characters for added run time and bloat in The Two Towers. For example The Liv Tyler character Arwen. She decides to go to the Undying Lands, then after a while decides to come back. And is in the same place she was in the begining. And again with the David Wenham character Faramir. He takes Frodo to Osgilliath by force but after a while decides to let Frodo go anyway. Which he easily could have done at the very beginning. It’s not surprising to learn both of these things which probably amounts to 20-30 minutes of runtime is not in the Tolkien book. Not to mention the book Faramir gives Frodo reinforcements while this Faramir more or less strips away the reinforcements from Frodo.
The Aragorn “fake death” in The Two Towers is another one like this. Another non-book addition which is more of a distraction than a supplement.
The Two Towers Frodo narrative adjusted rewrite:
The Two Towers
1st narrative:
– Frodo and Sam travel towards mordor
– Encounters gollum and uses him as a guide
– Encounters Faramir.
– Faramir initially suspects Frodo but relents after learning more about him.
– Doesn’t take Frodo with him to Osgiliath.
– Provides Frodo reinforcements.
– Faramir goes to protect Osgilliath.
– Gollum tricks Frodo into believing Sam is a traitor. Frodo sends Sam away.
– End
Also the start of the Osgilliath battle which is only in the Extended Version of The Return of the King is amazing. The best scene in all the Extended Editions. There is another critical great scene that was somehow left out from the Theatrical Version (the meeting between Faramir and Denethor) in The Return of the King.
The Helm’s Deep battle (Appendix story) rewrite:
– Theoden gets manipulated by Warmtongue (via help from Saruman), looses his mind
– Sends his son into battle
– The son dies
– Warmtongue desires Eowyn
– Wormtongue banishes Eomer as a traitor
– Gandalf arrives and frees Theoden from Saruman’s spell (no old man shaft antics)
– Exiles Wormtongue
– Wormtongue goes to Isengard and gives him instructions about Rohan
– Theoden is normal again, mourns his son
– Decides to evacuate people to Helm’s Deep under threat from Saruman
– Gandalf goes to look for reinforcements. No foreshadowing.
– Saruman sends an army with a formidable villain like the Uruk-hai leader
-The Helm’s Deep Battle
– Theoden seems doomed and at the Last minute Gandalf arrives with the Rohirrim army led by Eomer
– Theoden and co defeat the Saruman army
– End
The Return of the King rewrite:
1st narrative:
– Frodo and Sam travel towards Mordor
– No fake Frodo death
– Sam is intstruced to go away by the cunning plan of gollum but comes back to help Frodo
– Keep it realistic. Sam doesn’t suddenly kill off many orcs easily. Hobbits are not action heroes.
– Encounters shelob and get away. Gollum dies a fake death here and comes back.
– More care given to Sauron’s eye not seeing Frodo
– Frodo refuses to destroy the ring
– But Gollum comes back and he dies with the ring after scuffling with Frodo
– End
2nd narrative:
– Gandalf arrives at night when Aragorn and co are resting at Isengard
– They celebrate for a bit
– Pippin encounters Saruman’s Palentir.
Gandalf takes it from Pippin.
– When they are sleeping. Pippin looks into it.
– Sauron’s power takes hold. They realizes Minas Tirith is in trouble.
– Gandalf and Aragorn seperates. Gandalf goes to Minas Tirith directly.
– Meanwhile Faramir looses the battle at Osgiliath and retreats to Minas Tirith.
– Both Gandalf and Faramir arrives at Minas Tirith. Faramir tells Gandalf about Frodo. They find Denethor.
– Denethor sends Faramir again into battle which kills Faramir. Denethor realizes his mistake but is too late.
– Gandalf and Pippin lights the fires to inform the other kingdoms asking for their help. Secretly from Denthor.
– Meanwhile Aragorn goes the other way to Gondor, Gandalf told him about.
– Encounters Elrond who gives him the sword of Gondor.
– Encounters the dead men kingdom and ask for their help.
– The villains are also built up. The witch king who is the leader of the minas tirith attack is given his own screentime rather than an exposition dump by Gandalf
– The battle for Minas Tirith. With Aragorns army, Gandalf and Minas Tirith army and also the other kingdoms who come to their help.
– Denethor finally realizes his mistake when he sees Faramirs dead body, goes to war and dies in battle.
– The dead men army has weight and slowness to their movement.
– The Witch King is defeated by someone more powerful. Not treated as a joke and contrived drama for Eowyn and Merry.
– Aragorn, Gandalf and co win the Minas Tirith battle. They think about their next move and decides to go to Mordor to help Frodo.
– They are doomed by the Mordor Army but Frodo manages to destroy the ring. And kills Sauron.
Epilogue:
The Two Towers rewrite:
1st narrative:
– Frodo and Sam travel towards mordor
– Encounters gollum and uses as a guide
– Encounters Faramir
– Uses Osgiliath as the climax but remove the part where Frodo’s mind is controlled by the ring
– Farmair lets them go
– End
2nd narrative:
– Aragorn and co looks for merry and pippin
– Merry and Pippin Escapes into the fanghorn forest after the orcs fight against each other (Saruman vs. Sauron)
– Aragorn follows the trail and encounters treebeard and merry and pippin. Then it is shown in flashback that treebeard and co crushed the orcs.
– Aragorn and co convinces treebeard to attack Isengard
– Saruman calls for sauron’s help through the palentir but is betrayed
– Isengard is defeated
– End
@Drake- I constructed this about The Lord of the Rings. I think and hope everything in this seems logical. There are spoilers. Rohan is completely removed.
1. The Fellowship of the Ring
The Shire & the Ring
Bilbo leaves the Shire, leaving the One Ring to Frodo.
Frodo learns the Ring is dangerous and must leave.
Journey to Rivendell
Frodo sets out with Sam, Merry, and Pippin.
They are pursued by the Black Riders (Nazgûl).
Key events: crossing the Old Forest, meeting Tom Bombadil, encounters at Barrow-downs, crossing the Barad-dûr threat.
Rivendell & Formation of the Fellowship
Elrond convenes the Council of Elrond.
The Fellowship is formed: Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, and Gandalf.
Mission: destroy the One Ring in Mount Doom.
Journey South
Fellowship travels via Caradhras (fails), Moria (loss of Gandalf), and Lothlórien (rest and counsel from Galadriel).
Breaking of the Fellowship
Boromir dies defending Merry & Pippin from Uruk-hai.
Frodo and Sam go to Mordor alone.
Merry & Pippin are captured by Uruk-hai.
Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli decide to pursue the Uruk-hai and rescue the hobbits.
Gandalf falls in Moria but is later resurrected as Gandalf the White.
2. Reframed Two Towers / Pre-ROK Sequence
Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli
Pursuing the Uruk-hai who captured Merry & Pippin.
Learn that Merry & Pippin are safe.
Their mission pivots to Gondor — defending against Sauron’s growing threat.
Merry & Pippin / Treebeard at Isengard
After capture, the hobbits meet Treebeard.
They help lead the Ents in defeating Saruman at Isengard.
They become main characters after Aragorn learns they are safe.
Intersection
Aragorn travels toward Gondor, passes defeated Isengard, and meets Merry & Pippin.
Hobbits join his arc naturally, no rescue required.
Gandalf’s Proactive Introduction
Gandalf arrives at Isengard at night.
He is acting on his own mission (possibly heading toward Mordor, securing Saruman’s tower).
Intersects naturally with Aragorn and the hobbits, giving guidance for the coming war.
3. Key Character Motivations at this Point
Aragorn: heading to Gondor because the city is in danger; assumes leadership role in the war effort.
Merry & Pippin: now integrated into Aragorn’s journey, having proven themselves as brave and resourceful.
Gandalf: proactive, working independently to prepare allies, monitor threats, and guide strategy.
Frodo & Sam: continuing toward Mordor to destroy the Ring (main thread that remains separate until later).
4. Narrative Logic Highlights
All motivations are grounded in human stakes and agency, not magical plot devices (no Palantír needed).
Agency preserved: Aragorn drives his arc, the hobbits drive theirs, Gandalf drives his.
Spectacle preserved: Treebeard and the hobbits’ heroism at Isengard is fully visible.
Story pivot points are clear: Aragorn’s knowledge of the hobbits’ safety triggers the narrative shift.
I just cannot get into the point of The Two Towers and The Rohan subplot (about 80% of The Two Towers) and why it is needed for “The Lord of the Rings”.
In my view:
– Frodo continues on his quest to Mordor
– Aragorn and co on their pursuit of Merry and Pippin meets Gandalf
– Merry and Pippin escapes from the Orcs and instigates treebeard to defeat Saruman
– Then Return of the King starts
– Gandalf and co meet Merry and Pippin and finds Saruman defeated.
– Frodo still continues on his quest for Mordor
The Rohan subplot is just bloat for the sake of bloat.
Don’t get me wrong I would have loved to see a standalone film separate from The Lord of the Rings and the battle for Helm’s Deep but I did not enjoy and especially get the point of all this in The Lord of the Rings and the Two Towers section.
Isengard (with Saruman) and it’s transformation is an allegory for the nature (trees) vs. man-made (metal) debate. In repeated viewings it’s striking how beautiful and heavenly Isengard is when Gandalf visits it (and before the all-time great scene between the two great actors) compared to the barren wasteland it eventually transforms into.
The Two Towers is insanely stupid at times. Frodo hides him and Sam in open air by wrapping them around in his cloak which looks like a rock? How? Gandalf says a joke about his old man’s stick when entering Rohan and they believe it knowing who he is? Why? The Orcs let Merry and Pippin talk freely and long when they are captured? Why? How did Wormtongue not see Saruman’s army when he entered Isengard? How?
It often feels like Aragorn and Gandalf are playing secondary roles to Bernard Hill’s (very good) Rohan king in this film rather than following Sam and Frodo.
I’m not sure if the movies convey this, that the cloak Frodo and Sam hide under is a magic Elven cloak.
@K- There is another instance of this in the mines of Moria scene with Mithril. But that is revealed and spoken about after the incident. There is no explanation here though. Even if there was one it feels rather pointless and lazy to execute a scene like this. When it easily could have been done realistically.
Also in The Return of the King I noticed Gandalf and co literally travel to Isengard and then back to Eodor to celebrate. That’s wild. How can they do this? Isengard is not in the middle of Helm’s Deep and Eodor. If it was like this, they would have met Saruman’s whole army on the road to Helm’s Deep. And Saruman’s army could have easily reached Helm’s Deep quicker than the ones in Eodor.
Helm’s Deep is directly in between Edoras and Isengard. What doesn’t make sense is evacuating the civilians towards the enemy, which didn’t happen in the book. In the book, the army heads out to attack Isengard, but after discovering Saruman’s army, they hole up in Helm’s Deep. The logistics and maneuvering in the book is consistently logical, while the movie only sometimes makes sense.
@K- Thanks. I was basing my opinion based on the movie version. The book seems to make sense based on what you have said.
In my opinion showing characters in one location (Isengard) and the same characters in Edoras in the very next scene is a notable misfire. The logistics of travelling is completely disregarded. This is because The Two Towers focuses on the battle for Helm’s Deep while the name of the movie “The Two Towers (with Saruman)” more or less is relegated to comic 3rd cog in the wheel with Merry and Pippin. 1st cog being Helm’s Deep and the 2nd cog being Frodo’s journey to Mordor.
They needed a way to connect the 1st and 3rd cog at the start of The Return of the King and this is how they did it. This feels like a fault of both Tolkien and Jackson.
Also, this is a problem with expanding this story into three movies. The main story of Frodo going to Mordor looses focus and had to be patched up by a rather contrived visit to Osgilliath to give this 2nd cog some sort of finale in the second movie. From what I have heard Tolkien is worse in that department. Frodo and Sam in the 3rd book is in the same place they were in at the start of the 2nd book.
Gandalf is the worst offender when it comes to exposition in the 2nd and 3rd films. He spells out everything to the audience. Again and again. As Gandalf the White. This is a classic case of “telling and not showing”. There is zero nuance here. Gandalf the White knows everything that happened to everyone before and everything that is going to happen in the future. A far cry from Gandalf the Grey.
I think even McKellen has spoken about this recently and said how it was so much more enjoyable to play Gandalf the Grey than Gandalf the White in the 2nd and 3rd movies.
Also, it’s curious how one of the main characters in the film (and Fellowship certainly) Aragorn is basically playing second fiddle to and supporting Bernard Hill’s King Theoden for the majority of the 2nd and 3rd films. Bernard Hill is really good but this is not what The Fellowship of the Ring was about.
In the book, Merry and Pippin are hosted by the Ents for many pages, probably more than the campaign for Helm’s Deep.
The Lord of the Rings had six books, which were grouped for publication into three volumes, so the volumes themselves don’t really tell a story. It is one story in six, not one story in three. The filmmakers, adapting in three films (not six), struggled to overcome this problem.
The trilogy fits an awkward spot, being both a cinematic masterpiece, and utterly, totally inferior to the book, for The Lord of the Rings is the best novel (or romance) ever written. The nuanced storytelling, where breaks in location and storyline motivate the dynamics of tone and feeling, makes a virtue of small characters and meandering plot: a virtue that film often failed to capture.
@K- Yeah. There is quite a few mini films in The Lord of the Rings.
– The Fellowship of the Ring
– Isengard or Two Towers Battle
– The Helm’s Deep battle (not really needed for The Lord of the Rings)
– The Minas Tirith battle
– The Mordor final battle
It’s great and expansive world building from Tolkien.
I think Sean Bean is as good as Ian Mckellen in The Fellowship of the Ring. He brings an edge to the whole thing. You know he is going to snap at any moment in his greed for the ring. This is something that was sorely lacking in The Hobbit series.
[…] The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King– Jackson […]
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.
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
@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.
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).
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