Movie Review

Movie Title: The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Too many to be named
Reviewed by: Stephen Yeo

A return that took too long
Be not afraid of greatness. Some are born great. Some achieve greatness. And some have greatness thrust upon them. Literally. Just like Frodo who has "greatness" thrust upon him to return an ordinarily looking ring back to its rightful place.

Ok, I admit. I'm not a true-blue LOTR fan, so I may not appreciate the heavy responsibility that Frodo burdened himself with. But "The Return Of The King" confirmed my suspicion that Frodo is a good-for-nothing with a delusional sense of his own greatness. In this final instalment of the LOTR trilogy, Frodo once again appeared like an epileptic who screws up at crucial moments only for the subservient (should I hazard the word "gay"?) Sam to save his ass. In "hindsight", Sam's saving of Frodo's ass probably saved ours too; otherwise the movie will go on forever and our sorry asses will be beyond rescue by the time we get to the "bottom" of things.

And precisely because I'm not a LOTR fan, I shall not dwell on the merits (or otherwise) of the film adaptation. Suffice to say that "The Return Of The King" boasts some stunning cinematography, and the battle scenes with thousands of extras are wonderfully choreographed. However, if you compare these with the 45-minute or so battle of Helm's Deep in "The Two Towers", you will get the feeling that the director didn't save the best for the last.

"The Return Of The King" also made me realise a couple of things:
(1) Medieval warfare is kinda... stupid.
(2) Strategy counts for little, and absolute numbers win. So always aim to be on the right side of the majority.
(3) Leadership comes with responsibilities and risks. But, somehow, the leaders in this movie seldom get killed. The odds of a leading man at the forefront getting crushed by the on-rushing enemy are surprisingly slim. Evidence: Except for King Theoden, practically all the leading characters - even the hobbits - survived the onslaught of the orcs and oliphaunts. Really amazing odds.

In terms of screen presence, the schizophrenic Smeagol, with the help of CGI, probably made the most impression. Theoden's niece, Eowyn also left her mark with some gutsy fighting and the "I'm no woman!" outburst. Other characters, such as Agent Smith (oops, carried over from "The Matrix"), had such fleeting appearances that they barely made a dent in my memory. Which explains why I can't remember where Liv Tyler fitted into the entire plot.

The numerous characters and sub-plots posed another problem. Whatever needs to be returned - the ring, the king - took too long in the end because all the loose ends had to be taken care of. Towards the end, this 3 hours 20 minutes movie will actually leave you begging for an ending.

Verdict: My apologies to LOTR/Peter Jackson fans, but I think "The Return Of The King" will do well with better editing.

Friday, December 19, 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reader Mailbag

[Jeremy Torr wrote:]
I have to say I agree; my belief was not suspended anywhere near as high as in previous LOTR episodes. Just what did those Hobbits do? What did they prove? That bad people are bad and wear bad taste clothes and never brush their teeth but live in tall buildings with lots of stairs. And that good people are good (yet just a teeny bit sexy too), always wear white and smile in the face of danger. And curiously, unlike the baddies, never eat.

The first two were solid ripping yarns with plot, character and the ability to make you exit the cinema with a couple of questions in your mind. The last just posed the question "where are the toilets - that was long". Nice filming, sickly farewelling at the end, top-tier chief Orc and almost a joke from Gollum. But I agree, it left me feeling sadly let down. I used to believe in small men with hairy feet. But now . . . . somehow I feel Dr Scholl has the right answers.

[Chan Chi-Loong wrote:]
Nooooooo!!! Blasphemy!!! ;) Suffice to say that I'm a LOTR fan (reasonably rabid, having read the books several times), so from the actual content from the books I'll defend poor Frodo.

Haven't seen Return of the King yet (seeing this weekend), but Jackson has stayed close to the spirit of the material mostly - although I was a bit miffed at some of the "adaptations" to The Two Towers. E.g. Liv Tyler who? Cate Blanchet what? The elves did not play a part in the story except for the 1st book. The story is mostly about Middle Earth's men - and the 4 hobbits.

Anyway, the film medium is different from print so I guess Jackson has a hard time catering to me (fans who have read the series), you (non fans) and the ah beng (who don't get it why there are so many plot arcs). Not easy, so if I'm 75% satisfied I'm more than happy.

{William Moss wrote:]
Actually, you should say gay. In the books the thread of suggested homosexuality between Frodo and Sam is quite explicit, although often unremarked upon (e.g the two of them cradled together for the night naked after losing their clothes in Mordor). It also appears, less explicitly, in other places in the novels. There is also a general transience of female characters throughout novels which is reflected, to some degree, in the film as well. Although they tend to be strong characters when they appear, so the novel escapes the complete trivialisation of women or the mysogeny that infects so much of the genre.

I actually find it interesting that some of that still comes through in the movies. Nevertheless, Frodo Baggins is probably one of the most asexual protagonists of adventure literature.

[Louis Chua wrote:]
I must say that my views on the show are heavily coloured by the book that was read when young. Therefore, my views are not accurate.

However, a friend who didn't know anything about the book, had this comment: "Why is that little guy called Mary?"

The ambiguously gay duos...

Saturday, December 20, 2003