The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Review

"For Frodo."

That gets me every time.

The Plot

The board is set, the pieces are moving, they've come to it at last. Frodo (Elijah Wood), Sam (Sean Astin) and Smeagol (Andy Serkis) are now in the heart of Mordor with their mission coming close to an end. The city of Minas Tirith of the kingdom of Gondor is the last stronghold for the forces of good and it needs its rightful king to return. That king is Aragorn (Vigo Mortensen). The great battle for Middle-Earth begins and ends here.

Review

There is a common belief that the third film in a trilogy is always the weakest link. But that is not the case for this film. The Return of the King is easily the best finisher to a trilogy in blockbuster cinematic history. All the elements and players built in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers comes to a head as the climax of this long story finally comes to an end.

There is no possible way I can do everyone justice, but I'm going to knock it out this way. Know these names: Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, Ian McKellan, Vigo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Bernard Hill, Miranda Otto, David Wenham, Hugo Weaving and Liv Tyler are incredible. All of them deliver knockout performances in this emotionally charged grand finale. Even smaller roles like Cate Blanchett's Galadriel and newcomer John Noble's Denethor add so much to this already large ensemble of nuanced characters. But of course at the center of this ensemble's side of the story is Mortensen's Aragorn. Here we see the king has definitely returned and has fully accepted who he needs to be against the forces of darkness. That is to be there with his people for one final stand against Sauron, in order to give a chance for the real standouts of this film.

Elijah Wood and Andy Serkis may have been strong in the previous films, but their performances reach a whole new level in this film. And one unsung hero has finally reached this very same level. That is Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee. He has been mostly Frodo's support for the entire journey and the only sound voice of reason. Smeagol's manipulation of Frodo brings their friendship to a near devastating end, but it also shows just how powerful these three actors are. In here we truly see that Astin's Sam is the hero of the story. This is because of how much he rises to the occasion compared to Frodo who is going through the motions because he feels like he has to. It is this pairing and the splinter that tries to break them that make them the incredible standouts of this film. If anything, it is a wonder why Wood and Astin are not in more bigger mainstream films, because I firmly believe they deserve to be. Serkis on the other hand has capitalized on his success as Smeagol/Gollum by continuing to be a driving force in motion capture. But there is no denying that these three definitely gave the third film it's true conflict that is not a climactic clashing of armies, but rather a clash between individuals over the source of evil. 

That's not to say the clashing of gigantic armies was not necessary. When the film is not focusing on the mission to destroy the ring, the Battle of Minas Tirith makes the battle of Helms Deep look more like a skirmish. This is a chance for director Peter Jackson to unleash everything in the makeup and special effects department on the heroes and their humanly hosts. It is an all out war in the most spectacular fashion but also grounded in the reality of war. It is terrifying. Especially if you're outnumbered and the opposing army has flying Black Riders (Nazgul), gigantic trolls, vicious wolves, and titanic elephants (oliphants/mumakil) on their side. Yet through all the chaos, Jackson never forgets to show the human drama that is going on in every tier of the city. The fact that this chaotic war can easily flow with the more smaller yet more important story of Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol is a true testament of a talented director as well as an incredible editing team. 

If there is a complaint that is commonly brought up, yet mostly understood, it is the multiple endings of the film. Some people felt that the final scenes in the movie felt more like a string of epilogues instead of one singular epilogue giving a singular closure. While I'm perfectly fine with the endings, I do always wonder every time I watch if there was a certain ending the film could've stopped at in order to convey a singular ending that people would be satisfied with. But with all out honesty, I can't think of one. All the endings may drag out the film, but at the same time all are needed in order to bring proper closure instead of a closure.

Final Thoughts

It is no surprise to me that this film won 11 Academy Awards at the Oscars. In fact, it was the first time that I watched the Oscars all the way through just to root for this film to win everything. I may have been a child hitting 13, but even then I knew how incredible this film is. And looking at it now, it still holds up after all those years. It is the film that you wished all third films in blockbuster trilogies would be. Sure, some complain about the multiple endings but in the end all of them are necessary. Peter Jackson, the cast and practically the entire nation of New Zealand achieved something special with this film. One that I was certain as a kid can never be repeated again. And after watching The Hobbit movies.... I was right.

SCORE: 9.5/10 - A near perfect ending to an amazing film trilogy

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE

What if - John Boorman made The Lord of the Rings in 1970???

Once upon a 1970s time there was a movie...

...that never happened. That film was The Lord of the Rings. Thanks to Peter Jackson and the entire nation of New Zealand, the world was able to finally experience the incredible epic that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote many years ago. It is hard to believe that at a time before Jackson first started the cameras rolling, there had been other attempts to bring this book to life on the big screen. Granted, there was Ralph Bakshi's animated epic but that was just two of the three books condensed into one movie. But before that, director John Boorman was commissioned to turn The Lord of the Rings into one singular movie. Yup, just one movie. One.

One Film To Rule Them All

Director John Boorman, who is most famously known as the director of Deliverance and Excalibur (though for a select few he is known as the director of Zardoz), was commissioned by United Artists in 1970 to adapt The Lord of the Rings after just buying the film rights from Tolkien. At the time, Boorman wanted to make a King Arthur film (which would eventually happen 10 years later) but was pushed to making the Fantasy Epic while the iron was still hot. Along with his fellow screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg, the two then set out to adapt the book that was divided into three books into one film. Through various interviews with Boorman and Pallenberg, the two of them had indeed read the entire trilogy several times and had every single plot point down in their head. However, because the initiative was to make one movie and not a series of films, some things had to be taken out. By some I mean a lot.

The Fellowship of the Ring, the first book in the trilogy, gets the privilege of keeping most of its narrative intact. This amounts to roughly 1 hour and 50 minutes to maybe even 2 hours. The second book in the trilogy, The Two Towers, gets the greatest trimming by only including three key points: Frodo and Sam meet Gollum; Gandalf is alive; and the nation of Rohan gets established. The portion dealing with The Ents is gone. So yeah, no more giant talking trees. The exodus of Rohan to Helms Deep doesn't happen, nor does the infamous battle of Helms Deep. Nope. Again, it only kept Gollum's introduction; Gandalf's resurrection; and the establishment of the Rohirim. That amounts to probably 20-25 minutes. And then you have the final book in the trilogy, Return of the King, which condenses the entire book into the last 30-35 minutes of the film sans the infamous "Scouring of the Shire" chapter that was also never in Jackson's films. That brings about the grand total of hours to 3. Boorman's epic adaptation would've been a 3 hour Lord of the Rings film. Though one would think that if they were going to make the film for a 3 hour running time why not at least dedicate one hour per book instead of roughly 2 hours for the first book, roughly 25 minutes for the second book, and roughly 45 minutes for the third book. 

It is definitely a film for the 70s

Having went to various sites that have summarized what Boorman and Pallenberg wrote, it is astonishing that they were able to condense the last two books so much. However what is even more astonishing is how much drugs, sex, and violence was going to be in the film. Yeah. That's right. Drugs and Sex. There was violence in the Jackson films, but there was no emphasis on drugs or sex. And by sex I mean like literally getting it on and female nudity whenever it can be shown.

If you have seen Boorman's Excalibur then you have a clear idea of just exactly how this film would've looked like. His take on the King Arthur did not shy away from the brutality of violence nor did it shy away from the desire and lust for sex. That style can be found in his script. Galadriel is no longer the image of the Virgin Mary but rather Venus rising out of her shell. A naked Elf that has sex with Frodo before she lets him gaze into the Mirror. Then there is also Eowyn, the warrior woman of Rohan and now daughter of the king instead of being his niece like in the books. After Eowyn kills the Witch King she enters a state of sickness from her wounds and is stripped naked on the battlefield because the warriors needed to find out where she got hurt. Then of course comes Aragorn who heals her by...getting on top of her and mimicking sex while reciting some incantation. On the bright side for Eowyn, she does wind up marrying Aragorn in this version rather than her book and Jackon counterpart where she gets freindzoned. 

And then there's the shrooms. Mushrooms get the hobbits high. They tend to get high a lot in this movie. And of course like I said, things get a little bit more violent.

In other words this is not the epic gritty yet hopeful fantasy film that people know now. This film would've been more akin to Dungeons and Dragons with the tone and style of Game of Thrones but without the high quality costuming. Now that sounds interesting as hell, and had it came out at the time it probably would've been lauded and criticized. However with Jackson's films, this take on Lord of the Rings just seems like a travesty against the text. But so were a lot of adaptations during that time.

I would've seen this movie

Like I said, it is not until recently that the notion that it has to be exactly like the book or closer to the book became the norm to adaptations. So had this movie existed, and given my love for fantasy, I would've definitely seen this film. Just imagine that. A world with a singular The Lord of the Rings film that is Rated R and would set a precedent for Peter Jackson's adaptations. Or maybe, just maybe, if it had happen... Peter Jackson may not have made the films at all. That is a scary thought. But then again we can only imagine what film history would've been like. 

If you wish to know more about this, just google: John Boorman Lord of the Rings.

You won't believe who he was going to cast.