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

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - Review

Divide and conquer

That's pretty much the best way I would describe this film. Except maybe the conquer part. Not all of them necessarily do that.

The Plot

After a devastating blow that shatters the Fellowship, the splintered groups go off on their own personal journeys. Aragorn (Vigo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) set of an a long foot chase to save Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). But their paths will once again be split as one group shall enter the kingdom of Rohan and the other will becomes guests to the kingdom of Fangorn Forest. Frodo and Sam continue the mission that was given to them as they continue to trek to Mordor. But their journey becomes complicated when the previous owner of the ring, Gollum (Andy Serkis), wants it back.

Review

As a child, this was the first film I asked my parents to see it twice. Because to me, it was just so much better than the first movie. It's been over a decade since I saw it in theaters as well as constant reruns on my DVD player. And now that I have a lot of experience in how a good movie should be, I know that this film really was worth begging my parents to see twice in the theaters.

The film begins with a bang, a continuation of the battle between Gandalf (Ian McKellan) and the gigantic fire demon, Balrog. It was my favorite scene in the previous film and I was so glad we get to see an expansion of that battle. This opening very much hints at Gandalf's return as a White Wizard, and it was just an excellent way of reintroducing Gandalf to the audience or informing those who did not see the first movie as to why it was a big deal for him to be back.

But enough with reintroductions, it is time for introductions. Because if you've read my review of the first film, then you know I believe the main cast is incredible. But now, let's shift the focus to some newcomers by focusing on the kingdom of Rohan. There is King Theoden played by Bernard Hill, Eowyn played by Miranda Otto, Eomer played by Karl Urban and Grima Wormtongue played by Brad Dourif. Hill's Theoden is pretty much the focal point of the main plot of this story as it revolves around his kingdom and their battle against the turncoat wizard, Saruman (Christopher Lee). He knows how to play a king, and displays a regret as to how he can let Saruman control him for so many years. It is a highly underrated performance, but I believe the most important one in the film. 

Miranda Otto's Eowyn is pretty much set up as Aragorn's new potential love interest in a love triangle that is non-existent because he's in love with Arwen (Liv Tyler). But she does offer up a really nuanced female presence that was not that strong from the previous film. Sure, the last film had Tyler's Arwen and Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, but they're more like pivotal roles rather than mainstay characters. Not to knock on them though, as they play them well. But Otto really has a lot of depth to her character, especially given that her character arc begins here and will definitely pay off in the next film. It's too bad that the same can't be said about her brother played Karl Urban or for the lesser antagonist played by Brad Dourif. Both of them are hugely talented and play their parts well. And in the end that's all that really matters for ensembles. Not everyone has to be given room to grow as long as everyone is on the same level in performance and plays critical roles. But that doesn't mean none of them can steal the show, because Andy Serkis did.

This is Serkis's big breakout role and it will also be the role that will define his future career along with redefining special effects. His performance as Gollum, a creature who was once a river hobbit called Smeagol, is this film's standout performance. It is a large testament to the Weta Digital team behind creating the Smeagol character and to have it match with the incredible acting that Serkis unleashes every time he's in front of the camera. Which says a lot because even though we don't see Serkis, we definitely hear him and see his movements telegraphed through this strange CGI achievement. It did not take long for me to buy into this creature existing because of just how good Serkis and Weta were at bringing it to life. He makes the Sam and Frodo story portion of the movie a lot more fascinating because of his strangeness. What would've been a dull stroll to Mordor immediately became one filled with tension and some humor with Serkis in the mix. But he wasn't the only spectacular part of the film.

The third act of the film known as The Battle of Helm's Deep is one of the best battle scenes ever put on film that would not be surpassed until The Return of the King. This battle showcased the intensity of war in a black and white situation, yet there is still heavy drama built around it. This is really Mortensen's chance to shine as the man who will be king, and he proves that he is definitely capable in this climactic battle. Unfortunately this is also the battle that gave Hollywood executives the idea that having large CGI armies clashing is what will bring people to the movie theaters. Thus came films such as Troy, Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven just to name a few. This film is also responsible for giving executives and producers the idea that fantasy films need to have a large battle between armies in them at the end of the movie. I speak extensively about this problem in my article, Why Lord of the Rings ruined fairy tale movies, so I will not go into too much detail. But I can't deny that this was one of the most intense fantasy battles ever put on screen at the time.

Final Thoughts

As the second act of the trilogy, The Two Towers delivers in upping the stakes and developing the characters even further. What it also achieves is bringing in new characters ranging from large to vital roles and not having it feel too crowded. This is a true mastery of what an ensemble is and continues to hammer home the notion that a fantasy film could be in the conversation of being an incredible cinematic achievement with drama. What's best of all is that it doesn't feel like a set up for a final film, but a film that has it's own standalone plot that still goes hand in hand with the other films it is bookended by. 

SCORE: 9/10 - An incredible progression of what Peter Jackson started with the first one

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - Review

"One Ring to rule them all."

The year was 2001 and I was just 10 years old, not knowing that my life was going to change when I stepped into the theater to watch this film. It's time to look back on the movie that reignited my love for movies and the drive to become a filmmaker.

The Plot

The Hobbit, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), learns from the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) that the magic ring of his uncle, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), is actually the One Ring. A powerful weapon forged by the dark lord, Sauron. A ring that was meant to control all life on Middle-Earth. As the forces of Sauron begin their hunt for their master's ring, Frodo must embark on a journey to destroy the ring in the only place it can be destroyed: Mount Doom, the heart of Sauron's lands in Mordor. He will be joined by three other hobbits (Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd), a ranger (Vigo Mortensen), an elf (Orlando Bloom), a dwarf (John Rhys-Davies), a knight (Sean Bean), and Gandalf the wizard on this dangerous mission.

Review

There was a moment when young children in the 70s watched Star Wars and were in awe of what they saw. It was a life changing experience for them. I could say this film had the same effect on me, but in a different manner. Because when I first saw this movie, I was disappointed.

Disappointed that it had no ending. That it just stopped. I wanted to see the journey continue, but it just ended. And it ended in a place that had me yearning for a continuation. And because I was a child when I saw it, I had no idea that there was another one. But when I quickly learned that there was going to be two more because the films were based on a trilogy, all of a sudden my views on it changed to one of wonder.

The acting in this film is definitely incredible. Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd were just wonderful as the carefree hobbits who find themselves thrown into a darkly situation. It can almost be compared as a young naive teenager discover the dark and terrifying real world they actually live in. And these four play it well. Especially Wood, who quickly acknowledges just how serious the situation and is willing to take responsibility, but at the same time also knows how overwhelming the pressure is. I can only imagine Wood used his own pressure of having to please Tolkien fans with his portrayal of Frodo as a fuel to his performance.

Vigo Mortensen is compelling as Strider, later revealed to be Aragorn, the rightful king of Gondor, as he showcases a man who has turned his back on his birthright yet still has the gravitas needed if he should one day return to it. Given this was Orlando Bloom's first big breakout role, it is difficult to judge his acting because in retrospect he's an adequate actor in later roles, yet still his performance here was strong enough to match up with the experienced powerhouses. Particularly his character's relationship with John Rhys-Davies' character. Davies delivers a stellar and boastful performance as a cocky dwarf with such vigor that you would be glad to follow him into battle. This film was also Sean Bean's solidification in pop culture as the guy who always dies. Don't be mad, that's not really a spoiler at this point. But nevertheless, Bean delivers a strong performance by showing the dark side of humanity and how easy it is for any member of the fellowship to be corrupted.

But to me the big standout performances belong to the two wizards in the film. Ian McKellan's Gandalf and Christopher Lee's Saruman were my favorite parts of the film. Both of these classic English actors deliver incredible performances as these powerful beings who walk among men. It is no wonder that McKellan got a nomination for best supporting actor the year this film came out, but that should not take away from how Lee is almost equally as good. With them you see two sides of the same coin. Two wizards who believe in what they're doing is the best for the entire world, yet one of them is obviously wrong. They also have the most incredible fight sequence in the film which I was completely impressed with the simplistic approach of showing two wizards fighting. But it will be Gandalf's face off against the demonic Balrog that highlights the film. Which brings me to another point.

The visual effects and the practical effects in this film are stunning. In a post 2010 world, most big budget films would opt for having everything entirely CGI. But in this film and the two others that followed it, CGI was a tool only to be used when it is impossible to do it practically. This blending of the old and the new is what I believe is the best way to do visual effects spectacles. And the best part is, they don't overtake the narrative.

Final Thoughts

This film marked the beginning of the fantasy renaissance in film, which never really amounted to anything. But what this film did is show that a fantasy film can be put in the conversation as a legitimate film. In other words, have legitimate drama and storytelling. This is shown with the very tamed yet stunning visuals, the powerful acting, the tight script, and incredible direction. But since this is an obvious part 1 instead of a standalone film, it may not have that "umph" factor to fully consider it a good solo film. But it is an incredible beginning. A beginning that will have people coming back for more.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - An incredible beginning that hopefully will continue to be so in the next one.

For a review of the next 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.

Why "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy ruined Fairy Tale movies

2001, 2002, and 2003. Those three years would invigorate my love for the fantasy genre in a completely different way. Because those three years were the release of what will be considered one of the greatest film trilogies in movie history. That is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings.

It was a film that took fantasy seriously and presented it as a drama with a fantastical setting. It breathed a believable life into these characters in a world that can almost be viewed as subdued fantasy. Magic is not common place and only limited. The races are given distinctive cultures. Everything was just masterfully done. It is thanks to this trilogy that it would pave the way for what can be considered the greatest fantasy series ever achieved on television: Game of Thrones.

However, in its wake, there haven't really been a lot of fantasy movie to come out as a result. Many people believed that the Star Wars effect would happen. If you don't know what that means, to put it simply when the original Star Wars became a mega hit a lot of studios starting making vaguely similar sci-fi films or start banking on sci-fi properties. That didn't really happen when The Lord of the Rings finished its run. Sure, there was the Harry Potter film series, but not really the classical fantasy that I'm talking about. Then again there was the Chronicles of Narnia which had a great first film then slowly began to degenerate with the later films. And then there was Eragon....amazing cast, but nice try. The strangest thing to happen from Lord of the Rings is that all of a sudden films began incorporating large armies in movies. Which I guess is what studios thought made those films work?

But let's get to the point that I'm pretty much building to. The Lord of the Rings ruined the fairy tale genre.

Small scale becomes LARGE SCALE

What? How is that possible? The reason why I say this is because of three major examples that I can think of: Snow White and the Huntsman, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Maleficent. Three films that are based on fairy tales that are not large scope by any means yet their films made them so.

Snow White and the Huntsman
The classic fairy tale about a young maiden whose beauty was the bane of a vain Queen has been told countless times. It is a simple story with a very small cast of characters. There is the Queen and the Magic Mirror on the side of villainy. Snow White, The Prince,  and the Dwarves represent the side of good. Then there is the Huntsman who becomes a wild card. It is a simple story about how one woman's vanity could cause harm onto others. But in this adaptation of Snow White, the story takes the dark tone but then magnifies it with Lord of the Rings tropes: the world has to be at stake; complex motivations drive the characters; there has to be a gigantic battle in the beginning and/or end. It is strange that the conceit now is to make Snow White some sort of warrior who can lead an army when she has no training whatsoever. All these liberties do make for visually pleasing film, but not exactly a great one. The performances are even questionable, ranging from strong to over the top to non-existent.

Jack the Giant Slayer
Another classic fairy tale, or rather two separate fairy tales rolled into one mainly because they both feature a character named Jack who deals with a Giant. It is a simple story, or rather the Jack and the Beanstalk story is. A boy buys some magic beans, the beans grow into a beanstalk, he climbs, he finds a magical goose, there's a giant, he climbs down, the giant chases, he cuts down the beanstalk, giant slain. There is a lot more added to this story along with borrowing elements of Jack the Giant Killer. In that story the young man in King Arthur's kingdom makes a living of killing giants. Obviously the idea of a kingdom getting attacked by a giant is borrowed, but enhanced in here as making them an army of giants. Jack is still our reluctant hero, but the small big world of the original story becomes overwhelming in this large world in a now even bigger story. Does this make it any better? Not really. At least the performances were great. But at the same time, "less is more."

Maleficent
Arguably one of the most iconic villains in not only Disney canon but in film history. The dark fairy godmother that was pure evil becomes a sympathetic character who has some motivations for being the way she is. Then of course there the overblown use of CGI to make a magical world and bring about creatures that are little more than decoration in a film that could've been put more simply. Also there is the gigantic battles that has now become a staple of fantasy films. While it is understandable why this story has them, one has to wonder did it really need all of them? Granted, even her original fairy tale counterpart wasn't complicated or misunderstood, she was just evil. That was something that seems to be lost in this film along with the overuse of needing to have gigantic armies crashing into each other. There is some gorgeous imagery and it is hard to deny that the only woman on the planet who can play Maleficent is Angeline Jolie, but again some things are better left simplified.

Fairy Tales are simple not epic

That is a common problem that I started developing towards these new wave of fairy tale inspired films. Usually there is just a hero or a heroine that has to confront a problem that only effects a town or a city. These days, it is not just the town it is potentially the entire human race. Granted, not all of them do that, but it always seems like the stakes are higher than they are suppose to be. That is something that I feel is missing. Or rather, I feel like what really is missing is the idea of personal fights. No armies. No extra monsters that don't add to the story other than just being there. Just a hero facing off against a villain. Each side surrounded by just a small group of allies instead of a massive army. That is something that the Fairy Tale Animated Disney films have done so well. Did Aladdin rally the people of Agrabah to storm the Sultan's castle? No, he just had his carpet and his monkey as allies. In Frozen there was no epic final battle where Elsa attacks an army. Beauty and the Beast straddled this line but not having an army but more of an angry mob. Even then the confrontation still resulted into personal fight between Beast and Gaston.

I know there is a need to bring these stories into an epic scale, but they are not epic stories. The Odyssey is an epic, Snow White's tale isn't. But with The Lord of the Rings, epic became synonymous with the Fantasy Genre so much so that even a small fairy tale has to be turned into an epic. That is not how Fairy Tales are and that's now how they work. And again, I'm not criticizing the way these films LOOK. In fact the filmmakers have the right tone and palette for their films but a completely unnecessary way of executing them.

Examples of Fairy Tale films done well with restraint

The Princess Bride

This is definitely one of the classic swashbuckling films as well as the classic fairy tale film. It keeps everything simple and small. There are no grand battles but there are grand fights which have a more mystifying effect than seeing two clashing armies. It is also a light hearted romp that joyfully takes the viewer through a grand adventure on a small scale. The Hero is a hero. And he is joined by a small band of allies in order to save the damsel who is perfectly capable of helping herself but not so overblown. The simplicity of this film is what adds to its charm. It really is what a modern fairy tale should be. Sure it is not dark and grim like the fairy tales of old, but it is not like it loses sight of that fact by dealing with dark subject matter. The performances are top notch and electrifying. Particularly Cary Elwes as Wesley and the now legendary performance of Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya. Heartwarming and dazzling with a tale that will surely make one believe in love. Or if you don't, its still entertaining.

Stardust

This is one of my favorite Fairy Tale stories, as well as my first exposure to one of my favorite directors: Matthew Vaughn. It is often hailed as being the successor to the flair of The Princess Bride and I would have to agree with whoever said that full heartedly. Based on a book by renowned Fantasy Author, Neil Gaiman, this story is a complicated fairy tale with many moving parts yet it still finds a way to be simple. It is not overblown, especially for a film that was made post Lord of the Rings. That is where I found the most enjoyment of this film. Other than a shocking twist involving a certain tough sky pirate, this film just gives off that flair of the whimsical swashbuckle that Pirates of the Caribbean held on to for a while but starting losing sight of it. The confrontation between the villain and the hero is once again very personal without too much over the top. It was just the right amount of borrowing the right elements from Lord of the Rings but not trying to imitate the epic storytelling.

Legend

Another one of my favorites and one that doesn't get a lot of recognition. This was Ridley Scott's only foray into the fantasy genre as he wanted to make a Disney story but in live action and darker. Sound like what directors are doing now right? Nope. What he meant was taking that simplistic nature of the Disney stories, but just bringing them to life. It is a hero of nature versus a villain of pure darkness. And what a villain this film had. Tim Curry displays a memorable performance as the film's central antagonist: DARKNESS! This villain is everything a villain in a fairy tale needs to be. Pure evil. Plain and simple. While it wasn't well received when it first premiered, this film developed a cult following that now sees it as an overlooked gem. People often laud the effects in the film, knowing that if it were made today it would be over blown and unnecessarily epic just like the first draft of its script. We'd be thankful if Legend remains the way it suppose to be: Legend.

Is it really a bad thing?

Seeing as how people flock to the theater in droves to see them, no. But filmmakers do seem to be losing sight of what makes a fairy tale strong. If it was any other fantasy genre, then this need to "Lord of the Rings it" is gladly welcomed. But for a fairy tale, it is best to remember that these stories are simple, but the ideas are grand. Not grand stories for a simple idea. Fairy Tales are not Epics, and they really shouldn't be.