THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001-2003)

THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (2001)
THE TWO TOWERS (2002)
THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)


directed by Peter Jackson

I take no real pleasure in making distinctions between the three films that comprise THE LORD OF THE RINGS, though I believe the most poignant, well-crafted, and focused of the three is FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. For the most part, they all hold the same sense of magnitude: these are the seminal cinematic achievement of their era. They are walking in the proud footsteps of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, GREED, GONE WITH THE WIND, and STAR WARS. When people think of the period of 1990s-2000s, these will be the first films that spring to mind.

They are, of course, not without their flaws, and share them all equally. The more plotlines you have to follow, the more apparent are the same flaws that each of them has in common. Poor TWO TOWERS, with its three separate subplots bouncing in and out of each other. They all seem terribly important for one reason or other until you show the film sans one of them to somebody who's never read the books. Jackson always had a problem with editing. He loves his subject more than he loves the medium and would gladly have filmed each separate book as 6 3-hour movies if New Line had given him the money for it. (for those unaware, Tolkien originally meant for RINGS to be in six separate volumes. In this day and age, publishers would have happily obliged, and probably requested that he stretch it out even more. Back then, though, it was understood that people didn't have credit cards and couldn't just keep spending on a book that never seemed to have any resolution in sight).

Of course, since the film, in brief glimpses, seems essentially perfect, let's throw out a quick flaw the three collectively have real quick just to get it out of the way: Honestly, there's too many subplots. Not that it needs to modify the existing plot in any significant way, but certain aspects would be just as readily accepted if they were simply alluded to rather than focused on. I have my own ideas, but I'd rather not piss off the fan-base by naming them. It wouldn't require a re-shoot; just a more extensive editing session. (in a glaring example of this problem Jackson has when he has access to the resources, watch his version of KING KONG and ponder why it's twice as long as the original 1933 classic).

This is really the only significant flaw in the films. There are other, lesser flaws, such as the tendency for the dialogue to move from 'holy' to 'cheesy' and back again, but this is another thing editing could have taken care of. Once you cut them down to reasonable running times... you would have made a trilogy of amazing films into undeniable masterpieces.

8.69/10