Change Your Image
Ferris Wiel
Reviews
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Frustrating
(SPOILERS AHEAD)
I went in with high hopes. They weren't like "The Phantom Menace" or "Attack of the Clones;" perhaps they were more along the lines of "The Matrix: Reloaded." I mean, I qualified ROTK because I was positive that the third film in a trilogy with two other films as enthralling and entertaining as TTT and FOTR would be a letdown, not to mention the hyping and the fact that it's all over with no more story to be told. Perhaps I didn't qualify enough. I mean, with "Return of the Jedi," "Back the Future III," "Batman Forever" as the list continues on, there was precedent set that ROTK would be a weaker film... and perhaps even an abomination (of course, I couldn't believe Jackson would be so haphazard as that). Still, hopes were high.
To start, I viewed Andy Serkis playing Smeagol before the fall and deigned the performance to be lackluster. After Deagol fell from the boat when the fish pulled him along underwater, the entire sequence looked phony. Of course, they inter-cut with the footage from FOTR of the hand digging out The Ring. Also, the relationship between the two brothers seemed more as a pair of lovers and the acting was almost surreal. Watching the denigration of Smeagol into Gollum was mildly informative, but unnecessary - and I love Smeagol - but watching close-ups of him eating a fish (more on the editors' bizarre eating fetish later) and losing teeth and hair and all did more to alienate him rather than endear. Perhaps that were the point. I was under the impression, though, that the audience would be led to a false sense of security (as Frodo felt) to heighten drama at the later betrayal became a missed moment by my count.
Moving on, it seemed that the lighting was different and the makeup was overdone in several cases - Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, among others. Certain backdrops looked rendered and many sets looked exactly like; I imagined at one point that a crewman was just off-camera eating a ham sandwich from craft services during the earliest Osgiliath battle sequence.
Headache inducing edits during the first half-hour reminded me more of the film "Go" than a grand, sprawling epic. My take was that, yes, we hit the ground running and gave no back story, save the Smeagol sequence, and that works, but the editing needs to quickly acclimate the audience, with concise and clear images and themes. Instead, the edits seemed to be half-a-beat ahead or behind at a given moment.
Back to chewing on the initial Osgiliath battle, it and the entire Isengard sequence seemed a mish-mash of poor editing decisions, unpolished production, rushed storytelling and weak dialogue and acting. At one point, I was thinking, "What in hell is happening? I see there's a battle but I'm seeing an over-the-shoulder shot of an orc on a studio set that is poorly lit."
Treebeard's conversation with Gandalf bored me because it seemed to just play like one of Velma's re-caps at the end of a Scooby-Doo episode. The removal of Saruman didn't bother as much as the fact that we saw Isengard without any reason. To be honest, the film could have started with Merry, Pippin and the lot back in Edoras having a brief powwow with Eowyn and it would have sufficed.
Now, about the entire Orb thing, I forget what it's called and I know that it was dangerous, but the feeling was never conveyed, although we were told so. It would have been better to show the conversation between Sauron and Pippin and then Aragorn and Sauron when he picked it up rather than relying on Billy Boyd to writhe in "agony" while the thing glowed. Instead it was briefly mentioned but never explored.
While I'm on the subject, the virtually unused ubervillain Sauron never did show his might. The Ring was dangerous. The wraiths were dangerous. The Goblin King was dangerous. Saruman was dangerous. Shelob was dangerous. The Orcs and Uruk-Hai were dangerous. Hell, even Smeagol proved dangerous, but Sauron remained a kind of chairman of the board who never really acted, never displayed any true show of force. I think this diminished his actual threat. Had we seen him accomplish something or generate something or do more than act as a glorified searchlight I would have been impressed. Instead, I'm left feeling that he wasn't all that powerful. I mean, a good halogen lamp is as powerful as Sauron.
Quickly, about the editor's fascination with poor table manners, what was with the close up shots of Gollum/Smeagol eating and then the sequence where Denethor was eating while Pippin sang and the armies marched. Perhaps I missed the subtler meaning - I may pick it up with future viewings - but it seemed a bit gratuitous.
Another thing: Hollywood moments are fine in Hollywood productions. This film was supposed to be less Hollywood and more "raw," though. Eowyn killing the Goblin King, for example, was basically telecast as soon as he said "No man can kill me" or whatever it was he said. The whole "ultimate weapon" that the "ghost soldiers" became made the threat seem silly and had me wishing that Aragorn had gone into the cave sooner, at least to save us the drama because they ended the grand battle all too quickly.
Finally, about endings, I've heard the complaint that it dragged on, but as far as I'm concerned, it didn't go far enough, however long it lasted. Fewer slow-motion score-heavy moments and more dialogue would have been my choice. Conclusions to the lives of Gimli, Legolas, Eowyn, Eomer, Faramir, Merry and Pippin would have been good starts, not to mention the Scouring of the Shire - part of the book I did read just for reference. I mean, the world changed, for better or worse, and there was no reason not to show that. Bilbo and Frodo's scene had no real impact for me, but I was never truly impressed with Elijah Wood's performance anyway and Bilbo's makeup was AWFUL - I mean he looked kind of like the Grand Whatsit that Wallace Shawn played on Deep Space Nine!
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed much of the film. Denethor and Faramir, while I know they had no such relationship in the book, proved a beautiful dramatic piece and I really wanted to watch Denethor burn to death. Other high-drama and suspenseful moments were found throughout but I couldn't shake the sense that there was something missing from the experience.
All in all, I give the film a 7 out of 10.
I hope the Extended Edition DVD (which I will own) proves better.
--FW
Lost in Translation (2003)
It was so sad... but funny... but still sad
Wow, where do I start with this film? It is so beautiful, so wonderful, so touching and moving that I nearly wept several times.
I'll skip the formalities. If you haven't seen the film but plan to you already know the plot (or can read about it from almost any other comment posted above or below me). Allow me to instead list the most heart-rending moments:
*Bob on the phone with his wife and her quick-click before he can even say what was clearly a cursory "I love you"
*Charlotte speaking with her "best friend" back in the US who is too busy to hear the breaking of a heart
*Charlotte's look of betrayal the next morning
*The shared moments during karaoke
*Bob's daughter's response when he tries to speak with her
*Charlotte boarding the elevator with hardly a word as Bob heads for his limo
*The conclusion
I hurt every time I saw these characters hurt; perhaps my judgment was impaired by Johannson's beauty. I mean, I heard once that among the saddest sights in the world was a lonely, beautiful girl. The beauty of course transcends simple skin-depth (although Johannson has that in spades), but still, I hated seeing her cry. Of course, the pain I saw in Bob was something I had witnessed firsthand several years ago, and this clearly reached me as well. So I doubt that it had only to do with the loveliness of an actress.
Let it remain at this. The film was visually beautiful, well-written, realistic and had a deep impact on me in spite of the largely alien subject-matter. For this I gave it a perfect '10.'
DC Talk: Free at Last (2002)
It's about time...
DC Talk was the breakout Christian music group of the 90's. These three talented young men, Toby McKeehan (TobyMac), Kevin Max Smith (Kevin Max) and Michael Tait (Tait) were able to entertain and inspire and endeavored in a largely successful crossover without losing the punch of their convictions or message (*KOFF* AMYGRANT *KOFF*). This video, originally to be released as a feature in 1995, chronicled life on tour with the band at the beginning of their greatest success.
Toby "Mac's" devotion to Martin Luther King, Jr. bordered on idolatry and he also attempted to be more profound than was necessary. At one point he was interviewing what appeared to be a half-crazed roadie and the unchecked speaker blurted out obvious blasphemy. TM stared briefly and quickly walked away.
Michael and Kevin seemed more natural... less put-on in front of the camera and more than that, they seemed to take the affair in stride.
Overall, I thought the film was fun, but contained some amateurish elements. I sincerely hope that B&W filmstock was used to keep it cheap and not to be "artistic." Also, the entourage, which included a "priest," joined with the visitation of various "holy men" and "shrines" were in my opinion very disturbing. In spite of this, I learned more about the history of a fascinating trio of young men.
The best option is to view the DVD: see the film as-is the first time and then view the audio commentary featuring Kevin, Michael and Toby. Interesting behind the scenes notes are given and the side-stories were very entertaining.
I give it 3 out of 5 possible Wiels for fans of doco, music or DC Talk, for those non-fans, skip this entirely.
Dead Pet (1999)
Similar to Holland's "Better Off Dead"
I'm a fan of "Savage" Steve Holland's "Better Off Dead" and this film is similar not because of plot, but instead for the assortment of humorous and bizarre characters and groups assembled. Some of these include "cultist" cutlery salesfolks, parents who care more about their dog than their son and activists demanding justice for a dead animal. Also, just as in BOD, the protagonist comes across as a "normal" guy who is stunned and confused by the antics of those in his life.
With a larger budget, some minor re-tooling of the script and a cast of professional actors, I could see the film having quite a bit of success in wider release.
The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)
Fanboys, look upon thy savior!!!
George Lucas proves himself. I should have known when I saw this what he was capable of. TPM, AOTC, ROTJ all come from similar stock as this, a group of films designed to market to and talk down to children.
Obviously it was Kirschner that made ESB great. It is now the "Black Sheep" of the Star Wars family: the quiet, dark, funny one that the average moviegoer can't stand but the person who wants to see old-timey romance and action can't miss.
Skip the Holiday fiasco, though.
Tata.
The Fountainhead (1949)
A Modern Fable
The Fountainhead, as with all of Ayn Rand's works, is a fable. This means that the players are cariacatures meant to be nearly faceless, yet with characteristics that can be linked to ideas and ideals. Howard Roark fills those shoes both in the novel and on screen.
Those who attempt to place the story in the literal world do not understand the film's meaning or the book's. They are seeking some kind of strawman farce by which to attack both Ayn Rand's fiction and her philosophy. Interestingly, those who have posted complaints on this board regarding the film seem to all be reading from the same playbook - criticism of Rand's "rape" scene, mockery of the "stiff" acting, a nearly identical and ham-fisted attempt to place the events of the fable in real life and a strange mention of Roger Ebert having control of Hollywood due to his power as a famed critic.
The film on balance was well acted, directed, and moved at a quick enough pace to maintain interest. While I believe it was philosophically strong it did have it's weak points in plot due to lost elements in translation from the text, but for the effort I believe it is a fine film to view, especially considering Hollywood's open departure, both on screen and off, from innovation, the individual, and absolute values.
The Time Machine (2002)
Technophobic tripe
Well, I'm glad I could see the latest Hollywood opus lamenting progress and technology. Instead of war being the end-all for civilization as in the original, it is a positive passion for advancing embodied by a failed colonization of the moon that plunges the world into its darkest days.
The film then takes those in modern times who show ambition and warps them into the most absurd and twisted spectres (morloks), taken to illegitimate ends pointing the finger and saying, "If you want to go forward, by all means try, but you'll end up like this."
So, by all means, if you'd like to feed an industrial machine (Hollywood) by paying to see a film exposing the "perils" of industry, business and capitalism, view the most recent version of "Time Machine." Or maybe you should save your hard-earned sandal-weaving pennies for that groovy hemp backpack you've been looking at.
(I give it 0/5 John Galts)