MY MOVIE SHELF: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

The Task: Watch and write about every movie on my shelf, in order (Blu-rays are sorted after DVDs), by June 10, 2015.  Remaining movies: 86 Days to go: 58

Movie #354:  The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Well, I’ve survived it. Again. We’ve come to the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I couldn’t be more grateful. The subtitles really do help a lot in the understanding (and even enjoyment) of the films, but 1) that shouldn’t be a requirement for a film in (mostly) my native language, and 2) they’re still pretty ridiculous, as far as films go.

The enormity of the task Peter Jackson and company took on and accomplished is not to be swept aside, for it was gigantic and ambitious. That he managed to film three such huge, world-spanning, epic films all at the same time is a feat that will likely never be matched. The special effects throughout the films were impressive and innovative to a stunning degree, and creatures that existed only digitally blended seamlessly into the landscape with human actors. I don’t mean to undercut it at all. That’s why The Return of the King won all the Oscars. I personally wouldn’t have given it all the Oscars, but I can understand why it got them. I don’t really begrudge it that.

What I do begrudge it, however, is the story. Maybe this is largely the fault of author J.R.R. Tolkien, or maybe it falls to the filmmakers, but there are enormous holes in this mess. Like why isn’t the giant, climactic battle of Gondor the actual climax of the film? There’s another hour or more after all is said and done with this battle they’ve been building to for two films. The evilest of evil dudes, who can’t be killed by man, is dead (we’ll get to that in a bit), and the land of Men is saved, and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) has returned to be rightful king, and still there’s a ton left to do. In fact, right around the time this battle to end all battles winds down, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) are escaping the tower of Mordor together, only to still be about a hundred miles away from the damn mountain as the crows (or shall we say eagles? EAGLES!) fly.

Speaking of that tower of Mordor, why did the Orcs take Frodo up there? Why didn’t they leave him cocooned in spiderweb to be eaten by whatsherface? Just one more pointless obstacle for these hobbits to face? I mean, entire countries have been won and lost in at least three battles since those two split off from the rest of their fellowship, with everyone and their brother traipsing back and forth across the entirety of Middle Earth a dozen times or more, yet they’re still making their way. Slowly, but surely, with a half-dead Frodo, who’s now been stabbed nearly to death three times, will lose a finger before all is said and done, and still can’t just die in the lava of Mount Doom like he most definitely should. (Oh yeah, and how is it that Gollum, voiced by Andy Serkis, can fall down a bottomless gulch and still beat the fucking hobbits to the mountain?? What the fuck?!?) So why is it, exactly, that these magical eagles — the eagles from Deus ex Machina-land who show up  over Mordor to lend assistance to the final army in the final (no really this time) battle — couldn’t have taken the ring, or Frodo, or the entire fucking fellowship into Morder to drop the ring into Mount Doom? Oh, no reason. Are you kidding me??

And as far as that final battle goes — the real, actual final battle, not the one they build up to like it’s the climax of anything — why are the ghost fighters not there? Why did Aragorn release them early? Why didn’t he just employ them from the start? I mean, ghost fighting probably would’ve been pretty impressive, but in actuality all you see is a green wave of death going over the opponents and then it’s over. So why didn’t they just start there? Send the eagles to drop the ring, send the ghost army to take out all the orcs, and be done? Why have we sat through three neverending movies when it could’ve been over in a moderately-lengthed one?

I have to say, the murder of that unkillable witch-king was pretty impressive with Eowyn (Miranda Otto) all, “I am no man!” (Or it would’ve been, if it had come at the end like a normal climax.) But even that was telegraphed from about a thousand miles away. I didn’t even know her name the first time I watched these things, but when Gandalf (Ian McKellen) makes a huge point about the fact that “no living man can kill him,” it wasn’t hard to figure out the rest. I mean, gee, is there a woman of substance in this whole thing who isn’t an elf? Oh yeah, that one, who already foreshadowed how good she is with a sword two movies and, like, seven and a half hours ago. It must be her. Because in Middle Earth, when it comes to any single woman actually doing anything, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE. (Wait, that’s Highlander. Whatever.)

Then, finally, to compensate for neither of the two previous movies having an ending at all, this one has approximately five. There’s the fade to black after Sam and Frodo collapse on the rock in the sea of lava, but then it fades back in to show the eagles (!!!) picking them up, like no big deal. Then there’s Frodo waking up in Rivendell, and having all the members of the fellowship share a good chuckle over their rousing good time of many months worth of hardship and death, and fade to black again. Then, wait, Aragorn has to be crowned and say something kingly, followed by Legolas (Orlando Bloom) giving him an arched eyebrow at the mysterious figure hiding behind an Elvish banner, like WHO COULD IT BE?? Oh, it’s Arwen (Liv Tyler), miraculously not dead, and her and Aragorn start making out something fierce. Luckily, Eowyn has started eyeballing Faramir (David Wenham) now. And everyone bows down to the hobbits. Fade out AGAIN. Except, no, now Frodo takes up the end of the tale, and the hobbits head back to the shire thirteen months after leaving and share a drink while Sam goes to talk up some chick he likes. Fade out AGAIN. No, wait, now Frodo is talking about how misplaced he still feels, and he finishes up the writing of the tale a full four goddamn years after the whole thing started. Apparently Bilbo (Ian Holm) is still alive, so he accompanies him to Rivendell to go to the Undying Lands, only Frodo goes to, and gives the book to Sam. Then SAM winds up the telling of the tale and goes home to his wife, despite desperately needing to make out with Frodo, like, the entire movie, and takes his happy little family into his hobbit hole door. At long, long last, the end.

And it’s the end for me too. At least as far as The Lord of the Rings is concerned. I will never have to watch it again as long as I live. But I still have scores of movies left on my shelf, and I will continue on with them in the morning. Hopefully, I haven’t lost faith with all of you yet.

 

MY MOVIE SHELF: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

The Task: Watch and write about every movie on my shelf, in order (Blu-rays are sorted after DVDs), by June 10, 2015.  Remaining movies: 87 Days to go: 59

Movie #353:  The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a movie without beginning or end. And by that I mean that it starts in the middle of things, and it ends in the middle of things. You aren’t even given the satisfaction of the story of Rohan or the claimed victory at Helm’s Deep, because at the end of the movie Sam (Sean Astin) is telling Frodo (Elijah Wood) how any victories or losses right now are not the end of the story, and there’s far, far more to go.

The Two Towers even backtracks a bit, starting off with Gandalf (Ian McKellen) fending off the thing in the mines from Fellowship, I suppose to show how he ended up not dead and turned into Gandalf the White, though in this first scene they frame it as a dream of Frodo’s. And Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) flashes back as well to the time in the first film when they were all in Rivendell and Arwen (Liv Tyler) was promising her heart to him. Better off her dad Elrond (Hugo Weaving) convinced her to head to the Undying Lands, though, the way Aragorn and Eowyn (Miranda Otto) make eyes at each other the whole second half of the film. (And again, Arwen and Eowyn are too closely related, sound-wise. Are there not the full complement of letters in Middle Earth?)

When I first saw this one in the theater, all I could really follow was the not-at-all subtle anti-industrialization allegory offered up by the tree people, which is pretty irritating. I mean, it’s an irritating attempt at profundity anyway, but it’s also irritating that the story is so hard to follow. It jumps back and forth, across multiple storylines and even more locations, and I simply can’t keep up. Even with the subtitles on tonight — a necessary function, if I’m able to follow a word — I still found it difficult to keep track of every character and every relationship and every motivation and every event. Though I did much better this time around, at least. Woo, subtitles!

Of course, subtitles are their own double-edged sword, because while they allow me to understand that Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) has jokes, and that he and Legolas (Orlando Bloom) have a bit of a playful rivalry, they also make it pretty clear that Gimli has turned into a bit of a joke himself, comic relief as the short little dwarf who can neither see a battle over a wall or jump into it from a ledge. Poor Gimli.

The primary achievement of The Two Towers, though, is Gollum, voiced and acted via motion-capture technology by Andy Serkis. The effects and the rendering of Gollum are exemplary, and I don’t take anything away from Serkis or from Peter Jackson and his whole special effects team with regard to this film or the other two, honestly. It’s a stunning achievement. I just … don’t care.

Not being a big fan of the hobbits to begin with, I’m unaffected by Frodo’s slow descent into madness or his sympathy for the man/creature Smeagol that Gollum used to be. I also don’t care about Sam’s endless attempts to reach Frodo or to thwart Gollum, though I do feel bad for Sean Astin being referred to as the “fat hobbit.” That’s rough. Honestly, as crazed and threatening as Gollum is, I kind of root for him in my own way. He’s far more interesting talking to himself than either of the hobbits are talking to each other, and the idea of “her” killing the two, thanks to Gollum’s manipulations, is a rare bright spot of hope in my journey through these movies.

And there is hope, for Two Towers is the Lord of the Rings film I hate the most, which means that Return of the King will be a slight improvement, and then I will be done with the whole enterprise. So let’s get to it.

 

MY MOVIE SHELF: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

The Task: Watch and write about every movie on my shelf, in order (Blu-rays are sorted after DVDs), by June 10, 2015.  Remaining movies: 88 Days to go: 59

Movie #352:  The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Here is where I lose all of you who’ve come on this journey with me, for I hate The Lord of the Rings movies. I think they are tedious and overlong and hard to follow. I think if you didn’t read the books when you were young (which I didn’t), then you can’t possibly understand all that’s happening here. There is too much, and it is too tiresome.

The Fellowship of the Ring, for what it’s worth, is the one I hate the least (or the one I like the most, if that construct better suits you). It starts off with a ton of exposition and there is a lot of getting nowhere going on, but there are some good battles and high drama. (Although, without watching with subtitles on I wouldn’t know who half these people are. And didn’t, the first — and only other — time I saw the film. Even with subtitles on, how the hell am I supposed to know what “Crebain from Dunland” is? Those are not words that mean anything. You might as well speak nonsense at me for three hours.) This being my first exposure to any of Tolkien’s work, too, there was a certain amount of majesty and wonder in the rendering of the different beings from the different worlds. Elves and dwarves and hobbits were all new to me, so I did, once upon a time, enjoy being introduced to them. That time quickly passed, however.

As I said, I did not read the books as a child (or ever), so I had no prior associations with any of the characters. I came at the films completely fresh, which means that I was not predisposed to like or dislike anyone and I did not know any of what was coming and all allusions to events past or present are lost on me. I can only take what the movie gives me, and what I can decipher from it. To be honest, I think it leaves me at a bit of a loss, but that’s a failing on the film’s part.

I never really cared for the hobbits. They were always sort of gross creepy creatures, if you ask me, and the constant close-ups of Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his nasty fingernails weren’t doing him any favors. Other than the trick of making them so much shorter than everyone else, I have no interest to them. So the main, central sympathies of the film, and the champion relationship between Frodo and Sam (Sean Astin), is lost on me. I don’t care. Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), is quite interesting, however, and  from the moment he appears as the shadowy figure they call Strider (which does NOT help me follow who any of these billion people are), I rooted for him. I also like that he has some sort of tortured romance with Arwen (Liv Tyler, whose name I didn’t quite catch the first time through because Tolkien likes to use words that all sound exactly alike — I’m looking at you Sauron and Saruman), not that we really got into that at all. It was just kind of teased, hung out there like a carrot for me to follow through three of these damn movies.

There’s a badass scene of Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) imagining her power if she took hold of the ring, and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) sacrificing himself to that fiery thing in the mines was quite moving. I also really like the sort of rise and fall of Boromir (Sean Bean) as he goes after the ring one minute and then defends the hobbits from the orcs the next, dying (as Sean Bean is contractually obligated to do in every role he takes) heroically. But all those are sort of contained to this one film. They exist entirely within it, unlike almost everything else going on. And there’s a lot going on. For all the battles, all the trekking, all the losses and all the triumphs and all the grim resignation to the task, nobody gets anywhere. Frodo is practically stabbed to death twice in this one film, and still nothing happens. They take forever and a day to get to the part where the fellowship is formed, and then by the end of the film it’s completely broken apart. Sam and Frodo are in a boat on their own, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) are captured by orcs, and Aragorn, Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) are a rag-tag assortment of warrior species off to maybe rescue them.

And just when you think something’s about to happen, and they’ll finally get on with this journey of theirs, the movie ends. It’s not an end to the story, mind you, just and end to the film. They’ve dragged it out as far as they possibly can, and now you have to wait another year before you find out if anyone ever actually gets anywhere on this quest.

Luckily (or unluckily) for me, I don’t have to wait a year, for the next one is upon us. Let’s see how much more I can hate The Two Towers, shall we?

 

MY MOVIE SHELF: Young Guns II

The Task: Watch and write about every movie on my shelf, in order (Blu-rays are sorted after DVDs), by June 10, 2015.  Remaining movies: 129 Days to go: 90

Movie #311:  Young Guns II

Here’s the funny thing about timing: Young Guns came out in 1988 and was rated R. I couldn’t see it. Young Guns II came out in 1990, had EVEN MORE of my teenage crushes in it, featured an exclusive soundtrack by sexy rock god Jon Bon Jovi, and was rated PG-13. And so I became a big fan of Young Guns II without ever having seen the original Young Guns.

I saw Young Guns II a bunch. I had extended, in-depth conversations about it with a friend, who also had a penchant for movies and cowboys, when we should’ve been paying attention in math, probably. And, yes, I had a Young Guns II poster up in my room, because I had a million posters and pictures and pinups and cutouts from Bop! and Tiger Beat magazine up on my walls. But it was a personal fave.

Eventually, of course, I did see Young Guns, but I’ve always thought Young Guns II was better, and not for merely the teeny-bopper reasons you might think. So I bought Young Guns II, way back about a million years ago, and added it to my DVD collection, without ever having the slightest inclination to buy Young Guns. Such is life.

Despite being something of a completist when it came to movie franchises — especially in the early years of my fixation with buying DVDs — I’ve never felt guilty about not owning Young Guns, primarily because Young Guns II is almost like an entirely different movie from the original, only with some of the same principal characters played by the same principal actors — but not like it’s actually a sequel at all. (I apply this same sort of logic to my brother and I, who have such a wide age gap between us I’ve often said we’re like two only children who just happen to have been raised by the same parents.) Young Guns tells the straight-up tale of Billy the Kid (Emilio Estevez) and his band of vigilantes-turned-criminals (or, at least, it’s as straight up as a biography that’s as much legend as it is fact can possibly be). It ends with Doc (Kiefer Sutherland) moving back to New York and getting married, Chavez (Lou Diamond Phillips) finding work in California, and Billy being shot in the back by Pat Garrett (played by Patrick Wayne in that film). Young Guns II, however, reunites the gang in a bit of literal revisionist history, by framing the tale as the memories of one “Brushy” Bill Roberts, a real man who, in 1950, claimed to be Billy the Kid.

Young Guns II, therefore, could either be a complete fabrication or a fascinating alternate history. It attempts to pick up where Young Guns leaves off, telling the travels of Billy’s gang after their time as Regulators in the Lincoln County War all the way up to Billy’s supposed death (in this film Pat Garrett is played by William Petersen). However, in this version, Doc and Chavez are still very much in the mix. There are references here and there to, for instance, Doc having gone off to New York and come back again, but the threads are never really connected all that well. It’s like the first film might as well not have existed (not a complaint, just an observation). And that seems to be an intentional feature of the film, too, because according to this one, Billy the Kid skipped out on his own funeral and stole Pat Garrett’s horse. It’s an interesting new perspective

For a hormonal teenage girl, however, the real draw was the cast of incredibly telegenic actors dressed up as scruffy cowboys. In addition to the main trio, Young Guns II also boasts Christian Slater as Arkansas Dave Rudabaugh (the greatest rhyming cowboy villain name I’ve ever heard). And if you were a fan of Cameron in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, well Alan Ruck is here too. There was also the confusing and alluring presence of Balthazar Getty as Tommy, who my friend and I had taken notice of in Lord of the Flies earlier that year (we HATED it, but there was something about him — it might’ve been the weird name). I swear, to this day I can’t decide if we thought he was cute or if we thought he was wimpy. But I know I’ve always paid attention whenever I’ve seen his name come up anywhere since. (Another fun thing about re-watching a movie from 25 years ago is finding all the actors in little roles who were nothing then but are totally noticeable now — Look at Viggo Mortensen hanging out with Pat Garrett!)

As for other merits, Young Guns II, as far as I’m concerned, does a pretty great job of looking more polished and put together than its predecessor, and that can actually go a long way in a person’s enjoyment of a film. If you need more than that, though, I also think the performances are strong and considered, with particular attention paid to the relationships of Billy’s gang, how Billy sometimes gets too capricious with the lives he takes in his hands, and how betrayed he feels by Pat. By that same token, the movie does a lot of work to make Pat Garrett a man and not just a figure — it portrays him as vain and as arrogant and as a showy, self-righteous, ultimate failure, but it rounds him out more than any other portrayal I’ve seen has ever done. And while there’s a dearth of women in the film, Jane Greathouse (Jenny Wright) conspiring with Billy and telling off Pat and riding off into the night wearing nothing but her boots certainly makes the most of her time on the screen.

Plus, have I mentioned “Blaze of Glory?” That song rocks. Young Guns never had a song. Now tell me which is the better film.