The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Theatrical Editions) [Blu-ray]

Well, as we all know, "The Lord of the Rings" has gone on to net Oscars, billions in box-office returns, critical acclaim, and popular appeal. Fans all over the globe have embraced this most incredible achievement and its timeless messages, giving it the kind of universal appeal rarely seen even in our more open and global society. Although some Tolkien fans have taken issue with some of the changes wrought by Jackson, many have welcomed these films as grand representations of Tolkien's work, and have applauded the renewed attention it has brought to the books (the greatest amount since the trilogy was embraced by the Sixties generation). It's the rare pop-culture phenomenon that also has highbrow literary appeal.

The films represent an extraordinary trilogy, but each one stands alone as a great film. Of the three, "Return of the King" may be the best, not due to its eleven Oscars but due to its perfect blend of heroism, epic action, and emotion. (This is true of all three films, but it is greatest in "King.") The battle of Pelennor Fields sets the bar higher than any film ever; directors will probably spend the next decade attempting to top it. "King" also packs an emotional punch, largely due to the familiarity we now have with these characters and the sheer desperation of Frodo's quest, which begins to claim both his health and his sanity. If the film has a flaw, it's the extended ending, but that's forgivable. Perhaps the only problem with "Fellowship" is that it begins slowly, unraveling gradually in a way that may seem tedious to some. However, this is necessary to introduce characters and plot. Having Cate Blanchett (as Galadriel) open "Fellowship" with an introduction that explains the film`s backstory and introduces the conflict to those unfamiliar to Tolkien's work was a stroke of genius. "Towers" suffers from a somewhat uneven midsection but redeems itself with the amazing Battle of Helm's Deep (which required three months of night shoots) and a fascinating, film-stealing performance by Andy Serkis as the twisted Gollum. (Favorite moments: The Balrog (WOW!); Boromir's last stand/act of penance; Helm's Deep; the march of the Ents; Pelennor Fields; the madness of Denethor; Shelob (WOW again!); the courage of Samwise Gamgee time and again).

As ensemble acting goes, it's hard to top these films. Each actor was tasked with giving emotional heft and believability to their roles, embodying characters dear to many, and each one succeeded; I cannot think of a single weak performance in the trilogy. Every part is perfectly cast, with some standouts: Ian McKellen makes Gandalf a gruff but wise, compassionate, and endearing character; quiet, soft-spoken Viggo Mortensen (who took method acting to new heights by sleeping in his outfit and dwelling in the woods at times) is ideal as the reluctant Ranger-King Aragorn; Elijah Wood gives Frodo both emotional depth and strength; Serkis as Gollum; veteran actor Christopher Lee adds gravitas and menace to his role as Saruman; and Sean Astin (who steals nearly every scene in "King") makes the steadfast and loyal Sam come alive. Many critics (and some fans) had issues with "King's" multiple endings, but having spent more than nine hours with these characters, it was nice to grant them a long goodbye.

There are some flaws in the films, however, though they are largely minor. Jackson's direction is first-rate, though he over-uses slow-motion and tracking shots. (I'm being picky, I know). Some have taken serious issue with the exclusion of the Barrow-Wight and Tom Bombadil from "Fellowship;" the presence of Elves at Helm's Deep and the changes made to Faramir's character in "Towers;" the alterations to Denethor and the somewhat foreshortened ending of "King," sans the "Scouring of the Shire" that concluded the book. Some of these have been amended or explained in the Extended Editions, and some are left out altogether. The only change that bothered me was the coarsening of Faramir's character. Why? Although some see Bilbo as the character most like Tolkien, the author once told a friend (I think it was Charles Williams, though I may be wrong) that Faramir was the character closest to him in nature. Altering Faramir to be more like his brother and less the scholarly, reluctant warrior he was in the books may make for more dramatic cinema, but it does lessen the man as represented by Tolkien. (This, however, is rectified somewhat in the "Towers" Extended edition by his brief soliloquy over a fallen soldier and his eventual refusal to be ruled by either the Ring or his father). Of all the changes, this is the only one that I have trouble reconciling, but it does not alter or change my perception of these films as extraordinary epics.

Fans of the Star Wars and Matrix trilogies may argue with me about this, but I have to say that this now ranks as the greatest trilogy of films ever made, and is one of the landmark accomplishments in cinema history. (Sorry this review was so long).

While Jackson is being lauded for his amazing battle scenes, there is so much more to the books--and the films--than that. Considering Tolkien wrote the books decades ago, even the female characters, though few, are strong in their own right, rather than passive victims to be rescued. And, yes, Peter Jackson made some changes, but kept true to Tolkien's conception. A previous reviewer's correcting of Jackson's "changes" are themselves not completely accurate:

1. The time constraints of a movie are exceedingly different from the pacing of a book. Jackson did give proportionately more time to the love between Aragorn and Arwen than the book does, but it is not true that in the book it is "almost nonexistent". Try reading Tolkien more thoroughly. The appendices are almost a third of the last book, and add a lot of information.

And speaking of book/movie comparisons, the time spent on special effect battle scenes in the movies far surpasses the space given to battle scenes in the books. We're not hearing a lot of complaining about that, but if you haven't read the books and are intrigued by Tolkien's world, you'll find much to love in the full works.

2.The same reviewer claims that Eowyn's slaying of the king of the Nazgul was politically correct cuteness on Jackson's part. Not true. Read the scene in the book again. It did matter that she was a woman, and while Merry's help was invaluable, the final mortal blow was Eowyn's:

" 'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'
'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman.'
The Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt....Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her after being stabbed behind the knee by Merry. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe."

Scenes in the book are certainly open to interpretation. But there's a lot of evidence for Jackson's correct interpretation of this scene.

All in all, wonderful--books and films, both.

Well, as we all know, "The Lord of the Rings" has gone on to net Oscars, billions in box-office returns, critical acclaim, and popular appeal. Fans all over the globe have embraced this most incredible achievement and its timeless messages, giving it the kind of universal appeal rarely seen even in our more open and global society. Although some Tolkien fans have taken issue with some of the changes wrought by Jackson, many have welcomed these films as grand representations of Tolkien's work, and have applauded the renewed attention it has brought to the books (the greatest amount since the trilogy was embraced by the Sixties generation). It's the rare pop-culture phenomenon that also has highbrow literary appeal.

The films represent an extraordinary trilogy, but each one stands alone as a great film. Of the three, "Return of the King" may be the best, not due to its eleven Oscars but due to its perfect blend of heroism, epic action, and emotion. (This is true of all three films, but it is greatest in "King.") The battle of Pelennor Fields sets the bar higher than any film ever; directors will probably spend the next decade attempting to top it. "King" also packs an emotional punch, largely due to the familiarity we now have with these characters and the sheer desperation of Frodo's quest, which begins to claim both his health and his sanity. If the film has a flaw, it's the extended ending, but that's forgivable. Perhaps the only problem with "Fellowship" is that it begins slowly, unraveling gradually in a way that may seem tedious to some. However, this is necessary to introduce characters and plot. Having Cate Blanchett (as Galadriel) open "Fellowship" with an introduction that explains the film's backstory and introduces the conflict to those unfamiliar to Tolkien's work was a stroke of genius. "Towers" suffers from a somewhat uneven midsection but redeems itself with the amazing Battle of Helm's Deep (which required three months of night shoots) and a fascinating, film-stealing performance by Andy Serkis as the twisted Gollum. (Favorite moments: The Balrog (WOW!); Boromir's last stand/act of penance; Helm's Deep; the march of the Ents; Pelennor Fields; the madness of Denethor; Shelob (WOW again!); the courage of Samwise Gamgee time and again).

As ensemble acting goes, it's hard to top these films. Each actor was tasked with giving emotional heft and believability to their roles, embodying characters dear to many, and each one succeeded; I cannot think of a single weak performance in the trilogy. Every part is perfectly cast, with some standouts: Ian McKellen makes Gandalf a gruff but wise, compassionate, and endearing character; quiet, soft-spoken Viggo Mortensen (who took method acting to new heights by sleeping in his outfit and dwelling in the woods at times) is ideal as the reluctant Ranger-King Aragorn; Elijah Wood gives Frodo both emotional depth and strength; Serkis as Gollum; veteran actor Christopher Lee adds gravitas and menace to his role as Saruman; and Sean Astin (who steals nearly every scene in "King") makes the steadfast and loyal Sam come alive. Many critics (and some fans) had issues with "King's" multiple endings, but having spent more than nine hours with these characters, it was nice to grant them a long goodbye.

There are some flaws in the films, however, though they are largely minor. Jackson's direction is first-rate, though he over-uses slow-motion and tracking shots. (I'm being picky, I know). Some have taken serious issue with the exclusion of the Barrow-Wight and Tom Bombadil from "Fellowship;" the presence of Elves at Helm's Deep and the changes made to Faramir's character in "Towers;" the alterations to Denethor and the somewhat foreshortened ending of "King," sans the "Scouring of the Shire" that concluded the book. Some of these have been amended or explained in the Extended Editions, and some are left out altogether. The only change that bothered me was the coarsening of Faramir's character. Why? Although some see Bilbo as the character most like Tolkien, the author once told a friend (I think it was Charles Williams, though I may be wrong) that Faramir was the character closest to him in nature. Altering Faramir to be more like his brother and less the scholarly, reluctant warrior he was in the books may make for more dramatic cinema, but it does lessen the man as represented by Tolkien. (This, however, is rectified somewhat in the "Towers" Extended edition by his brief soliloquy over a fallen soldier and his eventual refusal to be ruled by either the Ring or his father). Of all the changes, this is the only one that I have trouble reconciling, but it does not alter or change my perception of these films as extraordinary epics.

Fans of the Star Wars and Matrix trilogies may argue with me about this, but I have to say that this now ranks as the greatest trilogy of films ever made, and is one of the landmark accomplishments in cinema history. (Sorry this review was so long).