"return of the king": review of book to film - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Reviews

"Return of the King" is a triumphant conclusion to a remarkable film series. It should silence all of the lazy critics who did not like the previous films because they were too long or too complicated or had too many characters--the third film is a masterful epic that makes the effort and attention required for the previous films well worth it. There are moments in "The Return of the King" that make your heart soar, scenes of astounding visual imagination that bring Tolkien to life better than I could ever have pictured in my own mind. Frodo, Sam, and Gollum atop Mount Doom, the fall of the Witch-King, and the battle outside the Black Gate deserve special mention. The third film also lives up to the standard of excellent opening scenes set by the first and second films. "Fellowship" gave us the exciting prologue, "Towers" gave us Glamdring against the Balrog, and now "The Return of the King" gives us the tale of Smeagol and Deagol. As thrilled as I was with the wonderful opening scene, a sad pall haunted my mind as I watched the rest of the film. The book is filled with so many wonderful scenes and supporting characters, yet I knew some of them would have to be sacrificed in the screen adaptation. Edits for length and coherence are essential in any film adaptation of a novel, and "Return of the King" already clocks in at nearly three-and-a-half hours. How much more possibly could have been squeezed in? Despite this realization, I found myself anticipating upcoming beloved parts of the book and dreading what would be cut. Now that I know what treasured book elements are gone, I think I will need to see the movie a second time before I can really enjoy it. The screenplay is remarkably faithful to the main thrust of Tolkien's novel. Adapting a book to film always requires story edits: some are minor changes for length/clarity, while others are major changes in plot and theme. What I enjoyed most about "Fellowship of the Ring" was that it had many minor length/clarity changes (sorry, Tom Bombadil) yet few major plot/theme changes. "The Tower Towers" had fewer little length/clarity changes but it did suffer from a couple serious (and quite debatable) plot/theme changes (notably the character of Faramir). "Return of the King" has no plot/theme changes from the book, only minor length/clarity changes. Most of these alterations are reasonable and quite predictable: did anyone expect to see Prince Imrahil, Beregond and his son Bergil, or Frodo and Sam's extended trek through Gorgoroth? There are a few surprising absences in the screenplay, though. I was surprised not to see the Mouth of Sauron--but perhaps cutting out the Mouth of Sauron is the logical conclusion of Jackson's interpretation of Mordor as representing "mindless violence" (and, thus, his screenplay has no need for the parleys and surrender terms that are so atmospheric in Tolkien's text). Also, since the filmmakers went to so much trouble in "The Two Towers" to establish Eowyn, Eomer, Theoden, and Faramir as major characters with emotional meaning, it is surprising how short shrift their personal storylines are given in the third film. Jackson worked hard to amplify the Eowyn-Aragorn love story in the second film, yet the "Houses of the Healing" resolution to it is missing. Eomer is little more than a battlefield walk-on, and Theoden is forgotten after Pelennor Field. I can only assume that some of these cuts will be restored in the Extended DVD version destined to join my collection next year, and I suspect this will please fans of the books immensely. What is most impressive about "Return of the King" is how beautifully it ties the film trilogy together. It proves Jackson's genius as a visionary director as well as his wisdom in shooting all three films at once. Had the "Ring" trilogy been shot and released at a slower pace, the subsequent films would have likely lost energy, focus, or passion (consider the declining fortunes of the "Star Wars" franchise as an example of how too much time between films can weaken the coherence of the whole). Peter Jackson included "The Lord of the Rings:" in each film title, and now it is abundantly clear that his movie trilogy can and should be considered as a singular whole--just like Tolkien himself viewed his trilogy as one single story. There is a consistency of beauty that runs through his three films, as well as a deep reverence for his source material that is often absent from big-screen treatments of books. Perhaps nothing better reflects this loving attention to detail than one "new" scene added to the story--Arwen's tender glimpse of the coming Fourth Age of Middle-earth. No, it is not a part of the "Return of the King" novel storyline, but it will bring a knowing smile to the face of even the most ardent book purist. Jackson's crew brough tremendous love to their work, and this passion infuses every scene and performance in the film. All of these actors, even if their roles have faded into the background at the end, show a passion for what they are doing. Of the film trilogy's many strong suits, casting deserves to be rated near the top. Ultimately, it is the director who should be credited with eliciting such passionate performances and creating such an evocative atmosphere. The previous films were both nominated for Academy Awards, and though they deserved the nominations there were arguably better stand-alone films that actually won. "Return of the King" deserves to be recognized not merely as a stand-alone film but as the capstone of the entire amazing trilogy.