Request Fulfilled: 'The Lord of the Rings' Trilogy

Never let it be said that I fail to fulfill requests.  Granted, much to my dismay, only The Lord of the Rings trilogy has been requested.  This request was made a few full months prior to this review; however, when an assignment involves watching three movies--which also encompasses over nine hours of my life--some leniency is necessary.  Plus, I thought that releasing this review would be an interesting way to launch into 2019.  Yes, the formulation of The Lord of the Rings movies can be seen as an allegory for most years of our lives.  They're filled with plenty of good and great moments, many rough patches, highlights, pitfalls, excitement, and pain.

To their credit, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the few film adaptations of literature to which pontificating book snobs refrain from saying, "BuT iT dIdN't FoLlOw ThE BoOk!"  or, "ThE BoOk WaS sO mUcH BeTtEr!"  This either means that the sun rose in the west and set in the east and book snobs actually value a movie for what it is: a movie; or that Peter Jackson dedicated himself to adapting J.R.R. Tolkien's novels as accurately as possible.  Since the case is obviously the latter, praise must be given to this team of filmmakers for creating what is inarguably the most accurately impressive movie adaptations to date.  Whether this turned out to be entirely beneficial will be discussed later.  Regardless, Peter Jackson clearly stuck to the source material, which is surprisingly impressive and rare, particularly this accurately.  This feat is nothing short of remarkable.

One of the most apparent accomplishments The Lord of the Rings trilogy has to offer is their stunning visual work.  The visual effects in all three movies are astonishing, particularly when considering the years they were released.  The fact that more than one of them received Oscar wins for visual effects is unsurprising.  In a trilogy filled with mythical characters of every sort, it is truly astonishing that every character, animal, and creature looked so convincing.  Furthermore, the set pieces, costumes, and make-up are superb.  One can only imagine the time and dedication required to create these characters.  It's amazing how appreciative one can become for the art of filmmaking when so much attention is given to small detail.  Authentic make-up, costumes, and sets are only some of the precious little things we have too-frequently lost in the age of digital filmmaking.

Furthermore, one of the most enjoyable aspects of these films is the sound editing and song mixing.  The score of all three movies is utterly fantastic.  Even when very few events occur (which is far too often), the music maintains the viewer's attention.  Whether it's within the journey, the background to a conversation, or during epic battle sequences, the orchestral music adds so much enjoyment to the viewing experience.  Furthermore, the invention and mixing of various sounds conveyed through the film's monsters is brilliant.  Some creatures themselves may be stupid, but man, do they sound cool.

They may have looked good, but The Lord of the Rings is filled with pointless characters.  Moreover, the majority of their names are hard to remember and are just plain silly.  It's astonishing that movies with literally thousands of cast members can have a single-digit number of memorable characters.  And this isn't because of audiences' lack of short-term memory; it's because plenty of characters have no true bearing on the central plot.  They may vaguely come together by the third film's climax, but if one were to watch all three movies and never learn who most characters are, they'd be just fine.  Indeed, countless stupidly named "characters" become reduced to nothing short of plot devices and scene-transitioners.

More detrimental, however, is the vague and forced character development of several central characters.  Don't be mistaken--several characters progressed and grew, and their stories were told quite well.  Sam, Aragorn, Pippin, and most notably Smeagol (Gollum) had entertaining arcs with depth.  Amazingly, Gollum is the most compelling character of the trilogy.  Unfortunately, however, the same cannot be said for central characters like Frodo, Gandalf, Legolas (although I still like him), and Sauron.  Instead of being agents who act, they frequently were objects who were acted upon.  It's such a shame when the principal protagonists cease to break their archetype.

Even though several characters were disappointing, the editing definitely was not.  Nothing is more frustrating and mind-numbing to watch than an action movie with shoddy editing and painful rapid cuts during battle sequences.  Impressively, The Lord of the Rings movies has nearly none of this.  I'm not saying that the editing did not leave anything to be desired, but I am saying certainly wasn't lazy.  Furthermore, several impressive landscapes, establishing, and conversational shots and techniques were frequent.  What Peter Jackson lacked in storytelling he made up for with his camerawork.

Yet the storytelling is undoubtedly more important.  Since Peter Jackson cannot be given full credit (or blame) for the story, his accomplishments and shortcomings are seen through a narrower lens.  Despite his noted dedication to accurately adapting Tolkien's novels, the question remains whether sheer accuracy is always praiseworthy.  Several elements of the narrative--while engaging on paper--do not always successfully translate to film.  Numerous elements of the journey could have easily been omitted, and the film at face-value would not lose a step.  Quite the contrary: it could have improved.  If the story had been more structured and less intricate, then the pacing of the films could have been far less painful.  A movie that is exciting one minute and painfully slow the next is exhausting to watch.

And this is where The Lord of the Rings astoundingly impresses and wildly disappoints.  It is broadly a story about several nations (for lack of a better word) coming together to battle a powerful common enemy.  In many ways, it is a mythological spin on one of the oldest stories ever told.  Whether it applies timeless themes of unity, courage, strength, or redemption (to name a few), it appears to be an undoubtedly wonderful story.  Yet, some way or another, it manages to simultaneously be one of the greatest and blatantly stupid stories ever put to screen.

Imagine thinking to yourself, "Here's a story that centers around several big-footed little people walking a piece of jewelry to the bowels of a volcano.  Let's make nine hours worth of movies about that."  Seriously, though: at its core, The Lord of the Rings is amazingly dumb.  I make no reservations about how impressively these movies are made; I just wish it were more socially acceptable to have issues with them.  It shouldn't be too much to ask for a society to accept that maybe--just maybe--some people don't want to watch a seemingly endless amount of creatures walking across various territories.  And even though the battle sequences may be cool, it is astonishing how many plot conveniences occur on a regular basis.  Indeed, almost an hour of every movie contains a series of disjointed events that only exist because Tolkien wrote them that way.

To summarize, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is the most brilliantly constructed cluster of stupid movies ever made.  As a film lover, the undoubtedly impressive filmmaking cannot be ignored.  Every Oscar won by these films were inarguably earned, and it is clear why movie lovers and book lovers alike appreciate these films.  Films like this do not generate such a loyal following without reason, but that doesn't mean those who dislike them are without reason.