I was privileged to attend the third LOTR movie on opening night (midnight on Tuesday) and I'm glad to report it was worth staying up until 3:30 am for it. The burning question is, of course, how does it compare with the Matrix trilogy?
I was a big fan of the first Matrix movie. Although I loved the first LOTR movie (The Fellowship of the Ring) too, I felt the Matrix was more original and thought-provoking. The second Matrix movie (Matrix Revolutions) showed how far and how fast a sequel can fall short of the original. Any excuse for meaning, plot, or originality was largely missing from the second installment, despite the cool CGI. The third Matrix movie (Matrix Revolutions) was largely unwatchable (and didn't Naobi die in the second movie, or did I just die of boredom?). I remember reading an article in which the producers commented that to get the full experience of the movie, you'd have to play the game (presumably for XBox and PS2). I bought an XBox, but I have no intention of buying the Matrix video games.
So what happened to the Matrix? It completely lost its way, falling back on unfufilling cliches. Oh, and did I mention the uncanny resemblance it bore to the much better saga written nearly 50 years ago, Lord of the Rings?
Fro...er Neo...travels to the heart of enemy territory accompanied by his erstwhile companion Trinity Gamgee. Oh, and he gets blinded and they suck face a lot. I don't remember that in the book. Anyway, enough about shitty trilogies, let's talk about a great one.
My main complaint about the second LOTR movie (The Two Towers), as reviewed here was the omission of certain scenes (and the inexcusable corruption of Faramir's character into someone who coveted the Ring). As I predicted, an important scene from the end of the second book, which was omitted from the second movie, appears in the third movie. As with the second installment, the beginning of the third movie is unforgettable, albeit incomprehensible if you haven't read the books or seen the previous movies. In fact, if you haven't read the Hobbit, much of the movies don't make as much sense as they otherwise would. I hope Jackson brings the Hobbit to the screen as well, although it hasn't nearly the depth of the later trilogy.
So is it bad for movies to complement the book? I think not. They're different media, and you will be truly enriched for having experienced both. In the third book, the plot is divided between two and sometimes three different venues. Long after something occurs in one venue, the book goes forward or backward a week in time to the other story line. I thought this built a lot of dramatic tension, which was missing from the movie where all plotlines occurred simultaneously (switching between venues when necessary). Perhaps it was unavoidable, as the movie might have been impossible to follow for those who hadn't read the book if it mirrored the book's timeline.
All in all, the third installment of the movie is better than the second and perhaps as good if not better than the first. The actress playing Eowyn was excellent. I don't know how she made her face quiver on cue like that. There are parts of the movie verbatim from the book that would otherwise seem like Hollywood hokum, as when Sam carries Frodo. And there are deviations from the book to simplify or speed the plot, or eliminate otherwise minor characters. Billy Boyd as Pippin was particularly good fulfilling his sworn oath to the Steward of Gondor. It was so good, it was almost difficult to watch. As in the second movie, there were simply breathtaking battle scenes. And again, as with the second movie, I'm sorry they omitted a scene (the one in which Gandalf rejects the offer to surrender at the Black Gate).
Judging by the audience reaction to certain scenes, many hadn't read the books. To Jackson's credit, he doesn't end the movie immediately following the trilogy's climax (which occurs about halfway through the third book). True to the book, he continues the story for several more scenes, illiciting outright gasps and groans from movie-goers weaned on Hollywood formula every time the scene faded down and then back up. But it gladdened this reviewer's heart tremendously, and even at over 3 hours, the movie brings the trilogy to an end before I was ready to part ways.
All in all, my only regret is that I didn't catch "Trilogy Tuesday" where some theatres played extended cuts of the first two movies preceding this third installment. I recommend you rent them and read the books, but don't miss this one in theatres.
Here is the final scorecard from best to worst:
1. The Matrix
2. LOTR: The Return of the King
3. LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring
4. LOTR: The Two Towers
5. The Matrix Reloaded
6. Matrix Revolutions
Now don't get me started on the Godfather...
Which was your favorite, LOTR or The Matrix trilogy? Which was your favorite installment?
Comments (11)
Read More Entries by Bruce A. Epstein.
woah, just a little note, how /would/ you incorportate the Shire Scouring? Where would it go? After the hobbits set sail?--that would kind of suck as an ending.
HAHAHA Matrix trilogy is trash compared to the LoTR trilogy
The Matrix
Let me nitpick.
Of course you're right. It should be "eliciting" not "illiciting."
Cheers,
Bruce
The Matrix
What "unfufilling cliches"? I was pleased that the final installment didn't end the way I thought it would. Usually, stories based on this theme end in infinite levels of reality, you know like the pagan notion that the earth rested on a giant turtle, on a giant elephant, on a giant...
LOTR - The Two Towers
Hey Bruce,
you must watch Two Towers in extended version. The great about that is Faramir's history is told without cuts... and he' not been appears corrupted.
LOTR
Stretching is an understatement. LOTR are based upon well-established literature; Matrix certainly borrows themes (Alice in Wonderland primarily) but one its major flaws is that it was not an established body of work, and therefore was subject to too much tinkering by people wanting to put their 'mark' on the film rather than having the discipline to remain true to the characters and story.
BTW, the Hobbit story rights are licensed differently than LOTR, and are apparently more difficult to obtain. I have heard discussions have been underway for that one.
LOTR
I think the comparing themes in the Matrix is the Rings is stretching it a bit. The Return of the King was great, don't get me wrong, but I'm a lil peeved they took out the scouring of the shire.
Ending a movie vs. Ending an epic
on a side note, being an ending like one would end a long-running tv series, it will probably settle better on the dvd than it does in the theater.
Jackson has realized (probably sooner than most) that good films have two lives, their theater life and their tv life, and intentionally makes some scenes such that they'll keep the dvd worth watching, even if in the short term they might make the theater watching a little more uncomfortable than people are used to.
Ending a movie vs. Ending an epic
Jackson in the editing room probably had the (relatively accurate) impression that people were as attached to these characters as they had become to any long-term epic's characters, including Star Wars, MASH, or Cheers. Taking a cue from Star Wars, he realized most of us felt the ending of Jedi to be too pat, too simplified, too "but i'm not ready to say goodbye yet". Difference being that with Star Wars, Lucas had to leave room open for a future, even though since then he's made the decision not to film the supposed episodes 7-9. It took a while for the books to catch on as the approach to make for sequels.
With RotK, Jackson knows there's no sequel. There's no room for one. Tolkien has given the future history of the characters in the appendicies, and none of them have an adventure on the scale worth expounding and filming. They all fought this war for the sake of having a normal life, and like all good soldiers, they all go on to have a normal life (minus Frodo and Gandalf who have already moved on). Normal lives aren't interesting enough to write new stories about, so Tolkien didn't write any. Jackson isn't going to make something up, he would rather move on. So knowing there's no room for a sequel, yet knowing we're as attached to these characters as any, he gives us time to say goodbye as if we'd been watching a 3+ year tv series, rather than a standard movie trilogy ending (which are all variations on Back to the Future's "the future is what you make of it" formula, IMHO).
Consider how many different "endings" they had in the MASH or Cheers final episodes and you get the idea of what I think Jackson was aiming for (even though both of those had spinoff/sequel series, only one of which was successful). Trouble with hollywood movie critics and watchers is that they complain most about what was unexpected, and having an ending appropriate for a long-running tv series embedded in a movie (that isn't a star trek film) caught them by surprise. (Of course any "expectation" always leeds to disappointment. "Expectation blinds us to the moment" -- R. Fripp)
Its an ending for the fans, not an ending for a film.
Let me nitpick.
Let me nitpick.
You mean "eliciting outright gasps" not "illiciting outright gasps". This is where spell-checkers fail and grammar-checkers can help. If you type the whole sentence in MS Word it complains in red underline and offers to substitute "illiciting" with "eliciting".