Jackson's Kong sits on top of the world

KING KONG (2005)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Of all the "King Kong" films that exist (and there are others besides the original 1933 classic and its 1976 remake), Peter Jackson's lavishly produced new Kong is clearly the best. As good as it often is, it is also an occasionally elephantine, desperately overlong tribute to what was always an adventure film with an uneven central love story (thought the love story in this one works).

The film is set during the Depression Era of the 30's, specifically 1933 in the city of New York. In an evocative montage set to Al Jolson's "I'm Sitting on Top of the World," we see police raiding buildings, destitute families living in squalor, high-angle views of New York City as everyone scuttles about their business, vaudeville shows and the construction of the Empire State Building. Jack Black is in the middle of all this as Carl Denham, an obsessive film director who is also a huckster, promoter and a bad businessman. His current leading lady has pulled out of his latest project (he has trouble procuring the talents of Myrna Loy and Fay Wray!) until he finds a forlorn beauty on the streets, a vaudeville performer named Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts). He persuades her to go on a maiden voyage to Singapore aboard the Venture ship, though they are really headed to Skull Island unbeknownst to all. Also along for the ride is Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), a playwright who has written some dialogue for Denham's latest opus. He inadvertently travels along and knows trouble is headed his way, though not the trouble he imagines when he first sees Kong. Jack has a brief fling with Ann, who adores him. But how can Jack compete with a hairy giant gorilla?

Skull Island is the uncharted land that time forgot, and you Kong fanatics know what is in store for these passengers once they arrive. We are talking red-eyed aboriginal natives with pierced tongues and eyelids who all seem possessed by the devil. We are talking skulls and carcasses that grace every inch of this island. We are also talking about a 25-foot silverback gorilla whose roar can shake even the most determined sleeper. We are also talking about giant spiders; giant T-rexes; lots of stampeding Brontosauruses chased by velociraptors; millipedes; centipedes; various other insects and giant worms, and much more.

Most of "King Kong" is an eye-popping marvel of special-effects. Particularly convincing is Kong himself, as played in a motion-capture suit by Andy Serkis ("The Lord of the Rings"), an angry, battle-scarred ape who growls but can also laugh when Ann saves her own skin by performing some vaudeville routines to amuse him. There is even a tender scene shared by Kong and Ann by sunset and a touching moment at an ice rink. But this Kong is all action as he glides and jumps with great ferocity - he is an animal after all who pounds his chest with pride when killing a vicious T-Rex. Thanks to Serkis and Jackson's own WETA effects team, Kong is the most realistic creation seen on screen in the history of cinema, and certainly the most convincing Kong ever. I can't imagine it getting any better than this.

As for the story, the first hour of the film is devoted to the main characters and the crew members on board the Venture ship. The film truly brightens every time we see Jack Black up to his conniving ways, bewildered and bewildering everyone around him. His portrait of a 30's film director who wants to make epic adventure films (not unlike Merian C. Cooper) at any cost, even at the cost of losing his crew members just to get a shot of a Brontosaurus, is spot on and sharply observed (Howard Hughes might've been scared by this guy).

Less intriguing is Adrien Brody's portrait of what appears to be a Beatnik playwright (he did play a Beatnik in "Last Time I Committed Suicide") - he is just off by twenty years. I expected to see a playwright who was as passionate as Carl but instead we are saddled with a weary writer who has not much passion for anything. Even his brief fling with Ann hardly convinces - Ann finds the big ape far more beguiling as will the audience.

Naomi Watts makes the most out of her role, which has an extra dimension or two than Fay Wray's famous incarnation. Watts invests time in her character during the first hour, and afterwards she mostly jumps, stares, screams, runs and wells up with tears. Not to begrudge Watts but this is a role that could've been filled by any actress even, god forbid, Tara Reid had it been written as a one-dimensional bimbo who is merely sexual eye candy for the big ape (Well, maybe not Reid, but you get the idea). Thankfully, Ann is not written as a sexual object of desire, more like an angelic presence who cares for Kong. I appreciate Jackson's choice of using Watts whose past screen roles have never depicted her as the typical, busty blonde beauty. No wonder Fay Wray approved shortly before her unfortunate demise.

"King Kong" is simply too long though, with far too much action at Skull Island. The stampeding brontosauruses sequence is practically unwatchable since it is all shot too tightly (a frequent criticism of mine of Jackson's previous work). Even the fight between the T-Rexes and Kong might give you motion sickness - funny how it is clearer and sharper when seen on a TV screen than on the big screen.

Despite my criticisms of length, the first hour could easily have been expanded into an extra half-hour simply because I was engaged by Carl Denham's hubris - I was willing to go wherever his character took me. Unfortunately, the film ignores his character (as well as others including an irate captain and Carl's assistant) and has Carl (SPOILER ALERT) deliver the famous last line. That is an error in character judgment that didn't work in the '33 original and doesn't work now. Carl should've said, "Hubris killed my soul, and I have killed the beast." If it wasn't for Carl's hubris and showmanship, Kong might have still been alive.

Another technical flaw is the strobing of images in slow-motion that Jackson uses far too frequently - they deter from the action. At times, the movement of the camera with a strobing effect makes it difficult to discern what is occurring on screen.

For all of the film's flaws, the love story between Kong and Ann works because they care about each other. The ape is simply exploited by Carl and the public because of his freakish size, and Ann is exploited by the natives and Carl because she is so sweet and fragile. That is at the heart of "King Kong" - it is not a soulless, mechanized blockbuster but a story of two beings who share a love greater than anything Jack Driscoll could dream up. This version of "King Kong" has its heart in the right place.

Bringing Out a Dead Bond

DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Written in 2003)

I have skipped the last few James Bond movies since "Goldeneye" because Pierce Brosnan did not do it for me as Bond, but I was told that "Die Another Day" was one of the better entries. I suppose better for most audience members means more explosions than one can count every five minutes. It is a definite sign of the times that James Bond delivers not the standard double entendres but the requisite special-effects of your standard-issue action picture. If "Die Another Day" has anything to do with Bond, then I must have missed it.

Pierce Brosnan is once again the superspy James Bond, the loyal British assassin whose latest assignment takes him to North Korea. After a series of mishaps, Bond is imprisoned for fourteen months (!) Eventually, he is freed though his boss, M (Judi Dench, looking less authoritative than usual) has disowned him for ruining relations between Korea and Britain. Bond suspects betrayal and seeks revenge, a no-no for a double agent, by parading around the globe from Havana to Iceland. In Havana, Bond meets Jinx (Halle Berry), who looks good in a bikini and who is also an assassin. The plot centers around a villain named Graves (Toby Stephens), who may not be what he seems, and whose primary intention is world domination and wants it by using a large mirror/satellite to incinerate any country of choice. So we get a series of explosions, lots of cars crashing through glass and ice, an invisible car (!), anti-tank grenade launchers, endless sword fights, lots of parachutes, Michael Madsen as a haggard-looking intelligence agent, Madonna as a fencing expert (!) and poor old John Cleese as the inventive Q (at least, he uses a priceless Monty Python line).

Some of this is sort of fun, all of it implausible to the nth degree. And dear old Brosnan may have charm and arrogance in spades, but he doesn't have the killer instinct that Bond needs. Sean Connery had it, and Roger Moore mostly amped up on the charm. Timothy Dalton was merely a refrigerator. I just have one request for this series: live and let die.

Lennon gave El Topo a chance

EL TOPO (1970)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Dennis Hopper loved it. So did many other film directors I am sure. It was a huge hit on college campuses and revival houses. Then it disappeared thanks to legal wrangling from a Beatles producer of all things (John Lennon was a fan too and helped to distribute it). The result was a film that is controversial, religious, profane, gruesomely violent, sacrilegious, eerie, atmospheric, possibly political, and often extremely funny. The film is "El Topo" (The Mole), an extravagantly bizarre western by director Alejandro Jodorowsky that is unquestionably a memorable feast for the eyes. A great film? A masterpiece? I wouldn't go that far, but it is an original.

The story deals with a mysterious gunfighter named El Topo (Alejandro Jodorowsky) who rides on horseback through the desert with his seven-year old son, Brontis (Brontis Jodorowsky) who is usually seen naked and only wearing a hat. In the exquisitely gorgeous opening sequence, El Topo tells his son that in order to become a man, he must bury his mother's picture and his toy in the sand. As they progress on horseback, they come across a bloody massacre in a nearby town. El Topo intends to find who is responsible and eventually does - the leading killer is known as the Colonel (David Silva). After the Colonel is confronted by El Topo and stripped down to his bare necessities and is castrated, he kills himself. The Colonel's woman, Mara (Mara Lorenzio), joins El Topo, leaving behind his son with some monks who are relieved, no doubt, to be alive. Mara and El Topo spend a good deal of time making love in the sand, shooting rock formations that spew water and finding food buried underneath the sand. Mara tells him that he should prove himself the best by killing the four Sharpshooter Masters of the desert. It is difficult to say if El Topo is interested in such a quest but he goes along with it.

So we get more lovemaking in the sand and in ponds, some guitar playing courtesy of El Topo, lots of elaborately staged gunfights, dozens of dead rabbits, and lots of gruesome violence. My favorite of the Sharpshooter Masters is a Jesus Christ-lookalike who can't be killed with bullets, though they obviously pierce his flesh (El Topo can somehow withstand bullets as well). The weakest of these sharpshooters is the Second Master, who is preoccupied with his mother. After nicely dispatching all the Masters, El Topo goes mad, particularly after Mara makes love to another woman who mostly dresses in black, and rides off into the sunset. Then it is 20 years later and El Topo finds himself trying to build a tunnel for deformed dwarfs so they can go live in the local town that can only be described as "Sin City."

I suppose "El Topo" is intended to be spiritual considering all the overt religious symbols in the film. There are intertitles that read things like "Genesis," "Prophets," "Armageddon," and so on. Jodorowsky claims the film is divided into two segments, The Old Testament and the New Testament. What kept nagging me throughout the film was Jodorowsky's own portrayal of El Topo - he is a stone-faced blank who only comes to life towards the end of the film when he literally becomes reborn. His shaved head and clownish acts, not to mention a wicked smile, reminded me of a Buddhist monk. Since Jodorowsky, the director, is less interested in El Topo overall than in the conception of the character, we remain at a distance. The same goes for almost all the characters in the film who remain ciphers in Jodorowsky's evolving world of loopy behavior and surreal landscapes.

If nothing else, "El Topo" is always compelling and mind-bending in its desire to drive you up the wall and out of the theater screaming, "What the heck have I just seen? A Christ film?" Maybe, but Jodorowsky has created one of the most phantasmagoric westerns ever made - the images will burn in your mind for a long time. Think of "El Topo" as a religious, violent, comic-book fantasy western done with more style, pizazz and nerve than anything Hollywood could manage. It is no masterpiece but it is unforgettable.

The 'King' towers above all

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It is now at a close. "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" has brought the long-awaited trilogy to a grand finish, as epic as one could ever imagine. "The Return of the King" is easily the film that all of us have been waiting for - a sweeping tale of true heroism and chivalry unlike anything I have ever seen before. To say that it blows away the two previous films is only icing on the cake - it confirms that we have witnessed one of the most emotionally overpowering fantasies ever made.

"Return of the King" begins with a flashback to Smeagol (Andy Serkis), a hobbit who discovers his fellow hobbit friend has found the all-powerful ring. Smeagol relishes the ring so much that he fights for it and kills his friend. Slowly, through the years. he is so consumed by its power that he transforms into the ugly, skeletal creature we all know as Gollum. Thus, we are left with other fellow hobbits, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his best friend, Sam (Sean Astin), as they make their way to Mordor to destroy the ring, the very same ring that Gollum craves. Considering Gollum is along for this journey, he tries to turn Frodo against Sam, claiming Sam wants the ring for himself.

Meanwhile, we return to the heroes of the former battle at Helm's Deep and Isengard from "The Two Towers," which include the powerful wizard Gandalf the White (Ian McKellen), the Ranger and soon-to-be King Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas, the elf archer (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli, the feisty, boisterous dwarf (John Rhys-Davies). All four are rejoined with the hobbits, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), last seen in battle fighting along with the Ents in Isengard. There is to be one or two more battles to fight, mainly to distract the fiery Eye of Sauron so that Frodo can complete his dangerous quest. After all, the Eye sees all.

It is highly recommended that one be knowledgeable of the first two "Rings" films (if not the book) or else you'll be confounded by what transpires on screen. For those of us who have been wowed by the first two epic films, "Return of the King" delivers everything you can possibly want from a fantasy film. Middle-Earth is as amazing as ever to look at, particularly the sights of rolling hills and flat lands where a tower can be seen in the distance (all of this was, of course, shot in New Zealand). For once, director Peter Jackson doesn't overdo the sweeping panoramic shots of people on horses headed for a single destination. He lets the shots breathe on their own without forcing the camera to do so. One of the more amazingly detailed shots that breathlessly combines CGI with real landscapes is a scene set at Minas Tirith, the home of a depressed and menacing ruler named Denethor (John Noble), who is in mourning over the death of one of his sons. Denethor seems content to sit at his table and eat without ever resorting to the raging war that threatens his home. Gandalf and Pippin try to convince Denethor to get reinforcements for the extensive number of Orcs headed their way. What follows is Pippin climbing to the top of tower and setting fire to a beacon as a signal to Aragorn. So we see one fiery signal sent from one mountainous peak to another until it's finally seen by Aragorn. From close-up to wide shot, sometimes in the same shot, Jackson accomplishes something rare - he shows that Middle-Earth is a real place that seems lived-in and occupied. There is size, shape and scope in these images that lends it an intimacy few other fantasies can match.

To say the battle scenes are not extraordinary is to deny Jackson's own genius at staging such scenes. The Siege of Minas Tirith and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields are the most exciting, nail-biting and nerve-frying battle scenes I have ever seen. We see huge solid rock formations thrown across fields of Orcs ready for battle, enormous elephant-like animals stampeding in record numbers, phantom armies (sent by Aragorn from the Cursed Mountains) that whip their way across the enemy in flashes of green color, arrows flung that fly across the sky twenty sometimes thirtyfold, cave trolls pounding their fists against large entry doors, and so on. Outside of the battle scenes, we have Frodo facing a huge tarantula called Shelob, who traps our hero with web and almost mummifies him. There are also the lava lakes of Mordor as Frodo, tired and hungry, mostly from carrying the ring, struggles to make it to the dangerous fires where the ring must be destroyed, once and for all. I doubt even George Lucas could muster a tenth of the brilliance and innovation of such battles as Jackson has.

If it was not for the characters and their humanity, their fears and their desires, nothing that happens in "Return of the King" or, for that matter, the entire trilogy would matter. As fascinating as Ralph Bakshi's animated and truncated "Lord of the Rings" version was, Peter Jackson's is the standard by which all fantasy films will be measured. At this point, we care for Frodo and Sam, and see how crucial their relationship is and how much they need each other to survive this epic war. Some may find that Sean Astin as Sam is too willful with his tears but I found that it was necessary - so much has happened in their adventures that I felt for Sam when Frodo leaves him behind, ever so briefly. But the one character that I'll never forget is Gollum (Andy Serkis), the former hobbit who is the most affected by the ring. He turns out to be quite the mischievous, greedy, sneaky little murderer, characteristics which were only hinted at in the "Two Towers." This physically wrecked, schizophrenic abomination is clearly intent on possessing that ring through all the treachery and greed he can muster. Gollum is clearly the most memorable character of the trilogy.

Gandalf the White has a bigger role in this film, facing more forces of evil and using his blinding white staff to defeat any and everything in his path. Aragorn is merely our trustworthy hero, knowing he has a future as King of Gondor, and he is as persuasive as Robin Hood in rallying the troops to fight for what they all believe in. Legolas and Gimli merely show up to fight but Legolas proves as adept in firing his arrows with precision as ever before. Gimli has a lot more colorful dialogue this time out. Likewise, Merry and Pippin, two formerly child-like hobbits who only desired food, have become as affected and changed by this journey as anyone else.

Of course, there are many other characters in "Return of the King," particularly the return of Eowyn (Miranda Otto) and her father, King Theoden (Bernard Hill), not to mention the Witch-King, the Ents, Bilbo Baggins, and much more. If I have one gripe, it is that there are too many endings and fade-outs towards the end - it runs on for almost twenty minutes. Though I've noticed the book ends the same way, I miss the character of Saruman (Christopher Lee) and his own fate when meeting with Gandalf - a deleted scene that has been included in the extended DVD. Still, there is the marriage of Aragorn and former elf, Arwen (Liv Tyler), the latter of which I would loved to seen included in an extra scene or two, in a beautiful and rhapsodic sequence to behold. And Sam's own return to the Shire with a wife and children shows there is hope for all. What is most noticeable is that Jackson injects the feeling that everyone and everything has changed, despite the fact normalcy has returned. Too much darkness has come to pass for the hobbits and others to forget their own personal tragedies.

Most notably, director Peter Jackson has accomplished something few ever hoped to achieve - he has made Middle-Earth as real a place as any with characters as real as anyone could have hoped for. Tolkien fans should rejoice: the King has finally ruled with a cinematic iron fist.

Footnote: a possible movie connection occurs in "Return of the King." One of the Orc Lieutenants, unnamed as I recall, has a melted, monstrous face that instantly reminded me of the Sloth creature in "The Goonies." Maybe the homage is not intentional but both films do star Sean Astin. Hmmm.

Gollum's own preciousness

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: 

THE TWO TOWERS (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I had seen "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" a couple of times before seeing the second installment, and I was struck by its emotional density. Every character is given a human dimension and every tragedy is treated with cosmic significance in a world far removed from our own. Though not a great film, the first "Lord of the Rings" has real power to it. "The Two Towers," the middle section of the trilogy, is not nearly as sweeping or grandiose as the first epic. It has action and zest to it but the intimacy is gone. Director Peter Jackson is intent on throwing everything in except the kitchen sink.

When we last left the J.R.R. Tolkien world, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Josh Astin) were prepared to go to Mordor where Frodo would destroy the all-powerful ring forever. Coming along on this journey is the skeletal-looking creature Gollum (Andy Serkis), who initially attempts to steal the ring from Frodo. This ring exudes a magic and a will of its own, and can make men of nobility change into traitors and murderers. After a major struggle with Gollum, the three acquiesce and head to Mordor using Gollum as their guide.

A war is starting to brew in Middle-Earth. Saruman (Christopher Lee), the evil wizard, has amassed an army of 10,000 Uruk-Hai, basically creatures with ugly eyes and distorted, wizened faces. There are also the Orcs, another race of creatures we had seen in the last film. They are all warriors who are ready for battle, and see no harm in pulling trees off the ground. Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), our hero who is destined to become king one day, has to warn the real king, Theoden (Bernard Hill), of the growing armies of darkness. Brad Dourif is Grima Wormtongue, a pale-skinned, vampiric-looking servant to Saruman who betrays Theoden with the help of Saruman's spell. Naturally, Aragorn cannot go at this alone. He teams up with the elf, Legolas (Orlando Bloom), the feisty, competitive dwarf, Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), and the wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) who was last seen battling the demon Balrog (this battle is briefly reprised with a different outcome). Just when Gandalf was thought to be dead, he survives and becomes Gandalf the White, a more powerful wizard who can stop anyone in his tracks with forces of blinding white light.

Meanwhile, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), two hobbits who had to let Frodo go his own way, are captured by the Orcs. They eventually flee into the Fanghorn Forest, a forest few ever dare to enter. This forest has living trees named Ents, who can walk with grace from one edge of the forest to the other. One particular Ent named Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies) helps Merry and Pippin on their journey to Saruman's stronghold.

As in "Fellowship of the Ring," every image of "The Two Towers" is forceful and serenely beautiful. Though director Peter Jackson overdoes the sweeping shots of the countryside and still shoots the action scenes a little too tightly, the film does have much to offer. The special-effects are consistently dazzling and eye-opening. The creatures are all believable and this world of Middle-Earth is still quite a vision of grand vistas of the countryside, foggy swamps, fiery castles and mountains. No shot is wasted and no effect is too impossible for Mr. Jackson - he has created a storybook of fantasy images one can only dream about. I recently looked through a delightful illustration book of Tolkien's trilogy and I can say that the images are as crystallized as the ones created in the film - even the Gollum looks exactly as one could imagine on screen. This is a world understood on the page by Tolkien, and cinematically understood by Jackson's own vision.

There is action to spare, especially during the climactic Helm's Deep battle, but the intimacy and emotional weight of "Fellowship of the Ring" is clearly gone. The hobbits are taken matter-of-factly, as is our unshaven hero, Aragorn, and the elf and the dwarf. A return by Liv Tyler as Arwen, the elf who fell in love with Aragorn, springs some emotion but, alas, is too brief to strike any chord. Likewise the cameo by Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, the queen of the Elves. The one character that brings some pathos is Gollum, the enervated creature who may or may not have been a hobbit named Smeagol. His wide eyes of confusion and hate indicate the undying need for the ring he once possessed ("My precious!"). This creature was created by CGI and yet, despite some reservations I have about this technology, this character remains the most convincing animated creation I have yet seen on film. He moves, gyrates, spits, talks and jumps like a real being. The exception is that this creature seems like a real actor, emoting between looks of fright and anger with equal aplomb. Andy Serkis, who voices the creature and was on the set to match the motion control through CGI, brilliantly captures a lost, schizophrenic soul of Middle-Earth - he remains the most human character in the film by far, as if he was thrust into this world to live a life of pain and regret.

"The Two Towers" is recommended for its visual beauty and for the amazing, memorable Gollum character. The rest of the film will likely make no sense to anyone who has not read the books or seen the first film in this epic series. There is no beginning, middle or end - this is clearly the middle chapter and no recap of past events has been implemented. Overlong and overcooked, "The Two Towers" is still worthwhile entertainment and remains stunning mostly in terms of what it accomplishes visually. I still miss the intimacy.

Ho, Ho, Hoffmeister's Christmas Story

THE CHRISTMAS CONSULTANT (2012)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I have no recollection of the last time I saw something that starred David Hasselhoff that I liked. The TV series of "Knight Rider" seems like ages ago and I suppose I enjoyed it as a pre-teen ("Baywatch" never entered my radar). So it is rather odd to state that a new Lifetime Christmas TV movie called "The Christmas Consultant" (which stars Hasselhoff in the titular role) is not a snoozer and not a fruitcake train wreck. It is harmless and sweet enough to watch, just once mind you. Do not make this film a perennial Christmas selection where there are a few others more worthy, but you will still not waste your time either by seeing it once.

A family crisis has ensued in the Fletcher household when everyone is too busy to plan a proper Christmas party. Maya Fletcher (Caroline Rhea), an intensely busy businesswoman forever clinging to her cell phone, has to invite an important client to her party, a Russian perfume magnate, who wants nothing more than to experience an "AMERICAN CHRISTMAS!" He gets to say that line at least a half dozen times. The Fletcher family also has a few relatives on their way. So what will Maya do since her husband expects her to do all the work, her young son would rather be throwing snowballs, her youngest daughter looks like a third cousin of Winona Ryder's character from "Beetlejuice" who would rather play a fantasy world with her dolls, and her eldest daughter who has her eyes on a cute guy.

Enter the Christmas Consultant himself, Owen (David Hasselhoff), who will save the day. He is hired by Maya and her husband to essentially do what this family ought to be able to do - put up Christmas decorations in and outside the house; select a tree; cook; bake; make eggnog; sing Christmas carols, and bring joy to the world. Something like that.

Hasselhoff makes this all tolerable with his quick comic timing and precise double-takes. He also has a final scene that is quite moving. Clearly "Christmas Consultant" is obvious from the word go, but it is never cloying, irritating or ickily sentimental. It is a pleasant film to watch with pleasant enough faces and some good cheer. You can have it on the telly during Christmas and not feel that your egg nog got sour while watching it. There is something to be said for that.

I WANT...THE RING!

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

I read portions of the epic book of J.R.R. Tolkien's hugely popular epic fantasy. There is no doubt that it is the epic fantasy of all time because the characters and themes of this grandly surreal world has filtered through our pop culture radar ever since the books were first published. Many films have tried to capture the magic of Tolkien's world. For example, Tolkien's books are the models of fantasy for George Lucas's own "Star Wars" trilogy. I love stories about goblins, ogres, fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, etc. "Lord of the Rings" is an often breathtaking film adaptation but it is curiously overdone and remote, and I can't say that is true of "Star Wars," as unfair a comparison as it may be.

Tolkien's world, known as Middle-Earth, is entirely imaginary and comprised of creatures and sounds and sights entirely not out of our own world. There are the Hobbits, the good-natured, good-hearted, fondly talkative, hairy-footed, pointy-eared people who are about as tall as dwarves. They can live for years and years, as they do chatting it up, smoking herbs and eating merrily in their private world of Shire. The hobbit of pure heart in this story is Frodo Baggins (a perfectly well-cast Elijah Wood), who embarks on an adventure to bring a powerful ring, known as the One Ring, to the fires of Mount Doom and destroy it once and for all time. Easier said than done. Is Frodo up to the challenge?

There are wizards in this world as well. There is the good wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and an evil wizard named Saruman (Christopher Lee) who wants the ring, as most of the characters do. There are storms of faceless horsemen riding in stallions and stampeding through Middle-Earth looking for Frodo. It is Gandalf who tells Frodo to carry the ring, rather than Frodo's uncle Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) who might be a tad greedy. After all, this Ring can make men and women do strange things - you need will power to use the Ring wisely. Not unlike the Force.

Along this perilous journey, Frodo is accompanied by three Hobbit friends, Sam (Sean Astin), Mercy (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). Of course, Hobbits can only do so much damage in actual combat. Also along for the ride are the members of the Fellowship, which include Boromir (Sean Bean), the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), an archery elf expert, and the mysterious, aloof Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen). Together their journey lasts through several different lands of beauty, endless caves, cascading waterfalls, a battle with a tree troll, a flaming duel with a vicious dragon known as Balrog, and so on. There are also more characters who pop up including the serene queen of elves Lady Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), the serene, dreamy elf Arwen (Liv Tyler), and more and more creatures such as Orcs and the ring wraiths, known as Nazgul, who gallop around in stallions that shriek. These silhouetted Black Riders are as fearsome as the Headless Horseman.

Director Peter Jackson ("Heavenly Creatures") does a massively complicated job of bringing all these characters and vistas together in a film that tops the three-hour mark. There is so much to take in and cherish in "Lord of the Rings" that it is no wonder it will take two more movies to bring closure to all the incidents and events. It is like a gloriously illustrated picture book come to life. Jackson and his band of set designers and special-effects artists spare no expense in creating this fictional world.

But if I am afforded the luxury of reviewing this film, I can honestly say that "Lord of the Rings" is deeply imaginative but, at its core, somehow uninvolving. Jackson affords his actors the luxury of close-ups and there are so many in the film that there is nothing left to look at. You can only see Wood's beatific and worried Frodo face with wide blue eyes so often before it becomes repetitive. McKellen is a force-of-nature on film so I was not displeased with seeing his face so closely, but what of any close-up shots of Christopher Lee, the dueling wizard? More scenes where we see the interior of Bilbo Baggins's house were needed. These shots work because they are shown as master shots for the most part. Why we can't ever see a hobbit standing next to any of the taller characters for more than three seconds is beyond me. A hobbit has those hairy feet and pointy-ears, and I do not recall a single shot where we would see a hobbit walking through a given space showing his whole body. This may have been done to evoke how small the hobbits were but there are ways of conveying stature and size without all those random close-ups.

Jackson never quite shows the grandeur, the mysticism of Middle-Earth. He too often cuts away from expansive long-shots to extreme, tight close-ups. When the camera swoops up and down in territories and castles, we notice them fleetingly but never long enough to feel like we are in them. It's as if Jackson felt that audiences might get bored at any given moment so he had to keep cutting away and show us an action scene and bring the Dolby noise level higher and higher.

The action scenes are also a disappointment. Just as in the original "Harry Potter" and any action film post-"Gladiator," everything is shot so tight that the fighting remains a series of blurry shots, nothing more. Jackson could have looked at those amazing fight scenes in Errol Flynn's "Adventures of Robin Hood" where we would always see the action in full shots and where the close-ups would occur when necessary. Here, everything is shot so tightly that unless you listen to the sound effects, it is never clear who is winning or losing in any of the countless sword fights (and no, I was not sitting too close to the screen). So all the sound and fury swallows up the screen in extremely fast edits that lose our focus as to what is occurring. The more intimate, quiet moments are beautifully done, as in the exquisite moment where Arwen tries to save Frodo from dying, but more often than not, they do not involve us. It is all magical to be sure but a fantasy epic often prides itself on engaging the viewer from moment to moment by seeing the fantastical settings as a backdrop for the characters.

I do urge people to see "Lord of the Rings" but I feel that it could have been so much more. Peter Jackson is a frenetic director to be sure but he needs to dial down the heat a bit. Tolkien fans may not care much but I prefer more intimacy in this epic than confounding action scenes. I like the characters, the situations, the landscapes (as brief as they may be), the varied color lighting schemes, and the dialogue. It is just too cramped and overheated to qualify as anything more than a grand, slightly undernourished epic.