Saw it. Loved it. Goodnight.
SINCE YOU'VE READ THE REVIEWS BY NOW: I'll be brief. The most poignant scene - amidst the gigantic battles in defense of men, the final struggle against Sauron - was one during the extended epilogue when the hobbits return to the Shire. They're on ponies, purple-robed: heroes. A jowled halfling, sweeping his front walk, watches the group as they trot past. He scowled at Gandalf in the very beginning of the first movie; he scowls now. The beautiful, peaceful Shire is never lost - it never changes. [That's not as Tolkien wrote it, but then, if fidelity to literature were the benchmark for movies, no one would watch The Wizard of Oz ever again.]
YOU LEARN SOMETHING EVERY DAY: Someone who doesn't consider himself an easy sell makes a powerful point about retelling the story to your audience, not necessarily the author's. Tolkien's near-Luddite paranoia with industrial modernity is the most off-putting aspect of his biography; if anything, it brings the genius back down to earth. But not much more. He held sullen, stubborn, irrational fears, and we should consider ourselves fortunate Tolkien happened to dislike allegories, too.
Before the movie trilogy was even a twinkle in Peter Jackson's eye, I had read the first two books. I'll admit that plot discrepancies did distract me throughout the first viewing of each film. Return of the King, I knew nothing about; I assumed Sauron would fall, Aragorn would assume his place as Isildur's heir, and some measure of happiness would be enjoyed by the cast of good. Last night, then, was a far less encumbered experience than 2002 and 2001 - there were, of course, scenes I couldn't imagine Tolkien had written. But I took the movie in its own entirity, rather than an exercise in grading Jackson's skills in antiphony.
When I first began this post, late last night, I ran a Google search for "Lord of the Rings" images; I found myself staring at a video capture from a LOTR cartoon produced some years ago. Could that release have managed to capture all of Tolkien's spirit, history and dialogue? The obvious answer is "no," and that should be telling for those of us most familiar with Tolkien to separate book from movie - whether or not we're resigned to accepting Jackson's films as the definitive version. Even though it's a natural and reasonable request, the better the typewritten original, seeing a complete translation is a silly and impossible proposition. It is said that perfectionists never finish anything; Jackson isn't one, and he should be rewarded for his creation. Jonah Goldberg:
Ultimately, these movies are a love letter to Tolkien. You can get into a huge argument about what's left out from the book — and why. But at the end of the day, it is inconceivable that any other movie of any commercially viable length would have elicited similar objections.Two things are important from my perspective: Is it a good movie? You're damn right it is. And: Is it loyal to the most important and largest themes of the book? I think so. Friendship, loyalty, duty, honor, sacrifice, regret, change, memory, and remorseless Orc-smashing are all there. I still need time to digest the whole epic and see it a few more times. But, I think it's fair to say even now that this really is the greatest trilogy in the history of movie-making. And, much more impressive, it's one of the greatest movies in the history of movie-making, too.
Sit back and enjoy.