Eight years in the making, and almost as long to watch, the Lord Of The Rings franchise is essentially two films without endings and one with 27.
As an exercise in re-enacting battles that never were, it’s technically phenomenal; as a drama it’s repetitive and dry, like watching someone else playing chess for nine-and-a-half hours (or 11-and-a-half hours if you’re really keen).
No wonder Bernard Hill looks so knackered.
Make no mistake; aside from the scenes exploring the narcotic power of the ring itself (around 40 of 558 minutes), this is a film about fighting (roughly 120 minutes).
Nothing wrong with that – most blockbusters are – but then they don’t go on forever. 300 was over in 111 minutes (and much less afraid of its own homoeroticism); boxing matches are sometimes finished in three.
The only conflict here is conflict itself, so why must we spend aeons watching secondary characters preparing for action like substitutes warming up for the big match?
“I don’t want to be in the battle, but waiting on the edges of one I can’t escape is even worse,” whines Pippin. Welcome to the party, pal.
In no particular order, the remaining 400-or-so minutes are filled with: people walking to the edge of cliffs and pointing at stuff, doors being thrown open into chambers, straight-to-camera laughing, New Zealand vista-porn and seasoned British actors gazing off into the misty distance, talking politics while their American counterparts talk food.
Dull, dull, dull.
Excellent at scale but dreadful at depth or detail, the films have no texture, humanity or intrigue.
Perhaps that’s why the Orcs’ smelting sessions are more interesting than the interplay between the leads, and the most compelling character is the CG Gollum.
Ian McKellen’s sonorous tones could bring the phonebook to life (sometimes it feels like they are), Viggo Mortensen’s passable if a bit priggish, Sean Bean’s around much too briefly and everyone else is a Skywalker rather than a Solo, falling back on sniff-the-fart theatrics as the script suffocates on its own self-importance.
Handsome but bland (much like Orlando Bloom), the films pay undue reverence to a source that isn’t actually very good, the atrophied, endlessly appendiced witterings of a scholar desperate to escape the real world for the safety of a sexless, deathless neverwhere.
No doubt it’s meant to be nourishing, but there’s no meat – or, for that matter, “po-ta-toes” (as Sean Astin puts it) – to this convoluted, rather than complex story.
Strip away the awesome FX, unpronounceable names and give-a-shit history lessons and what are you left with?
A half-day-long film about two dim short-arses and a junkie trying to chuck some stolen jewellery off a cliff... or is it just me?
VOICES OF REASON
Matthew Leyland
“The only conflict is conflict itself...” Ah, but what conflict. Each battle bigger and better than the last. Fiery demons, monster elephants, angry trees... mind you, I’d still prefer Willow.
Jamie Graham
LOTR has no “depth”, “detail”, “texture”, “humanity”? Compared to what – Transformers? If only all blockbusters exhibited such craft, character beats and all-round TLC. This will stand tall as Treebeard long after the fêted FX have faded.
Jonathan Dean
You’re wrong. The thing is, the more of LOTR you watch, the less dull it gets. After “depth”, “detail” etc? Bung on those 11.5 hour extended DVDs and find it there. Bet you can’t wait for The Hobbit. It’s in three parts.
Richard Jordan
Fool of a took! The trilogy is as much about the Fellowship’s inner conflict as it is about the war. Lose the lead-ups and the battles would lose their impact, while the “vista porn” shows us what’s truly at stake: the annihilation of a beautiful Middle-earth.
Are you a LOTR-lover or -hater? Let us know below...
Comments
Monkeynuts30
Sep 23rd 2012, 7:25
So much irrational haterage boiling over... cannot think of logical, reasoned response... am only left with the rash, emotional need to see the author of this article hung by his testes over an anthill after being honey basted. I'm sure the urge to lash out will fade after Matt writes a new article... until then though? FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!
Alert a moderator
devilsfoxes
Sep 23rd 2012, 8:20
Come on lads. This is a pretty undercooked essay by any stretch. Lots of points but needs references and elaboration to even understand the critiques. What exactly does "no texture" refer to. Aesthetic? Mis-en-scene? Production design? Theme? Hate to be the English Lit Prof but "needs development". But I do love the "everyone's a Skywalker not Solo point". Hard to argue the over-earnest lack of sexy, mature bad to the bone.
Alert a moderator
Hadouken76
Sep 23rd 2012, 9:26
If you hate a series from the start, you will never have a balanced opinion about it. The same can be applied to the the Harry Potter series, where one of the films was famously described as '2 hours of people arguing and camping'.
Alert a moderator
BlackBird
Sep 23rd 2012, 10:35
This is meant to be a joke right? Something to p*ss off the fanboys? ...right? Otherwise I'm seriously judging your ability to comment on films.
Alert a moderator
Cobby
Sep 23rd 2012, 10:57
I can do what you've done to any film. Watch: Silence of the Lambs, just some guy eatin people, innit? One Flew Over the Cookoo's nest, some guy pretends he's mental, nurse is a bi***, so what? Boiling a movie down to it's basic elements and slating them is NOT critiquing a movie. Quite frankly, I'm astounded this drivel was published, even on a website. If you thought the movie was convoluted, that's you being an idiot, not the film-maker's fault. And YOU slate TOLKIEN for poor writing!? You offer next to no examples of your ridiculous statements, you've shown that you're not interested in the depth of the films by saying the history is 'pointless', and shown you're an a*s-hat by wanting SEX in LOTR!!!??? Yeah, it also needed 17,000 explosions, the orcs should have had ACRs instead of arrows, Michael Bay should have directed and Samuel L Jackson should have been Gandalf. To conclude, you sir, are a dick.
Alert a moderator
devilsfoxes
Sep 23rd 2012, 11:04
@Cobby. Boiling your response down to it's only useful critique of the critique, "you offer no examples".
Alert a moderator
aleks989
Sep 23rd 2012, 11:12
OMG !!! I can not believe that THIS KIND of Article has come to fruition. Are you in your right mind ?!!?!?!??!? The Lord of The Rings trilogy is one of the best, if not THE best epic trilogies of ALL TIMES. I'd be mindful about getting out on the street after writing this abomination, It'll probably get you killed. Nothing more to be said.
Alert a moderator
Mattsimus
Sep 23rd 2012, 11:40
Hahaha only the most ridiculous so called review / opinion on prob the best movie trilogy to date! To be fair most of the past articles have been a tad s**te n dull on TF lately so to use LOTR to stir up the hornets nest was quite clever but lets forget intelligence as we all know the truth so let's just rejoice and sing MATTTT GLASSSBBYYY ISS A TWWWWWAAAATTTTTTT..........
Alert a moderator
Mattsimus
Sep 23rd 2012, 11:45
Oh btw@cobby...... Good point, we can all focus on the negatives and hail 2D concepts, but LOTR has far too many positives mate! Let us worry not the crownless again shall be king! XMX
Alert a moderator
gregssheppard
Sep 23rd 2012, 11:57
Totally agree. I could have written this myself. I never felt all that into the films and rewatching has done nothing to convince me of their supposed worth. The biggest problem is if you go back and read the books they are just as flawed (more so arguably), in character pacing and plot and a slavish adaptation of them without acknowledging and adjusting those flaws on screen leads to a flawed film series. The source also happened to ruin adult's fantasy writing for 40 years as it endless tried to copy it (with the exception of Terry Pratchett) and it wasnt till the 90s fantasy really began to come out of it's shadow with authors like Neil Gaimen and GRR Martin etc and to some extent an abandonment of the orcs and elves high fantasy. It's not really engaging, as a film it is shot in a very workmanlike way, there isnt a really visual flair to it. The first and most sedate one is ironically the most interesting because it has a charm and so on the others abandon. They arent full of depth the more you watch them as some commentators mention the only thing rewatching them does is convince you they are pure surface (and that surface is dull). It reminds me of what I was once told about Anchorman that it's funny on so many levels and you have to watch it a bunch of times to get it all, then I watched it and while funny there was no layers to it, it was exactly what it was. I'd pick a series like the Harry Potter films which have a charm and a much better realised world. I think the Hobbit is the far superior book, however it being dragged into 3 films has made me immediately not care
Alert a moderator
Bixbyla
Sep 23rd 2012, 11:59
How is the emotional depth dull? Which other trilogies or stand alone films can best the emotional turmoil that's present throughout the entire 400 minute+ running time? Boromir doesn't stick around for long enough? The clever thing about his character is that he's what the films needed, someone to be the catalyst for destruction among the fellowship. He's not a plot device but he does send the fellowship towards an untimely doom. Aside from this, his transformation is convincing and heart breaking. He believes in Merry and Pippin and comforts them throughout the film, only to die protecting them and giving Frodo time to escape. So don't give me s**t about that, man. We all know this article was a good excuse for some bone shaking anger and, well, it worked!
Alert a moderator
andrewdirks
Sep 23rd 2012, 12:02
"Handsome but bland... the films pay undue reverence to a source that isn’t actually very good, the atrophied, endlessly appendiced witterings of a scholar desperate to escape the real world for the safety of a sexless, deathless neverwhere." You should fire your incredibly ignorant and pathetic excuse for a writer. Mr. Glasby wouldn't know good literature if I beat him over the head with it, and I'd rather like to after reading his snobbish and incredibly rude review of what was an incredibly difficult adaptation of incredibly intricate source material. Lord of the Rings is what gave me a passion for reading as a child, and I would not be the person I am today without the infinite wisdom and knowledge books have imparted upon me as a person. Tolkien was not only a linguistic genius but he created the entire concept of true fantasy worlds. Writers from C.S. Lewis (who is admittedly, as bland as Glasby wrongly perceives Tolkein) to George R. R. Martin owe much of their writing influence to this man. I cannot grasp any reason other than a limited intellect and horribly tainted ideas of what constitutes good fiction that would drive someone to dislike Lord of the Rings. With all undue respect, you're a damned fool Matt Glasby, and not worthy of calling yourself a writer, let alone a decent human being."
Alert a moderator
Bixbyla
Sep 23rd 2012, 12:05
And as for the "too many endings" business. Can someone write an article on that please? Please? If you're passionate enough about writing about the so called lack of "texture, humanity" and "intrigue" the surely you can write a well based objective article on that topic. I, for one, think it has a very good SINGLE ENDING!
Alert a moderator
amitawaghade
Sep 23rd 2012, 12:07
This author is a Transformers fan...
Alert a moderator
Heisenberg
Sep 23rd 2012, 12:08
I have to say i found first movie horribly boring, so much so that after 3 attempts i still couldnt watch it all before turning it off. The keyboard warrior saying the writer of the article is a t**t simply because he doesn't like it is extremely childish, like those 12 year old girls who cry when people say Justin Bieber is s**te(who you also probably mock with no sense of the word irony). I know i will never watch the other two movies, and i know i will never watch the hobbit movies when they come out, as in my mind from reading the book, it will be even more boring when spanned out over 3 movies, and please dont shout "THE APPENDICES" at me, the movies will still be boring to me. Some people just aren't into the fantastical kind of movies that LOTR, Hobbit, HP etc are, and just because you don't agree(or simply refuse to try and understand) with the writers reasoning, that doesn't make them wrong.
Alert a moderator
Mattsimus
Sep 23rd 2012, 12:52
@heisenberg yes it does make them wrong and thats MY opinion, as Hadouken76 pointed out if you don't like the series or aren't interested in it then your gonna slate it as its not your bag yadda yadda but the bloke who wrote it took an opportunity to dig at a well respected highly regarded and OSCAR WORTHY book adaptation to film to get a reaction and thus has succeeded in doing so consequently making himself a t**t! ..... Sorry and for the record that's my opinion. XMX
Alert a moderator
Heisenberg
Sep 23rd 2012, 13:15
@mattsimus, maybe he didnt write it to get a reaction, but your being overly sensitive towards about it, and ironically, making yourself look like a t**t. You call people ignorant names, say people are wrong, and pretty much try to state your opinion as fact......sounds familiar.
Alert a moderator
bellelouroo
Sep 23rd 2012, 13:49
bloody hell.i didnt even read the entire article n i hate it already...lotr is my favourite film of all time! i think the movies convey such deep ideas such as good n evil n well casting's brilliant, acting's brilliant, cinematography's brilliant...n who can diss tolkein's story telling? honey u picked the wrong film to hate...
Alert a moderator
egoexmachina
Sep 23rd 2012, 14:19
Shameful attempt of an opinion essay. Send this Glasby-guy back to film school. Or junior high.
Alert a moderator
marc96
Sep 23rd 2012, 14:50
it seems to me that this was written just to get a rise out of those of us who love the trilogy, it is my all time favourite film & more specifically the fellowship of the ring is my favourite of the 3, it may not have the action of the others but its about the characters.. i can understand why the films arent everyones taste & those people give decent reasons as to why, this just sounded pathetic. if you're going to criticise what is (in my opinion) the greatest film ever at least come up with proper reasons....... although the bit bout orlando bloom i agree with
Alert a moderator
chewonmyfingers
Sep 23rd 2012, 14:50
It's childish articles like this that cause you to lose a reader. Not that you care because I'm sure you have plenty of them. However, you can rest assure that any time I see the Total Film name I will avoid it. I will also make sure to let the rest of the world know how immature and biased this site is.
Alert a moderator
Hadouken76
Sep 23rd 2012, 15:02
Can I have a go? The Harry Potter films were charmless, boring and overlong...now dance puppets! Mwahahaha
Alert a moderator
Cobby
Sep 23rd 2012, 15:11
@devilsfoxes that's quite clearly not my only useful tidbit, and I also clearly point out that he's ludicrously said that the films sexless, has 'pointless history lessons', and also the text is directly above you dude, you can all see what I'm talking about just by reading it, whereas I'm just not convinced the author can back up statements like "No doubt it’s meant to be nourishing, but there’s no meat... to this convoluted, rather than complex story." And I'm sorry, but again I have to say the statement "Strip away the awesome FX, unpronounceable names and give-a-s**t history lessons..." just shows that this guy is a moron. He argues he wants substance, and then says he wants the 'history lessons' taken out. Absolute clown, that alone makes it a terribly written article.
Alert a moderator
Cobby
Sep 23rd 2012, 15:15
Also, my problem is not with the fact that this guy doesn't like the film, it's that his arguments about why it's dull are completely at odds with some of his later comments, it's just a poorly written article that I'm surprised Total Film would publish.
Alert a moderator
StevePotter
Sep 23rd 2012, 15:48
While I think you're INCREDIBLY wrong, and I don't really agree with your arguments, I can appreciate the fact that you at least back up your arguments. I can see where this film would get boring for some people, even though I quite like them. Just don't write an article about how you think "The Dark Knight" is boring or I will cut you.
Alert a moderator
jared3710
Sep 23rd 2012, 16:16
Mmmm!?! Its always interesting to hear words of ditraction and opposing views. I mean after all we are constantly bombarded by the Great Hype Machine, whether it be music, movies, books, you name it...and alot of times it is a case of over hype. The merchandising and adverisng boffs telling us what's the next best thing...and this thing gonna blow your mind. But sometimes there is a reason why some things are universally praised...things like the works of Charles Dickens, Bach's French Suite, William Shakespear, Friends, Beethoven's 9th, and JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings...it's because they are good! It's because they are the very best of what they are!! In the case of Peter Jackson's adapation, even if you don't like the fantasy genre, the fact that he and his writers managed to bring it from the page to the screen is worthy of accolade alone and to have done it with such care and attention. Understanding the,sometimes massive, difference between a literary narrative and cinematic. Knowing what has to be left out( Tom Bomberdil), what needs toneing down and what may need expanding on...the collasping staircase in Moria and the lighting of the beacons in Gondor, to name two. To call The Lord of the Rings dull is just courting controversy for controversy's sake! It's like saying Mozart uses too many notes or Shakespear too many words. Playing Devil's Advocate is one thing...being an idiot is something else. The Lord of the Rings may not be the best book ever written, but it's certainly one of the greatest stories ever told and Jackson's film/s is a truely brilliant adaptation of one of the greasest stories ever told.
Alert a moderator
calledreuben
Sep 23rd 2012, 16:28
This article is so bad!!!! It's easy to b*tch about any film, which is exactly what Matt Glasby's done here but there are no justified opinions here it's just a bunch of sh*t!! This is just so terrible, I'm so disappointed in Total Film, I see why Empire sells more!!!!!!
Alert a moderator
Mattsimus
Sep 23rd 2012, 16:42
@heisenj**z if your telling me this article wasn't on purposely put in place to get a rise out of people because they know themselves how great the trilogy is then your obviously either completely deluded or very young and spend your free time under your duvet cracking one out to Conan comics! You are right about one thing though I was sensitive about it because I am a fan and even if I wasn't could appreciate both the scale and quality of the LOTR trilogy...... Is that ok with you putsy? Plus why you so defensive over my opinion of the TF critic? Is he your pimp or summin plus I didn't insult you until you called me a t**t so try not to cry over me calling you putsy! X
Alert a moderator
Hadouken76
Sep 23rd 2012, 17:03
Its articles like these that turn everyone in an army of Dalidabs..
Alert a moderator
jackstarr
Sep 23rd 2012, 17:37
To be honest, I can't say I don't agree with this article... the second film especially was hard to sit through, though I really enjoyed the first. I don't get all this fanboy hatred... the guy has an opinion, so what? I haven't been familiar with LOTR until recently, and though they were good in parts overall it was a pretty dull and overlong experience.
Alert a moderator
nezihbouali
Sep 23rd 2012, 17:37
Pure blasmephy. You must be blind to if you can't recognize the best movie trilogy, epic and fantasy of all time. Never have a film adaptation been so worthy of the book, which is the best fantasy books and was written by the father of the modern fantasy: J.R.R. Tolkien. That writer has invented a world with its detailed history, species, lands, languages and characters. The Lord of The Rings took 17 years to write and nine years to make as a film. The time and talent used to make the movie is unimaginable! And you dare talk about depth. Dull dull dull...
Alert a moderator
Heisenberg
Sep 23rd 2012, 17:56
@Mattimus, so instantly were you offended and upset by my comments that you immediately call me heisenj**z? and then a putsy?(whatever the f**k that is) and then come back with that age old king of witty banter that is the "masturbation" putdown and yet try to imply that i am immature? Ok, kid. And I didn't call you a t**t, i merely suggested your making yourself look like one, there is a difference but i guess when your precious movie is being offended, the blood red hate in your eyes disabled your ability to read correctly. I'm deluded am I? Because i don't agree with you? f**k off you arrogant self righteous fanboy c**t. The reason i questioned you is that it doesnt even matter if you think his reasons are b******t, they are HIS reasons for not liking the movie, and you have to accept that, you can't call him a t**t for not agreeing to your view of the movie. You can have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts.
Alert a moderator
AlfredsDream098
Sep 23rd 2012, 18:13
I think we should bring back Dalidab just to see what happens.
Alert a moderator
prime43
Sep 23rd 2012, 18:35
Okay saying Sunshine is the best Sci-Fi film ever is one thing, but saying Lord Of The Rings is dull is quite another. Seriously TF, you need to reconsider these articles if you want to keep readers.
Alert a moderator
Heisenberg
Sep 23rd 2012, 18:36
@alfred, i think all you have to do is say his name into the mirror 3 times
Alert a moderator
StevePotter
Sep 23rd 2012, 19:41
Ok, this has gone on long enough: I THINK CITIZEN KANE IS OVERRATED. Boom. Now you all have to attack me and this poor guy can have a break.
Alert a moderator
thedude
Sep 23rd 2012, 21:10
And TF's fall from grace gets worse. Sure, the films are not perfect, but if you are going to tear apart a franchise then why not pick one that is actually s**t? Goading negative responses, there by increasing travel on your site, is the sort of thing I expect from The Sun and any number of other abysmal tabloids. Next you will be employing Alex Zane to write a column....
Alert a moderator
DomCobb
Sep 24th 2012, 1:34
I get that you don't want to jump on the band wagon so to speak, but there's a damn good reason why everyone else has gotten on that wagon. A damn good reason.
Alert a moderator
Michaelson
Sep 24th 2012, 9:15
All the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth answers (nd attacks) to this well-argued article do show one thing : LOTR fans are little tyrants who cannot bear for a single second the thought that their beloved film could be disliked by someone. Sad, and yet, kinda funny.
Alert a moderator
murphy
Sep 24th 2012, 10:59
It's gay and boring, much like all these LOTR fan-boy rants.
Alert a moderator
HughFran
Sep 24th 2012, 11:25
Like Rafa Benitez before me I am going to state only facts here: LOTRs is the best trilogy ever made - FACT. Every character is given time to flourish and every heroes death (Boromir, Theoden) is painfully felt - FACT. Now I believe everybody is entitled to their opinion and I have a lot of friends that hate this trilogy but as a piece of film making, there has been nothing quite like it for a very long time. It is a totally believable world populated with gorgeous scenery and interesting characters and races. As for the 'gay' comment from Murphy - great input there mate, really adding to the debate, are you 12?
Alert a moderator
jeffvader
Sep 24th 2012, 12:41
Have to agree about LOTR being boring. 10 hours just to watch a dwarf lob a ring in a volcano? You know he's going to get there eventually, its all just filler and wasting time till he does. Its all so earnest and dull, talking trees etc. Why didn't Magneto just get on one of those massive flying dragons or whatever and take Frodo straight there? the films could've been wrapped up in an hour or so. Cant believe how offended people are about this by the way. As for the greatest trilogy ever, Star Wars will be around a long time after LOTR is forgotten.
Alert a moderator
apo1978
Sep 24th 2012, 12:43
The LOTR triogy is so good even the 'making-of' docs are better than most other films! Watch them and see the immense effort that was involved and the real friendships formed....its insipring.
Alert a moderator
murphy
Sep 24th 2012, 12:52
I had a friend once who stated his own opinions as 'FACT' He was a c u next Tuesday too. For me, watching LOTR is like dating a model, good to look at but ultimately dull (not that it would last 11 hours) There are other trilogies that I'd rather watch first - The 'Dollars' trilogy (not strictly speaking a true trilogy i know) The Evil Dead (again with the second being pretty much a remake of the first not really a proper trilogy, my argument is getting weaker :-/ ) Christopher Nolan's Batman (Despite the slightly disappointing but still great third film) and for pure entertainment, Star Wars, Back To The Future, Indiana Jones. All better, but only my opinion, not FACT.
Alert a moderator
pdacoakley
Sep 24th 2012, 13:32
Okay hands up everyone that works at Mooby's...
Alert a moderator
Mattsimus
Sep 24th 2012, 14:21
First of all Heisenberg TAKE .... A .....PILL and no not the ones you took before you read this review, secondly where is Dalidab....... Heisenberg are you Dalidab?.... now the instant rage monster b******t makes sense....c**t? t**t? B..........? Need I continue, dude you don't need TF you need to find yourself a girl mate (pirates of the carrabean) ..... Next?
Alert a moderator
FBMStankovic
Sep 25th 2012, 12:16
Peter Jackson is so overrated, its painful to even talk about his work, like anyone knows anything else he directed? First he stole a lot of scenes from animated LOTR trilogy, 1978 The Lord of the Rings, and 1980 The Return of the King, I believe he is now stealing the first cartoon The Hobbit from 1977. It is ridiculous how some of the scenes from animated movie is just redone with live actors, he wasn't even trying to change the colors or the position of actors.
Alert a moderator
kebabcake
Sep 25th 2012, 17:18
Here's a question. When you consider the size of the novel The Lord Of The Rings it warranted 3 films of the length they were. Consider The Hobbit, it's less than a quarter of the size and yet somehow Peter Jackson can extend this into 3 films!? So my question is, is he not taking advantage of all you fans by doing this, knowing full well you'll lap it all up regardless of how drawn out it is? Boosting his already considerable bank balance in the process? Now I'm sure you'll all throw the number of appendices and notes there are, blah, blah in my face but then by interpreting them his way is he not somehow lessening the source material of the book itself? Take Jackson off the pedestal you've put him on and accept his ego is growing by the minute on the back of 3 films, I personally didn't enjoy, but can see the merits of, since when you take his body of work as a whole he doesn't warrant it. Feel free to berate me now for voicing such sacrilege!
Alert a moderator
murphy
Sep 25th 2012, 17:52
Aye. What kebabcake said.
Alert a moderator