It has been three years since the first film in Peter Jackson’s adaptation of “The Lord of the Rings” hit theaters. This year, home audiences are treated to the final extended edition of the film trilogy when “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” special extended edition is released December 14th.
Like the previous extended editions, “King” gets considerably more character moments added back to it. These moments aren’t bad, but generally would have slowed the pace down too much for a theater audience. Already the longest of the trilogy, “King” gets an extra 50 minutes added back to it, bring the epic to four hours and 10 minutes. How did this one turn out?
Surprisingly, the improvements made here are far less than on the previous two extended editions. This is not a knock at the extended film, as it is a better movie, especially for fans of the book. However, it does make clear that the theatrical cut was better than the previous two films by quite a bit and most deserving of the three films to win the Best Picture Oscar.
There was less need for improvement as well. “Fellowship” had the problem of being too Frodo-centric and “Towers” too Aragorn-centric. The amazing thing about Tolkien’s book is the detail of the world and how the real main character was the people of Middle Earth, and “King” achieved this quite will to begin with.
In a lot of ways, the new cut addresses some of the criticism the original cut had. First, there is the confrontation with Saruman (Christopher Lee, “Star Wars: Episode II”). This is a great scene and its return does end the story arc very nicely. However, it is clear that it was written more as of an end to “The Two Towers” and not as a beginning of “The Return of the King.” So, in that respect, removing it from the theatrical seems very logical from a filmmaking perspective.
It works perfectly here because of the blurring that exists between the endings of the extended cuts. Jackson even says in the commentary that when making the extended cuts, he never considered the pacing of the one film, but more as the story as a whole, assuming one would watch all 11 and a half hours back to back.
Other additions include Gandalf (Ian McKellen, “X-Men”) and the Witch-King confrontation, The House of Healing where Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) heals Eowyn (Miranda Otto, “What Lies Beneath”) after the battle and the Mouth of Sauron outside the black gates. Most of the rest are small additions and character moments for secondary characters that give more satisfying resolutions to their stories, bringing them closer to the book.
Having the two editions of the films does allow for interesting comparisons, especially on how films are made today. The theatrical editions are perfect examples of film pacing and what an audience expects at the theaters. They move fast, never let up on action, while still revealing a good bit of character. How many three hours movies feel more like two? Jackson is a pro at achieving that kind of pace.
The extended editions are closer to the epics of old, made by the likes of David Lean and Akira Kurosawa. Every character is important and time was always taken to develop them. If these films had been possible in the 1950s, during an age where intermission was still common, the extended editions would have been closer to what was released in the theatre. In the end, it will really come down to personal taste on which version you prefer.
There is something special about the theatrical version that just cannot be replaced. Sure, the extended version is closer to the book and often the preferable one to watch. But, for a fan of the book, seeing the world on the big screen for the first time, the theatrical edition always maintain the sense of awe it brought so many fans and movie goers for the last three years. As a fan of both film and the books, it is amazing to have the choice between both versions.
Rating: A
