Home    Views    January 2002

		Points of View January 1, 2002 Guest Column © 2002 Joe Kirkish Reprinted with Permission

Lord of the Rings disappointing, violent, repetitive

LORD OF THE RINGS (rated PG-13 for violence and themes that kids wouldn't really understand or appreciate): Variety is the spice of life and reviews. Seems each time the critics unanimously rave about a film, there follows an opposing wave.

I've been trying to figure out why so many people raved about this movie and why I could not get as involved.

Did I expect too much, after all the pre-hype? Did I assume it was, like Harry Potter, for the younger viewers, only to find its slant toward the over-20 crowd disappointing? Was I too tired to hold up for the entire 150 minutes? Or was I overloaded by all that repetition -- a series of similar episodes (confrontation, battle, rescue) over and over again, all leading to, not the focal point, but, "to be continued"? Was it reduced or compressed too much for my total comprehension?

All of the above?

To be sure, this is a monumental effort, ambitiously conceived and stunningly filmed by one of New Zealand's most promising filmmakers -- so confident in his efforts that he has two sequels already in the can. Obviously, he aimed this film at those millions who have, over the past half century, read and savored the Tolkien trilogy on which it has been faithfully based (while hoping to draw in the rest of us who have not). He aimed the film at those readers who can follow easily the shorthand compression necessary to fit most of the story into a film -- at those who can follow it from sequence to sequence ad nauseam with anticipatory glee.

Since I am not included among the aficionados of the series, I lacked that overlaying of appreciation; and, while I found it a remarkable -- even prodigious -- event that was filmed with a myriad of fascinating characters shot around New Zealand's fantastic landscapes, I could not sustain my interest in it for its entire length. For me, the imaginative visuals were far more interesting than the plot; (the basic conflict of good over evil) which has been done before, and more succinctly.

Oddly, by comparison, although I was unfamiliar with the novel Harry Potter as well, I found the film version of Harry Potter far more involving.* I guess I'm more taken with magic and mysticism than I am with Tolkien's other world; it's simply a matter of à chacun son goût! Mea culpa. (Grade: B)

ALI: (PG-13 for R-rated violence, profanity & sexual situations): While this film suffers the same over-length (actually 160 minutes) as above, it has two remarkable things going for it: Will Smith, who pours everything he's got into the realistic, three-dimensional portrayal of Muhammad Ali, and Michael Mann, whose directorial expertise employs every cinematic trick in the books to make the otherwise episodic and confusing film fascinating.

Ali realistically and painfully traces 10 pivotal years in the life of Muhammad Ali (cum Cassius X cum Cassius Clay), from his rise in boxing in 1964 through tough times to his return as heavyweight champ at the monumental Zaier "fight in the jungle" against George Foreman -- a difficult task since even with this length the film must compress, discard, leap over and thinly sketch out myriads of incidents, names and places that encompassed the boxer's life during those 10 years.

We meet the loud-mouthed, intelligent, honest, family-loving fellow in Miami Beach, where he's preparing for a career in boxing -- his personality built on unpleasant memories of racial prejudices and handicaps. We get a detailed education about the mechanics of boxing -- the training, behind the scenes prep for a bout, the long walk down an underground corridor to the ring, in an almost documentary realism in and around the ring itself.

Not since Raging Bull, Champion, and perhaps even Rocky and Hurricane (all excellent movies) has a film revealed the brutal nature of a brutal sport with the same sense of drama and pain.

Mann incorporates non-selective focus, hand-held camera, natural lighting, an almost total absence of traditional compositions -- all to heighten the documentary feel of the film, to tell the story of one man's heroic struggle against great odds -- and it almost succeeds.

I'm still puzzled by Mann's insistence on taking a full 12 minutes for the opening fight with Sonny Liston and over 15 minutes for the final bout. At 24 frames a second, that's a lot of footage -- exciting to behold, yet incapable of matching the actual fights themselves -- to sustain a movie as long as this one. Moreover, the film places a great deal of emphasis on Ali's friend, Malcolm X, and his massacre. Dramatic as those events may be, they are unnecessary and might confuse those not familiar with the famous Black activist.

Ali's life, hastily sketched as it is, still elicits a powerful backward glance; and Will Smith is backed by a capable cast that also includes Jon Voight as Howard Cosell and Jamie Foxx as a close aid to the fighter. This becomes memorable as entertaining, if overly long, film fare. (Grade: B)

KATE & LEOPOLD (PG-13, mainly for language): Here's another "soft-glow" movie to enter the post 10/11 period -- in a gradual return to the "old-fashioned" screwball romantic comedies of the 30s and 40s.

I wanted to like this film very much, with its oddball treatment of two familiar plots -- boy-meets-girl and odd-couple themes -- setting them against a fantasy backdrop and with its occasionally witty Oscar Wildian repartee. Unfortunately, like so much screen writing today, its ending becomes all too predictable, rushed and unimaginatively simplistic.

Meg Ryan portrays a very modern woman in a promising advertising career who becomes embroiled with a charmingly polite, reserved Hugh Jackman, who has somehow slipped through a curtain in time and is plopped from 18th-century New York into her 21st-century life.

There's the expected series of astonishments for the fellow -- outspoken and impolite New York people, tater tots, contemporary dating, etc. It isn't long before he's learning a lot about modern society from her; then, later, she from him. He also offers clever observations, as when he marvels at her MadAve pragmatism, "You have every comfort and convenience and yet no time for integrity."

There are accurate re-creations of 18th-century life, including the creation of Robling's bridge to Brooklyn (which features strongly in that strange "opening in the fabric of time") and delightful contrasts between its rule-and-regulation-oriented society to that of modern NYC. Meg Ryan is, accurately, her usual gamine self, Jackman is properly old country royal and Liev Schreiber ably performs as the guy who brings them together.

A big surprise is the very brief appearance of Spalding Gray as a psychiatrist -- for an inside laugh, perhaps?

This is a romantic, not sexual, comedy that features a pair of well suited on-again, off-again lovers in an engaging fantasy that falters only at its climax. (Grade: B)

*Editor's Note: See Joe Kirkish's Nov. 22 review of the film Harry Potter.

Learn more about the author of this guest column, Joe Kirkish, and read about some of his recent awards on his updated contributor page.

Visit the Keweenaw Now discussion forums to comment on this article.

Note: Views expressed by our guest columnists are not necessarily the views of Keweenaw Now.