Ron's Popcorn Reviews.com

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted October 29, 2009

Quentin Tarantino’s movies have a lot of talking. The Lord of the Rings trilogy has a lot of walking. Walking and talking are considered to be the dullest elements of movies. Tarantino turned talking into an art form. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, the second and best chapter of the highly praised trilogy, turns walking into an exhilarating and absorbing three hours. This entry is one of the greatest sequels ever made, improving on every flaw of The Fellowship of the Ring. Every criticism of mine of the first chapter does not apply to The Two Towers, a soaring masterpiece of innovative filmmaking and strong storytelling.

The second chapter picks up where the first one left off. Our friends from the Shire are now separated. Frodo and Sam continue their journey to Mount Doom to destroy the ring and Merry and Pippin are captured by orks. The remainder of the fellowship embarks on a quest to defeat Saurumon’s growing army by aiding the dwindling city of Rohan. The film is split into these story arches and takes on depths that The Fellowship of the Ring never dared to explore. Frodo and Sam meet the pathetic and insane Gollum, played by Andy Serkis in a mesmerizing performance. Gollum was long ago corrupted by the ring and now takes on the form of a creepy and pitiful creature that looks more inhuman than an ork. Sam is suspicious of Gollum while Frodo trusts him to lead them to Mount Doom safely.

Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli begin their portion of the film by trying to track down Merry and Pippin. Along the way they encounter a reborn Gandalf, who now bears a different appearance and much stronger powers. Gandalf leads them to the city of Rohan where King Theoden, played by Bernard Hill, has been possessed by Saurumon. Theoden’s assistant is the despicable and weak Wormtounge, played by Brad Dourif. Wormtounge, looking like a slightly healthier Gollum, is Saurumon’s spy inside of Rohan and attempts to lead the city to destruction by brining down its forces at the hands of Saurumon’s massive army. After Gandalf heals King Theoden, Rohan is again under control. However, Theoden is egocentric and puts his pride before his peoples’ safety. He orders the citizens to evacuate Rohan and go into Helms Deep where they will be safe from Saurumon’s army. Nothing goes according to plan and Theoden must assemble his own army, only his soldiers are nothing more than scared old men.

The Two Towers is a massive cinematic achievement. None of the flaws that plagued The Fellowship of the Ring are present here. The story is much more structured; the script is much less corny and far more sophisticated and humane, and the film itself is far deeper and darker. The performance from Elijah Wood greatly matures. He no longer plays Frodo as a whiny boy, but as a man who understands the dangers of the world and is slowly slipping into insanity. I suppose Wood is not to blame for his performance in The Fellowship of the Ring, as Frodo himself matures from the first chapter to the second. However, Wood is far more convincing in The Two Towers.

The two biggest flaws that the first film suffered from were an awful script and a lack of structure. Characters and locations seemed to be in the movie irrelevantly, such as the segment involving Cate Blanchette in the forest. Everything that happens in The Two Towers is a result of choices. That’s why the movie is a much deeper and raw experience. It is about choices and consequences, not a silly story of a ring. The Fellowship was too occupied with giving the ring a life of its own, which is why I suppose it was a dull movie. The Two Towers focuses more on its characters and this gives it a structure and in doing this, the ring is in fact given a more shadowy and eerie presence. This chapter of the epic trilogy is also more interested in commenting on today’s issues, mostly on environmentalism. All of these elements make the movie exciting and emotionally involving instead of overlong and dull. The running time of The Fellowship of the Ring was not in fact the problem; it was the storyline that occupied it.

With all of the inner struggles, moral dilemmas, and darkness employed in The Two Towers, Peter Jackson still gives the viewer a visual masterpiece. The Battle of Helms Deep is one of the best battle scenes in the history of cinema, on a par with the opening of Saving Private Ryan, and vastly more exciting than even the shorter action segments in The Fellowship of the Ring. The special effects were astounding in 2002 and still holdup in 2009. The filmmaking and cinematography remain gorgeous, mostly exposed in the epic battle. The battle is almost lyrical. One of the overhead shots shows a huddle of orks being broken apart as their shields fall in a pattern which is beautifully lighted. The violence, which is often extremely brutal and pushes the limits of a PG-13 rating, is executed with much more realism and beauty. By beauty I mean posture, movements, and effect. It is not the mindless action on display in many 2009 pictures. It is so beautifully coreogrpahed that every swing of a sword and every firing of a bow feels real in your bones. I felt the exhilaration of the battle. I was there. The images are startling, the action impeccable. Jackson flawlessly creates this world and absorbs the viewer into it. The vast scope of the picture is epic.

Aragorn emerges as the hero and protagonist of the trilogy. For most of the film, he is front and center. The second entry gives him greater depth by revealing his vulnerable and passionate side. In the Battle of Helms Deep, he becomes a hero that everyone reads about in fantasy epics. But he isn’t just the hero formulaically. Viggo Mortensen sets him up so it is believable that this really is his fate. He evolves naturally into this position and becomes someone the other characters can trust and believe in. He plays Aragorn as a human being, and not as a larger than life medieval hero.

The most challenging moral aspect of The Two Towers is the character of Gollum. The slimy creature is pathetic and pitiful but he is given two very psychological scenes which are thought provoking. In one of them, he literally argues with his dual personalities. Jackson gives us back and forth shots of one side of Gollum screaming and intimidating the other. To an extent, we feel genuine sympathy for him. Gollum is not a typical villain. He is given much greater depth than that, resulting in a far more complex character than the wholly evil Saurumon. Gollum is not even that treacherous. He is not exactly lying to Frodo and Sam. Gollum is two characters. One of them is genuinely helping Frodo and Sam. The other is planning to deceive them and take the ring.

The Two Towers is considerably darker than The Fellowship of the Ring. This is a result of the movie focusing on its complex characters and the difficult choices they must make. The tone is much grimmer and the setting is considerabely more haunting and absorbing. In a way, the theme of the movie is a loss of hope, greatly embodied in the unsettling final shot. Yet in another way, the theme is of hope in the darkest of times. As the characters grow into despair, they still feel the need to defeat Saurumon’s army. They don’t give up and Howard Shore ’s score, which disposes of the satanic chorus in the first film, conveys the feeling of high spirits and inner strength.

The Fellowship of the Ring set up the trilogy. The Two Towers gave it depth. It is, in every sense of the word, epic.

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted October 29, 2009

No trilogy since the first three Star Wars films (episodes 4-6) has been as lauded as The Lord of the Rings. Based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s benchmark collection of books, the first chapter of the story was brought to the screen in 2001 and made a household name out of Peter Jackson, as well as some of the stars. The Fellowship of the Ring marks the beginning of one of the most well-known and applauded trilogies in the history of cinema. However, that does not indicate that the film, which sets up the next and far superior two entries, is anything more than an overblown, and overlong, muddle.

Mostly everyone in America, moviegoer or not, has heard of these iconic films. The first chapter begins with a revealing and highly unnecessary prologue with a voiceover from Cate Blanchette, describing the magical lands from which the mythology originated. A dark lord by the name of Sauron turned on his fellow races by creating a superior ring of power and used it to gain hold of Middle Earth. When Sauron is destroyed, a man takes the ring from his finger and becomes infatuated with it. This man is eventually killed and loses the ring until it is retrieved by Gollum. Sixty years later, hobbit Frodo Baggins, played by Elijah Wood in his career making role, sits under a tree in The Shire, unaware of the dangers he is about to embark upon.

His uncle, Bilbo Baggins, played by Ian Holm, is now in possession of the evil ring and is urged by Gandalf the Gray, played by Ian McKellan, to pass it on to Frodo. Frodo is joined by other hobbits on his quest to destroy the ring in Mount Doom . They are Sam, played by Sean Astin, Merry, played by Dominic Monoghan (he got rid of his “hobbit” image after starring as Charlie in Lost.) and Pippin, played by Billy Boyd. Along the way, they meet the mysterious ranger named Aragorn, played by Viggo Mortenssen (he became a star after appearing in this iconic role.) He protects them until they regroup with Gandalf in a community populated by elves, where they also meet the rest of the fellowship tasked with protecting Frodo on his journey to Mount Doom .

Peter Jackson has created a film that will be resonant for ages. However, it will not be remembered as an extremely emotionally involving movie. In fact, The Fellowship of the Ring is quite cold. It will be remembered as a technically astounding and innovative piece of work. You can hate this movie, love it, or not care much for it. No matter how you feel about the clunky dialogue and corny lines, you have to admit that this is a gorgeous and innovative movie. The special effects, which were jaw dropping in 2001, still hold up today in 2009. The digitally created landscapes are beautiful, textured, and quite frightening. The technical credentials help to carry viewers through a very long and boring film that runs for three hours.

The problem with The Fellowship of the Ring, besides the running time and that awful script, is the complete irrelevance of prolonged scenes. People and places drop in and out of the film that have no bearing on the actual story. Several times, one might think Jackson wants to simply showcase his skill at providing beautiful tracking shots. Many of the shots are too adoring and detailed, simply to brag about the quality of of the special effects team. One instance involves an angelic looking Cate Blanchette turning into some kind of alien form and screaming for no apparent reason. Also, the movie tends to give off the feeling that it makes itself up as it goes along. Weird things that make absolutely no sense and are there to be flashy and mystical pile up, creating very dull and pointless sequences which ultimately form a very dull and pointless movie.

The screenplay gives The Fellowship a very campy feel. Besides sounding contrived in its attempts to sound medieval, certain lines are laughable and unbearably corny. One example is at the end of the movie when Aragorn says, “Let’s hunt some ork.” Or how about when Aragorn tells Arwen, “Ride hard.” And worst of all, Arwen challenges spooky riders by saying, “If you want him, come and claim him.” The grimness and darkness of the picture is watered down through these examples of lame line readings, and there are still plenty more instances where you want to laugh out loud.

Elijah Wood was turned into a star after this movie, but for what? His performance is incredibly boyish. He spends most of his time whining and moaning and his relationship with Sam leaves a lot of speculation. Without any homophobic implications, I was truly wondering as to the nature of Frodo and Sam’s friendship. One has to be completely in denial not to notice the suggestions that are made. They speak to each other in a loving tone and often times Frodo speaks to Sam in a demeaning manor, hinting at some sort of weird sexual dominance.

There are several powerful performances. Christopher Lee is very effective and chilling in a role devoid of much screen time. Ian McKellan is perfect at giving off the aura of a wise and warming man who still knows how to take control of a situation and be stern. Viggo Mortensen became well-known after this movie and he’s taken every opportunity to prove that he deserves the spotlight through a string of terrific performances. Mortensen is very good here, playing on a de facto leader role. He also establishes the sense that he is brave and noble, despite his ancestry. Sean Bean plays perhaps the most complex and symbolic character, and does this effortlessly. At times we loathe his Boromere. At times we feel as though he is a good person. He is the most human out of all of these characters. He feels greed and temptation while also feeling love and a protective instinct. While most of the characters are black or white, Boromere is gray.

The score, by Howard Shore , features some melodic and poetic cues but is mostly comprised of psychotic devil chanting. I have read papers dissecting Shore’s score. I still don’t understand the meaning of his devil chanting. Yes, the sound is creepy. It is also incredibly annoying, especially over the course of three hours. The movie is often lightened by his much lovelier and even more emotional sounds, which keep Shore’s score from treading into Hans Zimmer’s most recent territory.

The movie is filled with lovingly crafted battle sequences. Most of these are in fact wonderfully choreographed and exciting, but Jackson settles for action too much. Now the biggest problem in this entire trilogy and mythology is, after all, how ludicrous it is. Yes, it is a fantasy and certain accommodations and suspensions of belief must be made, but a ring? This ring represents something philosophical and I appreciate and respect that, but still, a ring? I suppose the best way to capture corruption and greed is through a tiny object but why should we care about a magical ring being dropped into a volcano. It’s like if someone came up to you and said, “This Barnie action figure contains unstoppable evil. Take it to the local incinerator.” In a fantasy epic, we must care about the objects and people if we are going to care about them for three hours, let alone three films.

As a technical achievement, The Lord of the Ring: The Fellowship of the Ring is truly a benchmark. If Peter Jackson was able to inject more emotion and, dare I say, coherence and structure, this movie would have been a much more absorbing experience and a worthy first chapter of a great trilogy.

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Posted April 9, 2009

Movie Review by Ron Rapoport

Martin Scorsese’s name is embedded in cinematic history. Almost any movie he makes becomes a classic, such as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, and Casino, but I think his greatest achievement is The Departed. It is hard to say that because GoodFellas is almost equally as good, but The Departed is much deeper on a psychological level. It morally tests the audience and like Million Dollar Baby, it is not about good and evil, but about right and wrong. What is the difference between the demented mob boss and the foul mouthed and violent police sergeant? These are the types of question that The Departed lays out, and they all add up to one big question: What divides both sides of the law?

From one point of view, The Departed may just seem like a violent mob flick, but for someone who knows Scorsese’s work, they know that his films, even if it is about an insomniac cabbie protecting a prostitute, are psychological. The story here is about two undercover men, one for the police department and one for the mob, who start to play a game of cat-and-mouse and must sniff each other out before both are discovered and killed. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy Costigan, a brooding cop from South Boston. He is assigned to go undercover in the mob, led by Frank Costello who is played by Jack Nicholson. Costello and Billy establish trust and a father-son relationship. Simultaneously, the mob assigns Colin Sullivan to go undercover in the Massachusetts State Police. When both sides start to sense that they are being infiltrated, Billy and Colin have to find each other which leads to much paranoia on both sides of the game.

Each character in The Departed represents some sort of human emotion or reaction to trust or lies. Billy represents paranoia and loneliness; Colin represents deceit and remorse; and Frank represents paranoia and dementia. The most complicated character to describe is Frank, because he is really the lost soul in the movie. He feels betrayed and insecure, which leads him to paranoia and violence. He has to make difficult choices because he most likely did love Billy like his own son and I think he knew Billy was the rat all along, but he couldn’t bring himself to do any harm to him. Billy also felt great remorse for betraying Frank, but knew he had no way out of his situation. Every character is shown as a human with complicated emotions towards themselves and each other.

The performances here are phenomenal. Jack Nicholson, an actor who has given so many great performances such as Randall McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Nest and Jack Pallance in The Shining, still shows that he is top form. He wholly deserved the Oscar for Best Leading Actor for which he wasn’t even nominated. Mark Whalberg gave his first great performance in this movie. He really didn’t sound contrived when he was dropping the f-bomb every other sentence. Leonardo DiCaprio didn’t even get recognition at the Oscars for his performance, but he has shown over and over again that he deserves an Academy Award. He deserved it for The Aviator and deserved it in 2006 for this movie, but instead Forrest Whitalker took it home for The Last King of Scotland. The most understated performance comes from Martin Sheen as Captain Quennan. He was terrific because he brought some warmth to this gritty and violent story. At least the film itself won for Best Picture.

The Departed is a movie that really challenges its audience. Why should we root for Billy over Colin? Because we have been programmed to always support the police? There is practically no moral difference between an undercover cop who is willing to shoot a drug dealer in the leg for being scared or a snitch for the mob who feels loyalty to the man who raised him. The screenplay, which won an Oscar and is written by William Monohan, did a brilliant thing by calling both Billy and Colin rats. This again shows that there isn’t a big difference between the two of them. To the police force, Colin is a rat because he is helping the mob, to the mob, Billy is a rat because he is helping the police. One isn’t better than the other. Both have abused their power, whether it was to get drugs or to get information, and their corruption is seen at the pivotal event on the rooftop.

The Departed is a masterpiece in every sense of the word. The acting is phenomenal; the philosophical questions make the viewer think; the screenplay is memorable; and once again, Martin Scorsese has crafted a classic. It is hard for me to choose between The Departed and GoodFellas, but at the end of the day, The Departed has me thinking and questioning principles and ideas, which is why it remains my favorite movie of all time.