Related articles and links |  1 of 8

'Tis the season for yuletide carols, nativity scenes, Christmas shopping, and movie critics' Top Ten lists.

One by one, the various associations of film critics are heralding the Best of 2003, and their choices could not be more different. Some applaud Peter Jackson's third Middle-Earth adventure, while others celebrate more obscure, artful titles like Lost in Translation, American Splendor, Cold Mountain, and Mystic River.

What films in 2003 meant the most to you? Which do you feel were overlooked and underrated? Let us know what we missed. Next week I'll wrap up the year with a scan through the favorites of Christian press film critics and Film Forum readers. And I'll tell you about my favorite film of the year, one that played in very few theatres but is now available on DVD for rental.

Return of the King continues to conquer a critical consensus

Christian press film critics continue to rate The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King as one of the crowning cinematic achievements of the year, and even of the decade.

"C.S. Lewis once remarked that after someone has read The Lord of the Rings, they are 'never quite the same,'" writes David DiCerto (Catholic News Service). "The same can be said of anyone viewing [Jackson's films.] Return … not only eclipses its predecessors in scope but weaves their disparate narrative threads into a cohesive and emotionally satisfying conclusion, resulting in a work both grander in scale and deeper in human drama than the two previous films."

Holly McClure (Crosswalk) raves, "Tolkien's tale is a parable perfect for all generations and times. This final epic and body of work is Oscar-worthy in every way."

Dick Staub (CultureWatch) calls it "a most satisfying cinematic experience combining Tolkien's incredible and rich story, an attention to detail, an aesthetic sensibility, dramatic action scenes."

Cameron Bird (Relevant) says, "While the penchant for epic computer-generated battle sequences is unsurprisingly apparent, the film also lends itself great intimacy and depth to its many relationships."

But Bird also posts a criticism: "The overall continuity and grandiose valor that will categorize The Return of the King as one of the most fulfilling conclusions ever made also, however, keeps it from being exactly what it desires to be. Suffering from 60-frames-per-second syndrome, the ending drags in slow motion a bit longer than its characters seem to believe it should, teetering on spreading the audience's emotions too thin before the credits roll."

Cliff Vaughn (Ethics Daily) seems to agree: "Return strikes the most resonant narrative and emotional chords of all three films. The performances remain compelling, and the writing, aside from a couple of canned exchanges, is good. If the film has a weakness, however, it's the multiple endings that Jackson keeps piling on."

Ted Baehr (Movieguide) calls it "one of the great movie masterpieces that weaves many biblical principles and allegorical Christian metaphors into a magnificent story, but it is too scary and intense for younger children."

Readers receive The Return of the King with praise, criticism

Film Forum readers responded to my invitation last week, turning in their own first impressions after seeing Jackson's astonishing work.

BEWARE: Some of their comments contain plot-spoilers!

Becky House says, "I thought Return was heartbreaking, 'aweful' in its original meaning, grandiose yet intimate, mournful and yet hopeful."

Dale Johnson writes that he wishes the chapter called "The Scouring of the Shire" had been portrayed in the film. "The desecration and cleansing of the Shire shows the reader that the main point in the story is the maturation of the hobbits." He adds, however, "The movie is excellent and it is one of the few movies I would pay to see again."

next page... |  1 of 8

December (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47