#237. Peter Jackson

Some directors are well known, not because they have made a lot of films, but because the films they have made impacted society so heavily. Because of these directors’ gravitas, we welcome any film they choose to create with much anticipation. Unfortunately, many of these directors can’t live up to their breakout success. Directors like the Wachowski’s (with The Matrix (1999)), M. Night Shyamalan (with The Sixth Sense (1999)), and Neill Blomkamp (with District 9 (2009)) have all created fantastic films, but their follow-up creations have been less-than-stellar, critically speaking. Usually, we see a steady decline in quality as these directors continue to create, essentially cementing them as “one-hit wonders.” This week, we’ll be examining some of the better-known works of one of these directors: Peter Jackson.

                                  The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Year: 2003
Rating: PG-13
Length: 201 minutes / 3.35 hours

Critics of literary adaptations have always held certain works in the highest esteem. They say that “it could never be made” and “the book will always be better.” The Lord of the Rings was just such a book. While there were a few adaptations in the 1970s, none were treated with as much care as the trilogy created by Peter Jackson. Shot over a few years, all three films in their extended format thoroughly cover the fantasy epic loved by millions. Unfortunately, a decade later, Jackson would go on to “George Lucas” himself by directing a prequel trilogy that had lost a lot of the elements that had made the original trilogy work so well (much like Lucas did with Star Wars). The Hobbit is a short prequel novel to the Lord of the Rings, and many felt padding it out to three movies by using the Lord of the Rings’ appendices was unnecessary.

Some of Peter Jackson’s success with The Lord of the Rings came from his previous works in the horror genre. Films like Bad Taste (1987), Braindead (1992), and The Frighteners (1996) gave him the experience to create the ugly creatures that embody the evil forces led by Sauron in Middle Earth. These orcs, trolls, and wraiths are genuinely terrifying, especially when collected, en masse, to counter the forces led by Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) marching on Mordor. Meanwhile, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) complete the last leg of their journey, surreptitiously sneaking behind enemy lines to arrive at Mount Doom: the volcano that created Sauron’s one ring of power. As the armies of men distract Sauron’s gaze, the two hobbits struggle with the temptation of evil in their penultimate quest to destroy the ring.

King Kong
Year: 2005
Rating: PG-13
Length: 187 minutes / 3.12 hours

How many of us have that one film from our childhood that influenced us to no end? Did you ever set up your action figures to recreate scenes from Star Wars? Would you take your LEGO figurines and use them to film stop-motion re-enactments from Harry Potter? In these regards, Peter Jackson is as much one of us as he is a big-budget Hollywood director. As a child, one of the main influences which inspired him into making movies was that of King Kong (1933). Even with limited resources, he would try to remake it with models he had made himself. Many decades later, just coming off the high praise for the aforementioned Lord of the Rings series, Jackson finally had the money and technology to make his dream a reality. In 2005, Peter Jackson would go on to remake his favorite film of all time: King Kong.

A film about making movies, King Kong follows out-of-work actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) as she comes upon hard times during the Great Depression. In a stroke of good luck, she is discovered by Carl Denham (Jack Black), an enthusiastic director who wants to shoot his latest project on location: Skull Island. This mysterious island that time forgot ends up being much more dangerous than anyone could imagine. With enormous insects, once-extinct dinosaurs, and the eponymous King Kong (Andy Serkis), the small crew barely makes it away alive, let alone with the massive gorilla in their cargo hold. Once back in New York, Denham decides to put the beast on display, but when it escapes and takes Ann hostage, she tries to let everyone know that Kong is mostly harmless. Unfortunately, the beast meets its demise atop the Empire State Building, falling to its death on the streets below.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 giant Jackson blockbusters

Bacon #: 2 (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King / Elijah Wood -> Beyond All Boundaries / Kevin Bacon)

 

#236. Lengthy Running Times

In a world that is having an increasingly difficult time sitting still for an extended amount of time, any movie longer than 90 minutes can be a struggle to watch. Especially with the ubiquitous nature of smartphones shortening our attention spans, many of us won’t even bother watching a video that’s longer than seven seconds. Part of the solution many movies have resorted to in recent years has been to split films into two parts, so they are easier to watch, instead of sitting through a four-hour film. Other solutions have been to keep the pace of the plot set so fast as to keep the audience enthralled all the way to the end credits. This latter option often includes plenty of flashy and disorienting action to sustain the excitement level at a point where viewers won’t glance at their watches. This week’s two films have lengthy running times but are worth the watch if you can pay attention long enough.

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
Year: 1975
Rating: Not Rated
Length: 201 minutes / 3.35 hours

Movies with running times above three hours have been around since nearly the beginning of cinema itself. Many of these films were merely adapting to the tenets of the theatre. With its plays and musicals, many theatre productions included overtures and intermissions. These plays and musicals were quite long, easily spanning several hours. This is why many long films also followed suit by including overtures and intermissions for audiences to get up and stretch. While the latest notable film to have an intermission was made in 2001 (Pearl Harbor), quite a few films from the 1960s and 1970s had intermissions, even if they were cut out in home media. That being said, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975) does not have an intermission, or fast-paced plot, or any exciting action. It merely has the life of a homemaker, revealed in near real-time.

Life as a single mother can be a regular series of events, repeated ad nauseam. For each of the three hours of this film’s running time, we get a glimpse into three days of Jeanne Dielman’s (Delphine Seyrig) life. There is cleaning to do, dinner to cook, and a bedroom “job” to perform to keep her and her son living comfortably. However, when the small details start to go awry, we see Jeanne slowly succumb to the stress she hides right beneath her stoic surface. Whether it’s the countless hours spent alone in the house or the exceptional standards of homemaking that she holds herself to, the subsequent days definitely show she is almost at her breaking point. Finally, on the third day, Jeanne has a sudden release with one of her “clients.” Perhaps, as a result, she cuts her session short in a sudden outburst of violence.

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Year: 2003
Rating: PG-13
Length: 201 minutes / 3.35 hours

If there’s one thing the Academy Awards like, it’s a long movie. Often, the nominees for Best Picture are regularly over two-and-a-half hours long, and will sometimes even break the three-hour mark. Additionally, some films of a particular series might have different release dates but are considered as one, complete film when placed back-to-back. In these cases, franchises like Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Lord of the Rings could all be considered singular films with running times at or over 12 hours long! In regards to the last series of the aforementioned list, which won Best Picture in 2003, the fact that it was shot all at once with the same actors gives credence to the thought that all three films are actually a single film split into three parts. With the “extended editions” of these films considered to be the true film adaptation of the Lord of the Rings story, get ready for a half-day movie marathon.

The third installment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Return of the King (2003) follows Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) as they complete the final push into Mordor to destroy Sauron’s ring of power. Meanwhile, the remaining members of the Fellowship (established in the first film, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)) bolster their forces to take on Sauron’s army. Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) gains alliances of kings, both living and dead, and battles his way to Sauron’s front door. Having traveled an incredible distance and endured numerous obstacles and struggles, Frodo and Sam wearily make their way into Mount Doom, the source of (and therefore the only way to destroy) the ring of power. As the battle heats up between good and evil, Gollum (Andy Serkis) sees his last chance to obtain the ring for himself. Will Sauron win in the end, or will Frodo be able to rid Middle Earth of the ring once and for all?

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 movie marathons

#210. The Underdog

Perhaps the most-used cliché in Hollywood, the Underdog never ceases to attract audiences. Why is this? I think the reason behind the popularity of an Underdog story is due to its relatability. Most underdogs are unequipped to challenge the more-skilled favorites of a competition. The Underdog always has some sort of “too” associated with them that prevents them from coming up against a fair fight: too young, too old, too weak, too poor. Despite these disadvantages, they still manage to stand up and take their opponents head-on. All too often, we are reminded of our shortcomings. We are reminded of the strengths of others. We all want the Underdog to win because we are the Underdog. We are inspired to overcome our circumstances as long as we see that it can be done. This week’s two films focus on Underdogs.

Rocky
Year: 1976
Rating: PG
Length: 119 minutes / 1.98 hours

A surprising amount of sports films focus on the Underdog. In fact, I’d almost wager they all do. Usually, the team with the greatest odds to win is the team with the most money, the most skill, the most talent, and the most black uniforms. And yet, even with all these factors in their favor, this team will not win at the end of the film. Sure, they’ll beat the Underdog the first time they cross paths, but this just gives the Underdog’s victory that much more of an impact. Many boxing films have featured Underdogs, including Million Dollar Baby (2004) with a woman who was too old, Cinderella Man (2005) with a man who was too poor, and Battling Butler (1926) with a man who was too weak. While the latter of this list is the most comedic of the set (and thus, the odd man out), the best-known Underdog boxer is that of Rocky Balboa from the 1976 Best Picture, Rocky. This classic Underdog story is a staple of the American Film Institute’s Top 100 list, currently placed at #57.

Heavyweight champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) is looking forward to the World Heavyweight Championship bout set to take place during New Year’s Day on America’s Bicentennial. Unfortunately, the contender has to bow out due to an injured hand, giving Creed a conundrum: nobody else has enough time to train for the match. As a result, he has an idea: let an unknown boxer, an Underdog, fight him instead. Enter Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone): a nobody who is nicknamed “The Italian Stallion.” Rocky doesn’t think he can beat Creed but still wants to give it his all. He wants to “go the distance” with Creed because nobody else has. When the fight starts, nobody could expect Balboa to last to the final round, but he does, refusing to be knocked out. Even though he technically lost, the simple act of just hanging on made Rocky the winner of the film.

Real Steel
Year: 2011
Rating: PG-13
Length: 127 minutes / 2.12 hours

The sports genre hasn’t completely cornered the market on Underdogs. Fantasy and science fiction often feature the Underdog, which perhaps explains a little bit about their fan-base. Frodo from The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) was not the best candidate to destroy the ring of power. Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games (2012-2015) was from the weakest and poorest District. The Rebels from Star Wars (1977-1983) were too insignificant to defeat the Empire. And yet, all of these characters, amongst many others, all overcame their perceived weaknesses and managed to accomplish their goals, even against the overwhelming forces pitted against them. Of course, sometimes genres can cross boundaries. Science fiction is rife with robots and Underdogs. Sports films have boxers and Underdogs. By combining these two genres at their common points, we arrive at Real Steel (2011).

This 2011 science fiction sports film has been jokingly referred to as Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots: the Movie as well as Rocky with Robots. Having been pushed out of his boxing career by robots, Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) has now hit rock bottom: losing a bet that his robot could beat a live bull. To top things off, he now finds himself another $100,000 in debt because he wants full custody of his son, Max (Dakota Goyo), whose mother has just died. Through a series of robots fights (and destroyed robots), Max and Charlie eventually bond over a sparring robot found in a junkyard. Atom is not expected to win, but because it has a unique ability to mimic its owner’s movements, Charlie teaches the robot how to fight. Eventually, Charlies is able to pit the Underdog against the global champion, Zeus. In much the same fashion as Rocky, Atom lasts the whole bout, but doesn’t technically win, despite being the “People’s Champion.”

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 ubiquitous underdogs

#072. Oscar Sweepers

If there’s one thing about the Academy Awards, it’s winning. Of course, within that one word, there are two emphases. There’s “winning,” and then there’s winning. Sure, you could win Best Picture, but if that’s your only win (like with 1928’s The Broadway Melody) would everyone else really agree with you? Now, the flip side of that coin is if you’re nominated for double-digit awards but only walk away with a few (as with 2008’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with 13 nominations and 3 wins). If you didn’t even win the Best Picture award, it makes people wonder if your film’s prestige was all hype. However, there do exist films that so dominate the Academy Awards that they end up winning most of the awards. Only five films have come away from the ceremony holding 10 or more statuettes, including Best Picture. Movies like West Side Story (1961), The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), and Titanic (1997) pretty much swept the Oscars for their respective years. This week’s two films are included in that list of Oscar sweepers.

Gone with the Wind
Year: 1939
Rating: PG
Length: 238 minutes / 3.97 hours

Often, Box Office sensations rarely win many awards. And yet, Gone with the Wind (1939) is perhaps the exception. Before 1939, the most Oscars one film had received was five. This record was blown out of the water with Gone with the Wind‘s 10 wins. What is perhaps more impressive is the number of times this film has been re-released to theaters. Aside from its original 1939 release, this film has been re-released eight times (1947, 1954, 1961, 1971, 1974, 1989 and 1998), which is why Gone with the Wind is often considered the highest-grossing film of all time, garnering more than $400 million in ticket sales alone. To further its importance, the American Film Institute has placed Gone with the Wind as high as #4 on its list of Top 100 movies of the last 100 years.

With an impressive running time nearing four hours (with a 15-minute intermission included), Gone with the Wind (1939) is perhaps the longest epic film ever made, or at least it was upon its release. Of course, when adapting a Pulitzer-prize winning novel, there is obviously a lot of material to cover. After all, the entire first half of the film covers life in the South before the Civil War. There wasn’t much to worry about at that time, except for who you were going to marry. And yet, once the war hit, many struggled to maintain their lifestyles. The second half of the film dives deep into poverty, in stark contrast to its first half. What will people resort to when their lives of luxury are lost? Most will come to terms with their fate and make sure that they’ll “never be hungry again.”

Ben-Hur
Year: 1959
Rating: PG
Length: 212 minutes / 3.53 hours

There’s just something about epic films. While not nearly as long as Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur (1959) comes pretty close. And yet, the distinction of most Oscars won was held by Gone with the Wind for twenty years before Ben-Hur came along. It held this distinction for a much longer time frame since the next film to win more Oscars than Ben-Hur was Titanic in 1997 (almost 40 years later). Of course, as this was a remake, who knows if the original Ben-Hur filmed in 1925 (also based on a book of the same name) would have done nearly as well at the Academy Awards, had they existed at that point. Then again, winning 11 of 12 available awards is quite a feat, percentage-wise as well. Needless to say, plenty of memorable cinematic moments occurred in this film, which is why the American Film Institute has placed it at #72 on its first Top 100 films list.

Ben-Hur starts out much in the same way that Gone with the Wind did. Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is an influential and wealthy man in Jerusalem during the time of Roman rule. Unfortunately, for keeping his standards and not ratting out some Zionist revolutionaries, he is wrongfully accused for some harm that had befallen a Roman near Ben-Hur’s house. As such, he is shipped off into slavery where he is shown to have some talent. After refusing to ride chariots, he is put on a warship that eventually sinks. However, fortune smiles upon him as he escapes and resumes his life as a free man. Unfortunately, his sister and mother have gone missing, and he still needs to take revenge against the man who sent him to a life of slavery. But what luck! A chariot race can give him his revenge, and his old connections know where his family is. And yet, it’s never that straightforward, now is it?

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 big winners

#069. The Trilogy Conundrum

In my mind, there is one thing that can really ruin a movie. Sequels. A lot of films are excellent by themselves and can stand on their own merit, but since they happened to make a lot of money, they almost automatically get a sequel tacked on so the studio can make more money. Of course, the sequel isn’t as strong as the original (or rarely is, in any case). What is more unfortunate is that the first sequel is done in such a way that it begs for a second sequel. Therefore, a film that could have just stood by itself has now been made into a trilogy. This is what I like to call “The Trilogy Conundrum.” With very few original ideas coming out of Hollywood, why must we beat those ideas to death with endless sequels? Don’t even get me started about the emergence of 2-part films, despite their insistence that they include more of the source material. This week’s two movies can stand just fine by themselves but were made into trilogies (or more).

The Matrix
Year: 1999
Rating: R
Length: 136 minutes / 2.26 hours

While The Matrix (1999) hasn’t been the first film to fall under the Trilogy Conundrum, it is certainly one of the most prevalent. Any sequel that ends with “To Be Continued” falls squarely in this category. In fact, one of the other trilogies that have done this was Back to the Future, which I can forgive because the third film in that series is my favorite. Cliffhangers are frustrating for audiences, mainly because they just sat through two hours of film with no conclusion and no resolution. Now, some trilogies can work well together to create a complete narrative that connects across all three films to intertwine the whole storyline. Trilogies like The Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight saga, and The Fluxion Trilogy are how trilogies should be done, but that may just be my opinion (especially on that last one).

I think what gave The Matrix its initial charm was that it was a story of discovery. Sure, the special effects were neat, but what really gave the story some kick was Neo (Keanu Reeves) realizing his control over the system and eventually using it for his gain. However, the sequels don’t have that journey of self-discovery but instead, rely heavily on some impressive and flashy special effects. The story seems to come second in The Matrix Reloaded (2003), which means that by the time The Matrix Revolutions (2004) came out, they should have fixed what was wrong with the first sequel. Wrong. Still thinking that bigger is better, the end of the Matrix trilogy was just kind of sad, and really didn’t come to a worthwhile or meaningful conclusion, despite the amazing fight sequences that filled its running time.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
Year: 2003
Rating: PG-13
Length: 144 minutes / 2.4 hours

Now, if there is anything I hate more than the Trilogy Conundrum, it’s a franchise that breaks out of the 3-movie formula. After all, if you are going through with a trilogy, it at least follows a logical “beginning-middle-end” formula that is the basis of any good story (or at least it should follow this formula). What gets me is when a trilogy ends and all the sudden a few years go by and here comes another film in the franchise. DreamWorks has done this with most of its animated fare, with the most notable example being the Shrek franchise. See, the unfortunate thing about a 4th movie is that when the sequels weren’t necessarily called for, something that lies outside of a trilogy framework really struggles to be anything more than a desperate attempt to make money.

Even though the idea of a movie based on a Disneyland ride is somewhat ridiculous, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) did manage to have great characters, a reasonable plot, excellent action, and a fulfilling conclusion. And yet, when the pirates came back in Dead Man’s Chest (2006), the antagonist was so strong that it required At World’s End (2007) to arrive at any sort of resolution. Now, that being said, what some people fail to realize is that the first three films in the Pirates franchise don’t focus on Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), but instead on Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and his relationship with Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley). This is why, when On Stranger Tides (2011) was released, and Will and Elizabeth were not there (for obvious reasons), the film really didn’t live up to the name that Pirates of the Caribbean had garnered for itself.

2 sum it up: 2 films, 2 many sequels