Change Your Image
clay_thompson
Reviews
Hancock (2008)
Better than the current IMDb rating - 5.6
The movie was clever, original, and outrageous. Growing up on comics and comic book characters during the years of the Comics Authority Code, the approval group stating what could and must not be in a comic book, there was often a "what if" quality to the comics of my youth. What if you had a "superhero" with an alcohol problem? That is not a spoiler... it's in the advertisements. Yeah, I know, Tony Stark/Iron Man had a booze problem, but nothing quite like this. "What if" you had a superhero with no impulse control and was a drunk? What if you had a superhero with no impulse control, was a drunk and had no social skills whatsoever? It is an interesting place to start, and that is where "Hancock" starts, and in places it is hilarious.
Will Smith plays what may be the ultimate outsider, and as he usually is in his annual summer film, he is brilliant at it. Charlize Theron has always been attractive (well except for 'Monster'), but somehow I had not focused that she was in this movie, and in it she is just gorgeous. All through the movie I had asked "Who is this? She's beautiful."
My biggest complaint probably came from the direction of Peter Berg. Berg is a serviceable director who finds things in stories that other directors likely will not. He seems to have a passion of documentary film making, because like in "Friday Night Lights" he uses an awful lot of hand held camera work -- so much so that it became an annoyance. I hope he ditches the hand held when he directs "Dune."
When I watched the ending credits, I thought, "My goodness, what a pedigree," and it may be that there were too many cooks making this soup - each having their favorite spice to add without regard to the overall soup.
It is worth seeing, and if you like action movies and comic book superheroes, you should like it. If you do see it, see it on the big screen.
Rocky Balboa (2006)
A Fittng Ending - Best since the original Rocky
What does an old fighter do? What does an old writer do? What does an old director do? If he is Sylvester Stallone, he writes the best script of his life, and does his best job of direction of his life.
Stallone penned and directed a most human story, capturing the heart of Rocky the fighter and Rocky the man. When Rocky was forced into retirement, his life was full of "what ifs." The beast was still alive "in the basement" of his life. Rocky had not fought his last fight, but he had to make a life with what was left after the events of Rocky V.
The Rocky films were always contained two stories that were intertwined. Certainly there were the stories of the fights: Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Ivan Drago. But there was also the great love story between Rocky and Adrian. This film delivers on both counts, but it may be the most life affirming of all the Rocky films.
When we see the sixty year old Rocky Balboa, we see a face marked by everyone of the thousands of blows to the face, but we start to see that this Rocky is still a sweet caring guy, who hasn't forgotten where he came from. Before he came together with Adrian, he was merely a 'ham and egger' who lost as many fights as he won. After Adrian became the completion of his life, he finds something in himself to believe in, and later he sees her love transforming him after he thought he had everything to lose and nothing to gain. Adrian was as tough in facing life's challenges as Rocky was in facing his opponents in the ring.
This is the most human of the Rocky films, and I am afraid that younger viewers will miss a very good message, although it is much more than a message film.
It is just good story telling.
Brothers & Sisters (2006)
To watch a show regularly, you have to care about who's there
I don't.
I would have left my evaluation just as it was on the preceding line if the IMDb would have allowed me to do so. My wife and I looked forward to this show because the cast looked simply spectacular. It is. But as I watched the show I kept asking myself: why am I watching this. I don't find anything about it that is compelling. David E. Kelley has a habit of hit and miss show creation. Some of his shows are simply a pleasure to watch. Usually the shows nudge what is considered respectable for the shock value or for some cheap laughs. Mr. Kelley does not always know what will be compelling while creating a show. In this case he has a family full of dysfunctional people, and they aren't people I want to spend time with. Some would ask what is wrong with Calista Flockhart's character. Are you ready for this? She's a conservative. Obviously this is a major flaw in her character.
Gods and Generals (2003)
A movie for the ages but not for today
I have just finished watching 'Gods and Generals' and I have to say that I am glad that it was made. It is an intriguing film that attempts to do two different things at once -- be faithful to the source material by Jeff Skaara, and capture the flavor of the 1860s. From that perspective I would rate it a ten.
The movie does fail in one major regard: it fails to reinforce many commonly held beliefs about the Civil War. While not politically correct, it is historically compelling, and I applaud Ronald Maxwell and Ted Turner in this regard.
'Gods and Generals' is in fact a prequel to 'Gettysburg' made by the same production company that produced the former, based upon a book by the son of the author of the book upon which 'Gettysburg' was based. It captures the spirit of an age where people spoke in complex, compound sentences, using multisyllabic words. It does not water down the motivations of the people of that age, and it places an emphasis of the values of the time.
To my knowledge, nothing has been done concerning the life of Gneral Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, the South's greatest general, and considered by some to be the greatest military genius of that age to be found anywhere in the world. He is portrayed, and accurately I believe, as a man of complex piety and practicality, bravery and genius. Jackson is shown as a whole, red blooded man, who spends the evening reading from the Scriptures and praying with his "Esposita" his loving wife Anna Morrison Jackson. In seeing them together, the actors played their roles with no cynicism at all, and that is refreshing. Still, in keeping with the well rounded portrayal of Jackson, they show him attempting to comfort an unbelieving friend, a general who dies from wounds sustained in battle. When asked by a member of that general's staff, "Sir, what shall we do?" Jackson responds without flinching, telling him "Kill them all." While Jackson was a man of remarkable piety and courage, he knew that war had thrust him into an environment where you kill or be killed. Jackson was not consumed with blood lust. Instead, he did not want to lose one more man under his command. He is well played by Stephen Lang, who had been Gneral Picket in the earlier film.
Jeff Daniels played Lt Col Joshua Chamberlain, who was also a complex man. When I saw him in 'Gettysburg' I thought he was deserving of Academy Award consideration. Daniels communicated brilliantly the essence of an academic forced to make the most difficult of choices from the summit of Little Round Top. In this film, though ten years older, he was able to well play a man who was still in the process of becoming the man from the earlier movie.
This film, unlike 'Gettysburg' which concerns itself with a single battle, goes a long way to show us something of the attitudes and feelings of a people whose values are quite different from modern day sensibilities.
It is worth the watch, if you can take the movie on its own terms. Make the effort and listen carefully. There is a history lesson worth the time.
The Core (2003)
Better than often given credit for
I am watching "The Core" after having read several other comments about the movie. The sentiments expressed go from being "Fine Movie" to "Worst Movie ever," the last obviously coming from someone who rated "Starship Troopers" as the "greatest Sci Fi movie ever made." There are parts of this movie that are actually very good. The first thing to give credit for was the cast that they had. It is a very good cast. Let me repeat, a very good cast. Alfrie Woodard has never given a bad performance, and although her role was relatively small, she brought moral gravity to the role that the movie needed. Delroy Lindo showed a range that I have never seen him do. Obviously better recognized as a man in control, he was nigh on perfect as the forgotten but brilliant scientist who still stings over Stanley Tucci's Conrad Zimsky having stole his discoveries from a generation earlier. Tucci, a fine actor, did take it over the top a bit too much. DJ Qualls gives an underrated performance. He is 6'2" but makes us believe he is a 5'7" geek. He gave a touching performance as he tried to slow down the big bad that caused the problem in the first place. Aaron Eckhart, normally a baddie, did a believable performance, with Hillary Swank, a two time Oscar winner bringing her easily recognized skills to the screen.
I originally wanted to blame Director Jon Amiel for the faults of the movie, but when I went back and considered individual roles and scenes, I realized that he did the job he was paid to do. The visual effects were more than adequate, constrained by the need, not for realism, but by the need to show things that would further the story.
So where did it go wrong? First, the problem, I believe, was with the writing. The script was very uneven. Part of it came from what appears to be last minute changes in the story line. Early trailers suggest a very different story -- and rumors from Hollywood at the time indicated this was true.
Too much of the story telling was quick and dirty, trying to just get it done. Had they not been locked in to a predetermined release date, they could have gotten the script right. Second, it seems there was a problem with editing. There were times when the film just went clunk. Was it poor editing in and of itself? Or was it editing that had to serve the problems with the script. Far from a perfect movie, but one with some very good elements. Give credit where credit is due.
Superman Returns (2006)
An excellent Movie - like an evening with an old friend
I saw the Chris Reeves/Richard Donner "Superman" on opening night back in 1978. That was a big deal, and it was a wonderful experience giving all of us a chance to see a flesh and blood Son of Krypton. There were things that I loved and there were things that I disliked then, and have grown to detest in the subsequent years. Gene Hackman wasn't the real Lex Luthor. Margot Kidder wasn't the real Lois Lane. Still, we got to see a man fly, and the portions of the film portraying Krypton were very good, and those portraying Smallville were brilliant (particularly Glen Ford).
Superman Returns borrowed from all the right parts of the original, and changed everything that I disliked. The special effects were special. As I watched it I thought about Peter Jackson's "King Kong," a film that cost about the same. Kong was a film that I didn't like, partially because I couldn't find a character I believed or cared about. Superman Returns had real people, and didn't take any short cuts on either the character aspect, nor the VFX.
It was a move that made the long wait worth it, and it completely erased parts III and IV from the original series. Go see it.
The Lake House (2006)
A Serious Fantasy Romance - whoda thunk
I watched the trailers for this movie and they piqued my interest, and since I have a love for science fiction and fantasy - if and when they are intelligently done -- I mentioned it to my wife. "Well, I have a couple of gift passes to the local Regal, let's go on Father' Day." And we did. It was time well spent.
Before going I had read several reviews from the usual places, and in watching the movie realized that many of the reviewers did not understand the concepts or the filming techniques used to tell the story.
The movie is an old fashioned romance of longing between two people who are kept apart by powers beyond their ability to overcome - a difficult thing to do in our age of air travel. In a significant way it reminds of me "Peter Ibbetson", the 1935 three hanky romance starring Gary Cooper. Gary's character ends up in prison for life but maintains a life long romance with a noble born woman who comes to him in his and her dreams.
This is a movie that reflects to us that the essence of romance is an issue of heart and mind, not bodies bumping in the night.
Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, playing together for the first time since "Speed" have a believable on screen chemistry although they spend very little time on screen together. They play a little against type, making us believe that they feel what they are playing. It was delightful.
Now, I admit it was not for everyone. My wife is an absolutely linear thinker, and it stands her well in the educational field where she works. She asked how I liked, and I told her. She then said, "I don't think I got it. Everyone around me was sniffing and dabbing their eyes, and I had to fight sleep through much of the movie." She's always said I was the romantic in the family. It's not a chick flick, there were couples there, but the majority were women whose favorite hair color was either gray or white. Maybe that says something about me.
If you are looking for an old fashioned story that will make you feel things, take your loved one and go. It'll help remind you why you got together in the first place.
Highlander (1986)
With so much going against it, it shouldn't work, but it does
I saw this movie on opening night twenty years ago and I loved it. I am a science fiction aficionado, a true romantic and a descendant of the Scots. So I was a sucker for this film when I went in to it.
The movie has something that few genre films had then or today: creativity. It offered a truly unique mythos that captured my attention. When it was over, it made one thing clear: there can be only one. I wish Davis and Panzer had another way of making money, so they could have left this movie to stand alone - anything left bastardized the very premise for the movie.
It has more than enough to go against it: the acting of several characters, Chris Lambert;s accent, the inconsistency of the special effects, the direction.
Yet, I loved the movie. Sean Connery stole the show, Clanchy Brown was one of the great heavies, the sound track featured the work of Michael Kamen, and the cuts from Queen were well placed.
There is much to be said for Adrian Paul's kinsman to Connor McLeod, but the only way I can justify it is to say it is from an alternate reality -- because there can be only one,
Starship Troopers (1997)
An Excuse for a Movie
Some years ago Edward Neumeier developed a script about a war between Earth and a planet of highly intelligent spiders. The relative strength of the script is unknown by me, but I do know he could not sell the script. Somehow, he became attached to a movie based upon Robert Heinlein's controversial novel, "Starship Troopers." When Heinlein wrote the book, he had been writing novels for a younger readership that were called, "Juveniles." His editor was horrified at some of the sentiments of the book and refused to publish it. Heinlein literally took the book to a publisher across the street who was delighted to get a work from a best selling author. They published the book and Science Fiction's highest honor - the Hugo award for best novel.
The political sentiments expressed in the novel have been called Fascist, among other things. Technically, Fascism is an economic system and not a political one. Nevertheless, the objectionable part of the book was, for the most part, background material and not the purpose of the book. There was also hand to hand battle with the "Bugs." In the book, the Mobile Infantry, the military group portrayed, did battle in personal armor, not in platoon sized transports.
Verhoeven's vision was Hollywood at it's worst. Verhoeven decided to view the movie through the lens of the invasion of his boyhood home, Holland, by Nazi Germany. In doing so, he robbed the book of its heart and soul. The heart of the book was the growth of Jonny Rico, and the relationships built among him and the other members of the Mobile Infantry, and it is almost never dealt with.
In the run up to the movie, there were several clips that spoke about Heinlein's wish that he had actually included women in the Mobile Infantry, but I am convinced that he would have grieved over the emasculation of his story. A writer of his caliber, one of the three grand masters of Science Fiction, deserves better.
When I watched this the first time, I could not help be reflect on the usage of Verhoeven as direction. They used a director whose vision of life was was diametrically opposed to that the of the original writer. Verhoeven owed him more. I wish he had read the novel.
Running Scared (1986)
A Delight
There are films, when going in, you don't expect much and then are pleasantly surprised. This was one of those films. It was difficult for me to picture Billy Crystal as an undercover cop, but he was very good in this. The focus of the movie was mostly on Billy, but there was a wonderful chemistry between him and Gregory Hines. It is not a date movie, but is great to see with a buddy. If you are just a bit off center, and have a friend who is equally off center, but one who balances you, this is a movie that you can thoroughly enjoy.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and hoped we could have a re-teaming of Crystal and Hines, but Gregory Hines untimely death robbed us of that.
Watch it, and enjoy, enjoy, enjoy. Ohhhhh Nooooo!
Drop Dead Fred (1991)
Siskle and Ebert listed it as the worse movie either had ever seen
I went to see this at the encouragement of my movie going buddy. Gordon told me, "It's about a puka. You know, like the rabbit in 'Harvey.'" We sat in the theater and a small child who was sitting with mom and dad turned to Dad and said, "This was horrible." He was about six years old. On our way out of the theater, Gordon said, "I am soooooo sorry." We never spoke about it again.
Later that week, Siskle and Ebert were on 'The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.' They spoke about several movies, and when Johnny asked, "What's the worst movie you've ever seen," without hesitation and in unison they said, "Drop Dead Fred." That pretty much says it all.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Visually stunning - suffers from trying to make it too pertinent today
MPAA Rating - R Cast - Story - 7 Production Values - 9 Music - 7 Creativity - 8 World View - 5 Heart -- 6 Impacter - Production Values - 9
Final Score - 7
Notes - This was an interesting movie, having moved into places where few movies from this time period have gone in some time. The last one that had an impact on me was "The Long Ships" in 1963, starring Richard Widmark as the Viking Rolfe and Sidney Poitier as Saladin. This is a visually stunning film, but from my perspective, it was somewhat flawed. Cast: Refers not only to actors, but also the roles they play and the way that they play them. Orlando Bloom was wonderful as the strong and silent Legolas who had no responsibility to lead the Fellowship of the Ring, but he doesn't work as Balian. Balian is too good with a sword and much too good as a siege master. The character portrayed, which was little like the character he was based on: was without education, likely could not read and definitely could not deal with the overwhelming Saracen army. The actual Balian was of noble birth and was prepared for the siege. As point of note, Saladin did not let the people just walk off. A bounty was paid on nearly every person who walked out of Jerusalem. Balian himself paid a lot of that bounty. This is the problem when you take a person and drastically change him for the sake of a story line. The rest of the cast was well done but much of the movie rises and falls on the believability of Bloom in the major role. Story - It is too much of an attempt to speak to the circumstances of today. Production Values - Visually spectacular, well edited, but suffers from Ridley Scott's attempt to make Balian over in his own image. Scott, who calls himself an agnostic, stated that Balian in the move became agnostic. In life, Balian was a very pious man who even once refused earlier to fight on Sunday. Music - A fair presentation. very reminiscent of some of Jerry Goldsmith's work in "The 13th Warrior." Creativity - Has gone a place where others have not gone in a long time. Used special effects to create a remarkable visual palate that drew the viewer into the 12th Century. World View - Suffers too much from putting a 21st century spin on a 12th Century story. Heart - failed to cause me to care. Impacter - most important part was it's sheer spectacle - drawing from Scott's tendency to focus on the images of his film. Get's extra credit for that. Final average was 7.
King Kong (2005)
Less is More
Last night, I joined the faithful on a bitterly cold night and went to my local multiplex to see Peter Jackson's new "King Kong." When I first heard that Jackson was about to complete a lifelong dream and remake "Kong," I was prepared for a film experience that few movies could match. My enthusiasm for anything Jackson is quite high.
Going through the turnstiles of my theater of choice, (one with digital sound, etc) I had such high hopes and expectations. First, I am a very big Peter Jackson fan after the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and with his writing team in place, I was sure that we were going on a very special trip. Second, I knew that he would respect the original material as he had with Tolkien.
Because of what he had done most recently, I had begun to view Jackson as a mix of Spielberg, Howard Hawks and John Ford. Spielberg always remembers to capture the humanity of his subjects along with a delightful sense of wonder. Hawks was one of the preeminent story tellers of early Hollywood, and Ford could create a battle field like no other. On the other hand, when I came out of "King Kong" I felt as though I had seen, instead, a film by, Fred Zinnemann, when he directed "High Noon," in 1952. Zinnemann was a fine film maker, having won an Oscar the next year for "From Hell to Eternity." But he was one who didn't always know when enough was enough.
As the story was told by Elmo Williams, editor on "High Noon", when the first view of the film was shown to studio executives at Stanley Kramer Productions, there was genuine fear that they had a disaster on their hands. It was way too long and had no pacing whatsoever. Mr. Williams said he could take a crack at it and cut the length considerably, but also was careful to cut the number of close-ups for Grace Kelly to a small percentage of the minutes that she originally had.
Just as Grace Kelly was one of the great beauties of her time, Naomi Watts is a rare find: a beautiful actress who can act. As good as she is, though, she is not so good that she can withstand the scrutiny of several multiple minute close-ups. I realize that Peter wanted to communicate the depth of her feelings, but the close-ups became a distraction rather than an enhancement to the story line. What he needed to do was sell us on the love that Beauty had for the beast, and it just didn't work.
The second problem was with the Carl Denham character, Jack Black. When I saw the original, more years ago than I care to remember, I had never seen Robert Armstrong before and found him completely believable. Jack Black was never able to convince me that he was someone other than someone who was trying to be Robert Armstrong. I have heard that Jack's style was to be more like Orson Wells, but in either regard, he needed more years, and more experience in dramatic roles. I wanted to chalk it up to many views of Jack Black in other roles, but most top tier actors can make us forget the past and invest ourselves in his or her performance. Jack Black was unable to do so.
The third problem was simple. It was just too long. Now I never for a moment through LOTR was too long as the story justified it. But with the director making epic some of the things that Marion C. Cooper only hinted at was a calculation that Peter Jackson should have recited.
I remember a line from Star Trek VI, where the President of the Federation said at Camp Kittomer: Just because we can do a thing, does not mean we must do a thing. I believe the line could be applied here.
If you are going to see the movie, do see it in a good theater with high quality sound. Visually it was an amazing movie, and even with a 52" DLP wide screen at home, I know it could never duplicate the experience of large theater.
Often I buy visually stunning movies that tell stories well. I will not be adding this to my collection.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Honorable to C,S, Lewis' Vision
At times I view myself as a writer, mostly as avocation, but a writer nevertheless. When a beloved book is converted into cinema, especially a beloved book, I view it with apprehension.
I imagined what Tim Burton would have done with this book and I simply shuddered. I can hear him now, "No, I must make this 'my' Narnia." While I recognize Burton as an imaginary and talented film maker, he is someone who does not normally respect the work of others. Fortunately for us all that he did not make "Narnia." When a film maker looks at this book, he is faced with the same challenges that Peter Jackson faced with the Lord of the Rings. First of all it was a book that belonged to J.R.R. Tolkien, and more recently the Tolkien family. Secondly it is a series of books that belongs to the generations of fans that sustained the remarkable publishing history. So it is with "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Andrew Adamson is a fine cinematic story teller as proved with both Shrek films. Here he took a book with tens of millions of owners, and made a film that carefully walks the line common to all of the owners. It was a joy to watch his rendering of the story, and caring not to water down the more 'dynamic' portions of the book.
I am amazed that Disney, better know for witches and ghosts, would allow a movie such as this to be made under their banner. The movie turns out to create a much better legacy than Michael Eisner deserves.
Three cheers for Mr. Adamson
Battlestar Galactica (2003)
Is "Battlestar Galactica" about people or events?
Rating: 4 out of 10
As this mini-series approached, and we were well aware of it for the last six months as Sci-Fi Channel continued to pepper their shows with BG ads, I confess that I felt a growing unease as I learned more.
As with any work of cinematic art which has stood up to some test of time, different people go to it to see different things. In this regard, when people think of Battlestar Galactica, they remember different things. For some it is the chromium warriors with the oscillating red light in their visor. For others, it is the fondness that they held for special effects that were quite evolutionary for their time. Many forget the state of special effects during the late 70s, especially those on television. For some the memories resolve around the story arc. Others still remember the relationships how how the relationships themselves helped overcome the challenges that they faced.
Frankly, I come from the latter group. The core of Battlestar Galactica was the people that pulled together to save one another from an evil empire. Yes, evil. The Cylons had nothing to gain but the extermination of the human race yet they did it. While base stars were swirling around, men and women came together to face an enemy with virtually unlimited resources, and somehow they managed to survive until the next show. They didn't survive because they had better technology, or more fire power. They survived because they cared for and trusted each other to get through to the next show.
The show had its flaws, and at times was sappy, but they were people you could care about.
The writers of this current rendition seemed to never understand this. In some ways he took the least significant part of the original show, the character's names and a take on the story arc and crafted what they called nothing less than a reinvention of television science fiction. Since that was their goal, they can be judged on how well they accomplished it: failure. It was far from a reinvention. In fact it was in many ways one of the most derivitive of science fiction endeavors in a long time. It borrows liberally from ST:TNG, ST:DS9, Babylon 5, and even Battlefield Earth. I find that unfortunate.
Ronald D. Moore has been a contributor to popular science fiction for more than a decade, and has made contribution to some of the most popular television Science Fiction that you could hope to see. One of the difficulties that he appears to have had was that there could be no conflict in the bridge crew of the Enterprise D & E. That was the inviolable rule of Roddenberry's ST:TNG. Like many who have lived under that rules of others who then take every opportunity to break the rules when they are no longer under that authority, Ron Moore seems to have forgotten some of the lessons he learned under the acknowledged science fiction master: Gene Roddenberry. Here, instead of writing the best story possible, he has created a dysfuntional cast as I have ever seen with the intent of creating as much cast conflict as he could. Besides being dysfunctional, some of it was not the least bit believable. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that someone unprovokedly striking a superior officer would not get just a couple of days "in hack," they could have gotten execution, and they never would have gotten out the next day. It wouldn't have happened, period, especially in time of war.
The thing that I remembered most of Ron Moore's earlier work was that he was the one who penned the death of Capt. James Kirk. He killed Capt. Kirk, and, alas for me, he has killed Battlestar Galactica.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Laughter and tears were all that I could add to this story
rating 10 of 10
I have never been the biggest Tokien fan. I read "Hobbit" in High School, and bought the Trilogy ten years later, but had always been unable to get more than halfway through the first book. The second and third still sit on my shelf, unread, but never thrown away either.
With the earlier animated versions of the story, I watched but felt unsatisfied, even though I am a huge fan of Sci-Fi and fantasy. When I learned that Peter Jackson was tapped to bring the stories to the big screen, I was intrigued by two things: he was a fan and he was committed to bringing cinematic life to Tokien's vision. While I had not been able to read the books, I always respectd Professor Tolkien's vision and purpose. I respected his values and have honored his life as I can. I knew that whoever would do well with this material would have to be someone who "got it."
Peter Jackson "got it." And because he got it, we get it.
I could write this using every superlative that I am capable of, but 749 other commenters have done that far better than I. What I can say is that is a world of so many "relative values" it has been an oxygen bottle of fresh air to see people. hobbits, elves and dwarves coming together to fight an overwhelming evil. It was not the city walls of Minas Tirith, or the army of the underworld, or the individual courage of an elf and a dwarf, or even a reluctant king taking up the sword of his ancestors. All played their part, and as in real life, if any had failed to do his or her very best, it all could have collapsed under its own weight. The least impressive of all of the fellowship was Sam, and while he did not have the strongest sword, or the sharpest eye, he had the biggest heart. And while he could not carry the ring he could carry ... Oops, I got away from myself.
Peter Jackson, has proven himself a director of the first rank, and has accomplished what no other would ever try. He has told a story or splendor and glory, but never lost sight that these qualities rest in the heart of very human people, whether they come from the human race or not.
I will always be grateful for what he has done here.