Review:Fellowship of the Ring 871
Everyone has expectations about this movie. I imagine most of you have read the books. You all have ideas about what a Balrog looks like. What Gandalf is like. And yes, hell, even what the ring should look like. And you simply can't expect a movie to meet everyones ideas... but this thing came just as close as I could have hoped.
In short, there aren't many great movies that come out any more... but this is one of them. Everyone seems nearly perfectly cast. The special effects are nothing short of brilliant. The sets from the Shire on out look so wonderful and believable that you just wanna move in... until the Ring Wraiths show up and make everything all miserable.
Elijah Woods pulls off Frodo quite well. Yeah maybe he fell down one to many times, but the angst is believable. And Gandalf? His desire for the ring is intense and his actions are truly heroic.
I can't imagine a film adaptation of perhaps the best book ever written being done better. The first 45 minutes are a bit slow going, but once the Fellowship starts coming together I just didn't want to blink.
I could find things to nitpick about: some scenes the audio mix wasn't quite right, but that could partially have been the mediocre sound system in the theater: dialog was a bit muffled under the music. Some of the effects were noticably CG, but those were rare. Quite frankly nobody has done CG monsters as convincingly in a film to date. There was a handful of shots that looked faked, and all the rest seemed as perfect as could be.
God damn. The hype is warranted. The wait was worth it. But 12 months for the next one? At least I have my copy of FFX to keep me occupied during maybe 40 hours of the next 8,760 or so I have to wait. But who's counting?
This review's good (Score:4, Informative)
This one [nypress.com] says:
For long sections of the film, I didn't take any notes; it's hard to scribble when your jaw is on the floor.
A chance to pass the book on (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Spoiler-free? (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, it's not huge. There are just minor changes. If you're indifferent about the Trilogy, or even if you're just a casual fan, they won't matter that much. Heck, the changes make for a more marketable, more Americanized Tolkien.
But, if you're like me, and you're a Tolkien nut, they're big enough to cause you to pause during the movie. They're big enough to make you walk away and think, "Hmm. Not bad, but..."
It was a good movie. It wasn't, as a friend called it, "The Best Movie, Ever." It definitely wasn't as good as, say, the BBC Radio production. Aside from reading the books themselves, that's still the best adaptation I've seen.
Still. No spoilers in the review, because there are some people, like me, who've been avoiding all the crap about the movies - I didn't want this to be another Star Wars: Episode I, where I knew almost every line of dialog before I walked into the theater...
Re:Best Book Ever Written!?! (Score:2, Informative)
Tolkien was a professor of english and was especially interested in old english language. LotR is as much an exercise in language and a forum for Tolkien's own "retro" poetry as an epic novel, but if you haven't ever read a better book, maybe you should put down the O'reilly and take a literature class!
This is a pretty spineless reply to CmdrTaco. Sure attack him for picking Lord of the Rings as the best book (or books, depending on who you ask) ever written, but you don't offer an alternative "best book". You just talk about a literature class and attack him for interest in computers. How is an attempt to look superior without risking anything an insightful comment? (moderators? hello?!?)
Re:My Review (Score:5, Informative)
porp
The above is Ebert's review... (Score:5, Informative)
It is, anyhow, an interesting take on the film. At least AC didn't go for the karma whoring.
I have my tickets in hand and will see the film in two hours. My only fear is that the action will resemble Batman with quick close shots. I am hoping for the sweeping action of Iron Monkey.
US-centric? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
- A.P.
Re:Good but not great (Score:2, Informative)
lnxslak.
Re:Spoiler-free? (Score:1, Informative)
And no, USA!=UK
Re:My Theater Experience (Score:5, Informative)
SOURCE: http://www.dolby.com/tm/filmsnd.html [dolby.com]
Re:Good but not great (Score:3, Informative)
Fah, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series is a classic. The last thing I want (I haven't seen it yet) is a movie that gets creative. There is little or no chance that some hack in Hollywood is going to actually improve the story behind LoTR. The director and staff should use their creativity to find a way to translate the story to film. That's one of the things that I like about the Harry Potter movie. It was almost as if they took the pictures right out of my head and pasted them up on the screen. What the LoTR needs isn't creativity, it's craftsmanship. I want a movie that takes one of my favorite stories ever and recreates it faithfully. Accomplishing this task, in my opinion, would require more actual creativity than rewriting the story.
Re:Some nits (Score:3, Informative)
(Begin quote)
1. I understand that a lot had to be cut for time, and to add some hollywood moments here and there, but why remove the repair of Aragorne's sword? It would seem to be critical later on.
(end quote)
There is a very good reason it was cut out: It actually wasn't. At least, not yet. The shattered sword, is not repaired until The Return of the King. The sword you see Aragorn weilding is just a normal sword that he has for defense (as I recall, he had a normal sword in the books, too). I doubt that the reforging of Aragorn's sword will be cut when we get to see the third movie.
Re:Question - Age of Kids at Movie?? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fantastic! (Score:1, Informative)
For a peek of the pictures I am referring to, head your browser to ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/pictures/fantasy/tolkien
http:// does work also.
CU
Draxinusom
Re:My view (Score:5, Informative)
Then the Silmarillion must, of course, be the better book by far! But a good novel it is not. There were times in the LOTR where I couldn't put the book down, even after the twentieth reading. But I could put the Silmarillion down at any random paragraph. I'm not belittling the Silmarillion, but the LOTR has all the best stuff of Sil. PLUS action, drama, character development, grand literary themes, etc.
I think the characterization, imagery and locations are very good but not enough to recreate the content of the book.
Nothing is good enough to recreate the content of the book. But be serious now, did you really expect ANY director to subject the audience to hour after hour of elvish poetry? Would the audience have endured every word spoken at the Council of Elrond? Frankly, even Boromir's lengthy rants about the valor of Gondor every four or five pages would have put me to sleep.
But the movie did have all that language, linguistics, and anthropology, and even bits of poetry. It didn't have much geology, but then neither did the books (in the Fellowship the only reference I could find is the color of Caradhras).
We saw Tengwar, Cirth and Anthergas scripts, and even a bit of Futhark! We heard both Sindarin and Quenya spoken. We saw the inscription of the ring, heard the translation proclaimed as a translation, and then heard the orginal in the Black Speech.
We saw that the only Elves with dark hair were Elrond and his family. That may not be precisely true to the book, but it works to distinguish pure Elves from those with Mannish blood. We saw the creation of the Uruk-Hai, and commentary on them from the Wise. We saw Boromir lament the fallen glory of Gondor. We saw the heirlooms in Imladris and the reverence Aragorn had for them. The anthropology and mythology were there. I suspect that in meeting the Rohirrim and Dunlendings in the second book that we will see even more of it.
A movie must by its nature be different from a book. A book is all words that the reader must interpret and visualize. A movie is all imagery and dialogue. They are media alien to each other. Where the book described in some detail the ruins at Weathertop, the House of Elrond, the Halls of Khazad-Dum and the Mallorn trees of Lothlorien, we get to see them immediately. This is not a bad thing, but a necessity of the media.
Of course the book is not like the movie. The only way to make a movie just like a book is to have some orator sit in a chair and recite the book to the camera. Bah! The movie is a good movie. Criticising it because it is not a book is just plain wrong.
Re:Aragorn (Score:2, Informative)
Numenor is a Kingdom off in the sea, halfway between Middle-Earth and the Undying Lands where the elves come from (the Gray Havens). It was a gift to Men when they helped the elves recover the Samril(sp?) long ago.
The Kings of Numenor lived longer then other men, due to their proximity to the Undying Lands, and held great favor with the elves. However, they were given one edict-- do not sail further west, do not attempt to reach the Undying Lands.
Eventually, they got somewhat greedy. There were two factions, the ruling ones who wished to reach the Undying Lands, because it was their birthright, and such, and then the Faithful, who wished to obey the edict of the elves. The attempt was made, nevertheless, and a great wave swept over and destroyed Numenor, which is now 'under the sea', as it is stated in the books a few times.
The Faithful escaped back to Middle-earth, and established Gondor, a great Kingdom under Elendil. The Kingdoms to the north, such as Angmar, are the ones which were destroyed due to war, not Numenor.
One final note-- the Numenorian blood has finally run true in the line of the Kings (and even the House of the Stewards)-- both Aragorn and Faramir are essentially full-Numenor-Men, with all the power, strength, and extended-lifespan it possesses.
There.
Watch out for the Peter Jackson cameo (Score:2, Informative)
ratty.