Review:Fellowship of the Ring

One of the best perks about my job is the excuse to skip out and catch the first showing of Lord of the Rings at the local theater. I did just that, and if you hit the magic link below you can read my comments on the film. I'm going to keep it short, and spoiler free. In a word? Wow.

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?

Spoiler-free?

[Wakko Warner]

It's based on a 50-plus-year-old book. Whoever hasn't heard of the plot by now probably has been living under a rock. Why bother keeping it spoiler-free?

- A.P.

Re:Spoiler-free?

[cisco_rob]

Because hopefully this will be a mythos that a 10-13 yr old audience can enjoy, because as a culture we have very few. Those kids might not have heard of the books, but might see the movies, and might read this site...

maybe a long shot...

Re:Spoiler-free?

[cliffy2000]

Well, this is a mainstream adaptation of the series... and not everyone has read Tolkien.
To have spoilers wouldn't be right. Don't assume that since you know the plot that everyone does.

Good but not great

[craigeyb]

LoTR is good but not great. It does a great job of bringing a mainstream story to the silver screen, but it doesn't introduce any new concepts or demonstrate any real creativity. This makes it a good film. Go ahead and flame me for this.

LOTR icon

[TeleoMan]

C'mon Taco... high time for a LOTR/Tolkien icon on slashdot methinks...

Horror'fied

[jammer 4]

First, let me say I agree totally that this was a GREAT movie. I loved it. I was slightly disappointed though with how often Peter Jackson decided to delve into his roots as a horror movie maker and "scare" us. It just seemed that sometimes the fright and gore was put there just to be shocking and not really move the story.

The main reason I guess this bothered me is that I think some people will be turned off by the movie becuase of the gore and won't be able to see the incredible story that they brought to life (and they did an EXCELLENT job at bringing it to life). For example, I don't think my kids will be seeing this till their older and I know my wife won't get into it as much because of the gore...

Some nits

[ajs]

I saw it almost by accident last night (12:01 showing in Revere, MA). I've got some nits to pick, but was floored overall by the quality of this rendition. I want to make it clear that the small concerns I have below should be the level of critisism that EVERY movie can aspire to, this is not meant to diminish the film.

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.
2. Jackson's take on what happens to the wearer when the ring is on is... a little out of place with what Bilbo goes through in The Hobbit
3. Some of the special effects for the hobbits were inconsistant. I couldn't figure out if they were supposed to be 3 feet tall or 5 (though this faded as I got more into the movie and stopped paying attention to the details of FX)
4. Gollum's part has been re-worked quite a bit. In place, we're given a visual omen of doom (the creation of the Uruk-Hai). I'm not sure I like that trade-off, though it does make for a more traditional Hollywood action feel, and bad-guy training montages never get old ;-).
5. Everyone does a great job, but I really felt that Elrond was a little wooden compared to the rest of the cast. In just about any other film his performance would have simply been unremarkable, but the level of acting was so damn good, here....

Now for just a few things that I think were brilliant:

1. The eye. 'Nuff said.
2. I thought that taking Tom Bombadil out of the beginning would break the pacing. Boy was I wrong! It's important in the book because we're being taken on a slow, guided tour of Frodo's education about the world. Tom is a gentle introduction. The movie simply ups the pace, and that works fine.
3. Someone give Ian McKellan more money... NOW!
4. The mines were perfectly done. I think that was probably the biggest challenge, visually, in the movie, and it was brilliant.

Thanks, Peter. Oh, and about making us wait a year... YOU BASTARD! ;-)

My FOTR Review

[Dark Paladin]

Quick Note

This is to the people who feel the need to bring their 2 year olds to midnight movie premieres. You shitheads are going to rot in your graves the next time you do that. If you're too fucking cheap and lazy to get a babysitter, then stay the hell home and don't ruin it for the rest of us. I like kids, but I do not want to hear them crying their eyes out because the movie gets loud, or when I go kick in their parents teeth for being selfish pricks.

Thank you. We now continue with the review.

Holy Fucking Shit

When I was 15 years old, I dated a girl named Denise. Denise was a tall (3 inches taller than myself) redhead, full of curves up top, a flat belly in the middle, and blood as hot as fire. When she graduated and left for MIT (she was a senior, I was a junior) it broke my heart.

I'll always remember one spring day in Washington, when she drove her car (she was 16, you realize) to the park. I won't go into detail, but the next 90 minutes in the backseat was one of the most incredible moments of my life, and the only thing that went through my head during the experience (which left windows fogged and two teenagers slick with sweat) was "Holy Fucking Shit".

13 years later I'm watching Peter Jackman's adaptation of "The Fellowship of the Ring" (FOTR). I'm not even going to pretend that it was even close to making out with Denise in the back of her car. But only one thought went through my head when the closing credits aired.

Holy.

Fucking.

Shit.

For those who have missed the last 50 years

Once upon a time, there was this bad ass named Sauron, and he made this bad ass Ring. This wasn't just any Ring. With it, he could control all of these other powerful rings and the people who used them. It also turned him into the ultimate kick ass guy. He'd sweep his sword once, and 20 men would go flying. Entire buildings were built with the force of this ring. The ultimate in evil, The Spice Girls weren't created from the Ring - but the Backstreet Boys were.

Well, one day Sauron decimating people left and right gets his fingers chopped off (not so invincible now, are ya?) and he gets destroyed. No, not really. Turns out that he put a large part of his own soul into the Ring, so as long as the ring exists, he exists. And the Ring wants to return to his master, for with it great and terrible things can be done. (Like Austin Powers 3.)

For the Ring is evil. Not as in an evil thing, but as in an intelligent thing, one that tempts and corrupts all who touch it. (Kind of like Don King. Only without the stupid ass hair.) People just looking at it lust after it (like Denise and me), they need it, and only those pure of heart can hold it for long - and even these will ultimately become corrupted by the Ring.

The ring, after betraying it's new wielder, passes from hand to hand, to Gollum who hides in the mountains, to Bilbo Baggins, who just happens to get lost in the mountains, and finally to Frodo, a young man who has no idea of the can of whoop ass he's holding in his hand.

And this is where the story begins.

Where the hell is page 53?

"The Lord of the Rings" is a very long, and in my humble opinion, rather slow series of books. Events can take months to happen, and most of the books are spent with people talking their lips off at each other. Yes, it's all cool and good and the story of nobility and betrayal is the basis for pretty much all our fantasy today. But damn, it's long in getting there.

The movie for FOTR gives the story a much needed jolt in the ass. Months are shortened to days, but they don't lose the core of the story. Just moves it along a little faster. We see Gandalf, master wizard and know-it-all at large, discovering that this magic ring his friend Bilbo has is The friggin' ring, and everything goes to hell from there. Frodo's on the run from a psychotic black-clad collection agency called the Ringwraiths - immortal bad motherhumpers who are just about unstoppable. Gandalf is being betrayed by a former friend and trying to get his old bearded ass out of the trouble he's in, and the audience isn't dragged into it, we sell our damn souls to be taken along this ride, and we love every second of it.

Yes, there are moments that are over the top. When some Elf King guys tells the 9 they are the Fellowship of the Ring and the music climaxes, it's hard not to think "All right, that was camp city". Or other moments when the dialogue is there to explain, and we have to wait through it. But the moments are few and in between. Like getting a bitter bean in your chili - it's gone before you make a bad face.

Probably the biggest problem with this is with the non-standard names that are thrown out. Just a part of the movie, but there were a few moments like this:

Legolas: Gollum escaped from the la-le-lu-li-lo dungeon!

Me: The what dungeon?

Fanboy on right: From [I can't spell it] dungeon. It's where the elves took Gollum when he was being questioned by Gandalf and Aragorn, where they learned, blah, blah, blah, I want him to shut the hell up so I can enjoy the movie.

Fangirl on the left: Let's hop in the back seat of my car, Dark Paladin and make sweet, sweet love.

Me: (Dang, that Liv Tyler doesn't look half bad.)

It's scary. People get dirty, leaves in their hair, blood in their faces, and we jump in terror when something comes around the corner and goes "Boo", because Jackman is a friggin' genius who really makes us think that the Good Guys are about to have their asses handed to them on a plate. And even when they prove what bad asses they are, we can see the odds are just so way against them, they'd better stock up on life insurance.

It's also beautiful. In the beginning we see The Shire, Bilbo's home that rolls like like the British countryside that we all dream about - full of long, green hills and farms. One of those places you want to take a vacation, then a shotgun to shoot any bastard that starts talking on their cell phone.

Then we see the rest of the world, and we're overwhelmed by its size. Inside the mines of Moria, we see miles upon miles of excavated rocks and bridges and columns, and just go "God damn, that things huge!". Or a look at the creation of a new castle crawling with tens of thousands of orcs like ticks on a dog, and it's mind boggling that anything could be so big. It's an incredible effect - and yet, we never notice it.

The Effects that weren't there

For the past 5 years, folks in Hollywood have been engaged in a circle jerk to decide who can make the best special effects. Take "The Mummy 2", a movie which had a bad plot, bad dialogue, bad action, bad concept - but the special effects were cool, so the producers figured they could feed us shit by covering it in honey. And that's just scratching the surface.

In FOTR, we never notice the special effects, because the movie isn't based on them. When we see Bilbo turn into something awful for a split second, we don't say "Wow, nice effects!" We think "Damn, what happened to that nice old guy that we've come to love?" There's none of the slow-motion, camera turning crap that doesn't do a thing for the story. But we do see a river swollen with water that turns out to be horses - but it's gone so fast and the story keeps on, we don't have a director so in love with himself that he forces us to watch computer animation for 5 minutes just to prove how cool it is. It's there, in, out, and done.

It's the subtlety that show how well the movie is made. Later in the movie a Balrog appears - a demon made of smoke and fire (kind of like the Republican party). But we don't see it for a long time - just a red glow coming towards the characters, as we watch their eyes get big, and finally Gandalf says "Let's get the fuck out of here." All right, so it's not that, but we get the idea, and without seeing this thing, we know it's bad news.

The best special effects are placed to enhance the rest of the world, and make us forget that this whole thing was made up from somebody's brain case. The hobbits aren't midgets - they look just like regular people, only shorter. I'm sure the guy who plays Frodo isn't really 4 feet high - but when he's standing next to Aragorn, he looks just 4 feet high with hair-covered feet.

Or when Galadriel, the elf queen, who is a beautiful woman (not sexy, like I want to jump her, but a noble beauty that is to be looked at, terrible in its power) turns around and reveals her own lust for the ring, her visage is still beautiful - and awful. We want to look at her and hide from her. She is the Mother God and Demon Bitch rolled into one.

It's called Acting. Look it up

So without the special effects to hinge on, that means we have to rely on the acting to carry the story. And this is where the movie is at its best.

First, Ian McKellen is Gandalf. No, he doesn't play Gandalf, he is Gandalf. Here's an old guy with a big white beard who seems just that - old, absent minded, into simple pleasures. It's a guy with crinkling blue eyes, the grandpa you want to sit in his lap while he smokes a pipe because he's a cool old guy.

He's also a bad ass motherhumper that if you cross, he will reach down your throat and pull out your spine, then feed it to you on a plate. You do not want to mess with this guy, old hair and all. There's steel in those bones, and you'll break yourself before they bend.

He's a man who suffers, who watches others and feels their pain. When he sees Frodo taking up the Ring, because Frodo is the only one who can, we can feel Gandalf's torment at the loss of innocence. When the Ring is offered to him, we know he's terrified to touch it, terrified of the temptation to use it for good, and the evil that would follow.

Elijah Wood plays an amazingly good Frodo Baggins. He's not a teenager, but an innocent young man who's thrust into this situation. We see how he suffers because of the Ring, because of how others react to the Ring, and how it preys on him and strips away that happy man we saw earlier. We suffer right with him as he moves towards Mordor and his destiny.

Each of the rest of the cast know their place is to act and entertain us, and they do that. Men cry when their companions are hurt. People actually act like they like each other, not that they met 5 minutes ago and say their lines. And I don't know what happened to Liv Tyler, who normally doens't do anything for me (something about those lips that make me think she's going to eat me - and mind out of the gutter, you), but damn, she looks lovely in here. I still don't want her naked in my bed, but I wouldn't mind snapping a picture of her on the horse and hanging it on my wall. The girl looks good

There's plenty of action to be had. Fights with orcs underground, above ground, swords flashing, arrows flying - you name it, we've got it. And there's blood, limbs and heads hacked off. Not gratuitous, a little over the top at times, but it's there for the sake of the story, and we're never quite sure if the good guys are about to punch out their tickets. Even folks like me who have read the books still get that "Dude, they are so dead" feeling, even though I know they show up later.

I'm stingy with my 10 ratings. If you want a 10 from me, you're going to friggin' earn it. Is this movie as good as sex with Denise? Nope. But it's good, it's entertaining, and it's the first 3 hour movie that 90 minutes into it I checked my watch - and was glad there were 90 minutes more to come. This only bad thing is that when you leave the theater, there's 12 months to go before the next movie.

And it's going to be a very long year.

As always, I'm John "Dark Paladin" Hummel [mailto]. And that's my opinion.

PS: The Spider Man trailer kicked ass. That's all I'm going to say on that.

Fantastic!

[4mn0t1337]

I found my way to a midnight+5min showing last night to see one of the first screenings I could.

Wow! I have been so afraid for months (years?) now about what it was going to come out like. Ever since I heard that viewers of a pre-screening (Before Cannes last year) had to sign a Non-(negative)-Disclosure, I was doubly concerned.

Set your goals low and you can be pleasantly surprised. ;)

I deliberately haven't read the books for a few years now, and I wanted to go into with as "fresh" of pair of eyes as I can. I avoided all the "Making of..."s. I didn't download the quicktime trailers. (well, maybe just one -- but only for a little bit.)

Sure there are places that didn't stick exactly to the book. That has to be expected.
Sure stuff got left out. (I thought they could have added 2 more hours. But then no one else would be sitting in the theater.)

But I am glad they waited this long to do the film. To do it right.

I was worried about Vigo cast as my favorite character. He did much better than I expected.
Some one complained about Liv. I'll agree, but didn't let it get in my way.
They kept the tongue of the Elves. (Subtitles for us non-speakers.) Beautiful.

The scenery is STUNNING. Allow me to repeat: STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING. STUNNING.
The sets are fantastic.
The visuals in a lot of respects are what were in my mind's eye.
The casting was otherwise great.

The audience (after lining up for hours -- they opened 3 screens for it as they continuted to sell out of advance tickets all day) and sitting for over an hour in the theaters, was ecstatic.
They cheered in the battles.
The crinched in horror at the Balrog.
And after over 4 and a half hours of sitting (plus the lines just waiting to get in), were visibly and audibly disappointed to see the film end.

Take everyone you can to see it this weekend. In this age of inflated box office stats, I want to make sure this film sits above the drivel that seems to otherwise draw.

Re:My woes with United Artists

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but I have yet to see a box office (movie, theater, opera, sporting event, etc) that will let you pick up tickets you bought online (or on the phone) without showing the credit card used to make the purchase. It's just common sense, as a customer I would not have it any other way, otherwise anybody could just walk up and claim my tickets!

But of all these times that I was asked to show the credit card, not once did I have to show another form of ID (including many many times at UA theaters). I have the sneaking suspicion that if you had just showed up with your friends' credit card in your hand, they would have given you the tickets - no questions asked. But since you advertised that this is not your card, you kind of shot yourself in the foot.

So, I feel bad for the fact that you were misinformed about the availability of advance ticket from the box office, and the "wait for the manager" crap (although I am not suprised, it's all 14 year old that work at the UA near me) but for the rest... Well... Sorry to say, but their policies are good.

Re:My woes with United Artists

[Anonymous Coward]

They said that I could not have the tickets unless I had both the credit card and the owner of the credit card present (which is ridiculous, because I already bought the credit cards...they should require ID...but not this other crap since they don't even mention it on the webpage).

Some people just don't understand there's a reason why they require (or should require) the cardholder to be present. Matt could very easily call his credit card company and say, "No, I did not authorize this transaction. Somebody must have used my card without my permission, take it off my bill." Did the theater have any proof that the card owner authorized this purchase? No! They just spoke over the phone to someone merely claiming to be the card holder.

Geez, everyone gets their shorts in a knot when a web site has the slightest security problem, but then they expected to be able to borrow each other's credit cards willy-nilly without the slightest thought of the consequences.

Stuff I loved, and some not [SPOILERS]

[Gregoyle]

That's labelled SPOILERS not because I give away the plot here, but because I give away some of the stuff people who've read the book might like to be surprised about upon seeing the movie. You have been warned. Since I got laid off a couple months ago, I had the sleep to spare to go see the 12:01 showing :-).

Things I love:

Oh my god the cinematography was incredible!! Many people usually say that to mean that the landscapes were great, and it sort of implies the whole _Braveheart_ thing of the characters walking on mountain ridges while the camera pans quickly about them. LotR has those, but some of the other cinematography is just as impressive. I'm talking lighting, focusing on characters' faces on key moments, and awesome camera angles. One cool thing that I think they got from the animated movie of all things was when the Nazgul attack the Prancing Pony at Bree. You'll have to see it, but my heart was in my throat.

The acting(??)!! I couldn't believe it, but almost all the characters were well acted. I mean, REALLY well acted. I very much expected to be disappointed by the acting, because it is par for the course in any kind of sci-fi or fantasy or epic or even "big" movie. Not so here. I was blown away.

The story. It was also amazing the Jackson didn't screw it up. There were some things I wish he had kept, but brevity *is* the soul of wit, at least when 3 hour feature films are concerned. Any deviations he made seemed perfectly justified to me, and some of them were really needed to make the film flow faster. The bit with Merry and Pippin and the fireworks was hilarious, and it allowed for good quick characterization of both of them. Pippin almost seems a whipping-boy for Gandalf throughout the movie, but it's all because of his foolishness.

Stuff I didn't like as much:

Aragorn. Aragorn was probably my second favorite character in the book (next to Faramir), and I didn't like the way he was portrayed as bearing a family "weakness". He isn't really supposed to be a "weak" character that needs to prove himself. In my mind he's supposed to be a breath from the amazement of the men of Westernesse. You kind of get a glimpse of what men used to be when you see him. Not so for this Aragorn. I very much understand why he's protrayed this way; in order to be an interesting movie character he needs to grow. He needs to come out of his insecure shell and become the king he was prophesized to be. I'm hoping that once he grows he'll recapture the wonder of Numenor(sic?).

Boromir was too "evil" feeling. I never had the impression that he was more than just prideful and slightly arrogant. In the movie he feels deceitful and a little slimy. I also understand why that needed to be done, there needed to be more "undertones" within the party.

Galadriel was too mystical. She was more of a "witch woman" than one of the last of the Noldor. This is really the only one I don't think was justified, but it was very minor in my eyes. It was almost just a different way of interpreting the character, so I don't hold it against the director. The contrast between her as the "terrible queen" and the elf queen was awesome though.

OH OH OH. Gollum ROCKS!!

Re:Best Book Ever Written!?!

[babbage]

Yeah, no kidding. It's a great book & all, but mainly interesting as a Professor's exercise in finally getting a genre story Right. So many of the old fantasy novels that preceded ("Morte d'Arthur", etc) it were just utter trash, and the same can be said of most of what followed for that matter. Just as George Lucas took a fun but lousy genre -- Flash Gordon, Barbarella, etc -- and made a great epic out of it, so too did Tolkein do with LOTR and the Hobbit. And it is a good story, if tediously long, but let's keep a sense of perspective here.

Tolkein was no Shakespeare, no Chaucer, no Hemingway, no Faulkner, etc. It's impact is a tiny fraction of that of a Bible, Quran, or Tao Te Ching. It's quality isn't nearly that of a Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, or Faulkner -- just to pick a random span of good ones. I'd say that Tolkein was a great storyteller, but no good story should be that damn long ("brevity is the soul of wit" and all that), so let's just call him a good one and leave it at that.

I'm looking forward to seeing these movies, but I'm dreading all the geekish fanboy raving, overstating the magnitude of Tolkein's work. It was good, but lets not get carried away here...

Actually, no.

[DG]

Gandalf - before the events in Moria - is not particularly powerful. He is subordinate to Saruman, in rank, wisdom, and power.

The bridge at Moria is were we first get a glimpse that Gandalf may be more than he appears to be.

After his return, the gloves are off - he becomes the new head of his order, given that Saruman has derelicted the post - and I suspect you'll see a lot more "ass kicking superbeing" and a lot less "kindly old wizard".

To be honest, I'm suprised and amazed at just how deeply Sir Ian and Jackson grokked Gandalf's character.

.

Re:Nitpick: Gandalf Humour

[Winged Cat]

"He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom." - Gandalf

Wise snippets he may have had, but I've always thought that even - especially - the orcs knew better than that one.

Re:Lack of ol' Tom?

[dsb3]

Tom is also missing from the BBC's radio dramatization of the book, which I just finished listening to a day or two ago.

I agree - in the book, it's a fun interlude but he doesn't really add anything critical to the storyline so saving time is justified IMNSHO.

Re:My Review

[bourne]

[Gandalf, Strider & Co]... are so well-seen and acted, so fearsome in battle, that we can't imagine the Hobbits getting anywhere without them.

Having re-read FOTR this fall in preparation, I'd have to say... yeah. That's pretty much the way it is. The hobbits get saved repeatedly - by elves in the shire, by Strider the night they meet him, again by Strider on the hilltop, by the actions of the elves at the ford,... It isn't until "The Two Towers" that the hobbits start taking care of themselves, once the fellowship breaks. And in "Return of the King" they finally start giving the enemy nasty suprises.

So, yes, LOTR is about the bravery of the hobbits... but not from day one. They grow into their bravery - the Sam that left the shire never would have acted as the Sam who returned to it.

So, let's see what happens in 2002 and 2003 before we start accusing the movies of removing the lesson of the bravery of little people.

Re:Um, okay.

[alexjohns]

Because when he goes into details he gets nit-picked to death by the trolls and /.-haters. For him to say something like: "I really loved the look of the Rock Troll" would be suicide. The purists would tell him that it wasn't an accurate portrayal. The nitpickers would point to faulty CGI in parts and ask him how he could possibly like this part. The /. trolls would come out to tell him that it wasn't a real troll, since it didn't scream 'First Post' in trollish when it lumbered into the room. The Taco haters would use it for ammunition to show how stupid he is, because, obviously, it isn't anywhere near the best part of the movie or even worth mentioning. And so on.

It's much easier for him to just say "I liked it" and minimze the amount of ammunition he gives to people who seem to have nothing better to do than berate people on here.

That may not be the only reason, but I bet it's at least part of it. The amount of flamage the staff of /. gets has got to be enormous. Minimizing your exposure is about all you can do, I guess. Just my opinion.

Re:action and adventure vs. hills and dales

[IronChef]

I hated the ineffectual little hobbits...

You didn't "get" the book then. The hobbits may seem meek and preoccupied with creature comforts, but over and over and over Tolkien emphasizes that they are the toughest guys around. They don't wield the biggest weapons, but the strength of the hobbit character is exactly WHY Frodo was chosen as Ringbearer, and his stength of will was shared by the other hobbits, especially Sam. (though he acts like country bumpkin most of the time, that I won't dispute)

Frodo survived an injury from a Ringwraith's blade, which was remarkable.

Pippin (maybe Merry, can't remember) even looked into some awful evil crystal ball thing in one of the books, and Gandalf said that such exposuse could have destroyed a lessed man; the hobbit recovered fully in time.

The hobbits weren't ineffective. They *saved the world*.

Especially since...

[powerlord]

... we have another two years and two films to look forward to.

Re:Best Book Ever Written!?!

[micje]

The parent is not a troll, it's is a very valid comment. LotR is a very influential book, it's very evocative and detailed, and also immensely exciting at times, but it is not a great work of literature. I've read it five or six times (every two years or so since I was 14) but never without skipping.

LotR contains a great many dull fragments, even in the first (and best) volume (book one and two). Book three and five (the non-frodo books)are the worst of the bunch in this respect - they should have been cut down to 2/3 of their size. And I have not even mentioned all the awful songs in the book.

Also, LotT has deservedly been criticized for being very conservative [nationalreview.com]. Tolkien's admiration for fixed social hierachies is obvious from LotR, and the subservient attitude of Sam for instance is more than I can stomach at times. (Yes I know it's supposed to be an old-fashioned epic, but I find it hard to admire a book that propagates values that I cannot respect.)

For your reading pleasure, the worst fragment of the worst chapter (The Houses of Healing) of the worst book (Book 5, first book of The Return of the King).

Then an old wife, Ioreth, the eldest of the women who served in that house, looking on the fair face of Faramir, wept, for all the people loved him. And she said: 'Alas! if he should die. Would that there were kings in Gondor, as there were once upon a time, they say! For it is said in old lore: The hands of a king are the hands of a healer. And so the rightful king could ever be known.'

I love LotR, but not for the kind of prose as the above. And when people start calling this the best book ever written, I must correct them. It might be the best book you've ever read, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination the best book ever written.
Better books, in order of decreasing accessibility:

William Golding - Lord of the Flies
Mark Twain - The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
J.D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye
Joseph Conrad - Heart of Darkness
Vladimir Nabokov - Pale Fire

There are hundreds more, and you can find lists of great novels everywhere, but since somebody here wanted some titles, I provided a couple.

Hugo Weaving

[garyrich]

Speak for yourself. I love that guy. He rocked in Matrix and he rocked in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. If he's typecast in your mind as Agent Smith, watch Priscilla. I was watching Potter with the kids yesterday and they played the FotR trailer. It was the first time I spotted him as Elrond - one more reason to see the film.

garyr

jackson's biggest mistake: saruman

[dunkelfalke]

in the movie saruman is posessed by evil... he is a slave of sauron, made himself slave because of fear.

in the book saruman wasn't a slave. he was ambitious. powererhungry. the power corrupted him. he wanted to bekame the DARK LORD himself!

there we can see that even halfgods... yeah, saruman was one of the mayar, as gandalf and sauron were... we can see that even halfgods are human.

but there it goes. the visuals are stunning. the epic is stunning. but the movie goes not very deep as the books do... too bad for a missed opportunity.

p.s. ok well then, we forget about bombadil and those zombies. ok we forget about glorfindel... one of the most powerful and eldest elves at all... but damn jackson should have not forgotten about the gift scene in lothlorien... these 10 minutes would have explained damn much about the background and would help to understand why gimly and legolas became friends and gimly stopped about mistrusting elves.

p.p.s. legolas rulez both in the books and in the movie

Beren and Luithien Angel

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Jackson might have seen the Beren and Lutjien parallel in LOTR and Silmarillion.

In that context a "tougher" Arwen makes sense.
Luithien was the the original bridge between the elves and the humans and was also the evening starof her time.

Re:Spoiler-free?

[batboy78]

A Tom Bombadil scene would be interesting, remember the ring had no effect on him, he was very old perhaps older then the Ents.

Re:Good but not great

[kerincosford]

I've never said this before, but.....

MOD PARENT UP.

I'm a relatively well-read person. I'm an English Lit. graduate, so I've read a pretty wide range of literature.

But, I've never read Lord Of The Rings. Why? Because, despite being aware of the trilogy being part of the popular canon of literature and its academia heritage, when I grew up all the Tolkien fans I came across wore Metallica T-shirts, long greasy hair, severe acne, and played AD&D, and never got laid. For me, and a lot of people I know, it got wrapped up in that kind of "scene". Seeing people who would evidently die virgins, wearing tie-die T-shirts, and going to Glastonbury festival to survey the leylines being the biggest fans of Tolkien didnt exactly endear me to his work.

I did however read The Hobbit when I was 11, and remember enjoying it. I'm interested in both the book and the film of LOTR.

But, the fans? The people who really go for Middle Earth? Holy shit. They make hardcore Trekkies look like desirable people.

I'll probably get modded as a troll for this, but the fact remains - a lot of people steered clear of Tolkien because of the D&D, Orc and prog-rock connotations it (probably unfairly) carried with it.

My view

[ektor]

If I look at it like just another adventure movie it gets thumbs up.

However if I look at the book I have to say the movie doesn't convey most of what's important. The story of The Lord of the Rings it's nothing special. What makes the book special is its language and the amazing detail with all the linguistics, anthropology, mythology, poetry, genealogy, geology, etc that J.R.R. Tolkien spent many years researching. By looking at the movie I just see a not so original story with plenty of action and a neck breaking pace. I think the characterization, imagery and locations are very good but not enough to recreate the content of the book.

This movie is probably the best of all the possible renditions given the constraints but in all I think it's a poor reflection of the original work.

Flame away!

Re:Nitpick: Gandalf Humour

[pmc]

Think of it this way - one of the wisest men in physics (reputedly), Eistein, was frequently seen wandering about in odd socks.

Re:Question - Age of Kids at Movie??

[Anonymous Coward]

Go see it yourself first to decide if it is suitable for which if any of your kids?

Re:Stuff that I missed...

[Arandir]

Bombadil, as wonderful a character as he is, did not contribute anything to the story. The Old Forest and Bombadil were mere side excursions in the book. I would have loved seeing them in the movie, but I can certainly live without them.

Re:Spoiler-free?

[kooshball]

Actually the omission of the Barrow Wights is quite significant in terms of the portrayal of the deep-seated courage of the hobbits. It is the first major challenge that Frodo faces in terms of his attempts to conquer his fear and avoid the temptation of the ring. That combined with having Arwen taunt the Nazgul at the ford instead of Frodo means that the audience doesn't see the beginnings of the courage and determination that play a major role is driving Frodo on later in the book. Definitely a miss in terms of character development.

Re:Spoiler-free?

[CaptainCarrot]

Admittedly, Arwen's role is greatly expanded in the film (seemingly subsuming the role of Glorfindle at the ford near Rivendell, at least from what I can tell from the previews)

She also subsumes some of the roles of Aragorn (who in the film does nothing for Frodo's injury until it's almost too late) and Elrond (when it is she instead of he who summons the flood at the Ford of Bruinen) and Gandalf (who does not add his little contribution to the flood but which seem to be there anyway). She is also given a line that belongs at the end of the story in a different context (giving Frodo her place on the ship sailing West rather than sustaining him until Elrond can operate) and evinces an emotional attachment to Frodo that's quite inexplicable in terms of their relationship as it had developed at that point. IMO the additional role of Arwen was the most poorly-written part of the script, and it needed a better actor than Liv Tyler to pull it off.

Without coming right out and saying so at that point, Tolkien makes it clear that Aragorn feels somewhat guilty about finding Eowyn attractive when his heart already belongs to Arwen.

No he doesn't. There's not a hint of guilt in anything Aragorn does or says, nor is it apparent that he finds Eowyn attractive in the sense you mean here. It's Eowyn who finds Aragorn attractive, and when he puts off her subtle advances by not responding to them she falls into a depression. Aragorn is sorrowful that he must do this out of his love and commitment to Arwen because he admires and respects Eowyn, and even loves her in strictly Platonic terms, and does not want to cause her any grief. Unfortunately, she sets up a situation where he has no other choice.

Not bad, but...

[shilly]

I was, on the whole, disappointed. I wasn't fussed about most of the plot changes, whether major (Bombadil) or minor (Frodo opening the doors of Moria), especially where there was a sensible reason (e.g. Frodo's opening the doors showed the hobbits' love of riddles). I was fussed when the change seemed pointless (why not have the monster slam the doors shut and pile rocks and trees on it, as in the book?). And I was very fussed when the changes trivialised the book; having the council degenerate into a near fist-fight was childish, overblowing the antipathy of dwarves and elves and ensuring that no discussion took place of the three options for the ring (destroy it, use it or lose it); having Bilbo seem ferocious and vicious when asking for a final viewing of the ring was an inaccurate portrayal of its power; and having Frodo deteriorate immediately he is wounded at Weathertop actually serves to trivialise the power of the wound, by losing its insidious nature.

But my greatest beefs were with characterisation and dialogue. Both of these were, from time to time, shamefully trivialised. The hobbits appeared to be no more than children; in the book, it is clear that although merry, they are in no way child-like. Saruman was portrayed not as someone who has lost his wisdom through his own arrogance in using the Palantir, but as someone who is and always was evil, notwithstanding references by Gandalf to the contrary.

The dialogue issues were even worse. I was worried that the occassionally portentous speech of Tolkein's characters would jar when portrayed on screen. It never did. But the new dialogue frequently trivialised the characters. The most unforgivable line was Aragorn's comment about "let's hunt us some Orc" at the end. A close second were the endless comments from Frodo about how dreadful it being away from home was. It's not that he doesn't state in the books that he's unhappy to be away; he does. But he doesn't whine, and he doesn't keep restating it. He is stoic. Stoicism is at the centre of his character.

A final complaint: CGI was pretty good; many sets were really good. But I felt that Moria was nowhere near as awful (in the full sense of the word) as the book; and Lothlorien and Rivendell did not feel ethereally beautiful, they felt plasticised.
All in all, the film was not what I'd hoped for.

Re:My entire company is going

[pipeb0mb]

My point is that wasting money and time like this, on something as trivial as a movie is plain stupid.
Why not go at night, or on a weekend?
Waht about all of their clients that can't do business because some jackass decided to take his company to a MOVIE?
Forget the 'what a nice guy' stuff and think about the actual business aspect.