Lord Of The Rings (Real reviews, please)

[Wrong_shui]

Elijah Wood has the fatest neck I have ever seen, and ive been on safari

[Ecthy]

Have you ever seen it, the White Tower of Ecthelion?



Going to watch it for the second time tonight... and on the night of the 25th, I'll watch it in English for the first time

Folge mir, Isildur! Wirf ihn hinein, vernichte ihn!

Nein...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Never expected to like it this much

Just saw it tonight, opening night in Ankara. Wow.

The favorable reviews have said most of what needs saying. But in the post-film dissection with the wife, we hit on a few things that really made it for us:

1) The film has weight. Unlike the Spielberg/Lucas chain ("Mythologies R Us") this film not only presents myth but presents it in a way that reminds you of why myth exists (note to Steve and George: the answer is NOT, "to make a cool story"). The debt here is to the source material, I'm sure (though I gave up on it in high school, bored, halfway through book 2, and never looked back). But there are damned few films that are true to the spirit of their source material.

2) The total absence of irony made this one of the most refreshing film experiences in years, and certainly the most refreshing entertainment outing in a decade (I mean, Von Triers' Breaking the Waves, one of my favorite films of recent years, is largely free of irony -- but it's not exactly a fun film, you know?). A return to Casablanca-style earnestness in entertainment would be a very welcome indeed.

3) I can't remember a film since The Wizard of Oz in which the heroes seemed so clearly vulnerable. There seems to me a sense, in current popular film, that the heroes are never really in danger, and so there's never really very much at stake. It was delightful to again be honestly concerned about their fate, and honest horrified when tragedy befalls them.

Obviously the kudos belong largely to Peter Jackson. I've been following his career ever since I first saw Dead Alive (which I thing was originally called Braindead but retitled for US audiences) and then Meet the Feebles. When he did Heavenly Creatures, it was interesting to see him move from a trashy genre on to more "serious" topics, while retaining the verve of his earlier films (to make the best comparisons I can think of with American directors, this is something at which Wes Craven has had no success, while Sam Raimi has fared only slightly better). Even Forgotten Silver (which no review I've seen has mentioned) managed to reinvigorate the "mockumentary" at a moment when it was being done to death, making it charming instead of smug and suggesting that the weight of history matters. He is the perfect director for this film, and I'm glad people with money thought so, too. I just hope he can stay out of Hollywood's clutches after its success, and continue making his own wonderful stuff.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Three members of my family, who not not read it, called it awsome.

[Chowlett]

An excellent film - seen it twice in two days! The casting is inspired, and all the little details are wonderful (did you notice a) Gandalf keeps his pipe in his staff; b) when Frodo is being tended by Aragorn and Arwen, they are under the three stone trolls of the hobbit [ok, so it happens in the book at another point, but he didn't have to do it]). I particularly liked the way Legolas walked on the snow rather than through it like everyone else

The shadow-world of the ring I felt was excellent. Bits of it were a little unbelievable (witness overbalancing of bridge), but the good far, far outweighed the bad. Ooh, somethig to get on DVD - but whoever said it is right - to buy them separately, or wait for the trilogy? I reckon trilogy.

[AustralianJeremy]

Saw it last night. Jackson does Tolkien better than Tolkien...

Question - when do the Tolkien books come out of copyright so we can download them from project gutenberg?

Did Saruman mail Gandalf's staff back to him when he escaped, or did he just happen to find an identical stick in the forest somewhere?

[reds4ever]

anyone else think David Bowie (with a bit of foundation) would've make an excellent Elrond?

[Frodo]

After seeing it three times on three consecutive days (and standing for 10 hours on the line for the midnight showing), I'm ready to review it.

Obviously I'm a huge LOTR fan, I've read the books countless times, and I could hardly sleep waiting for this movie. I'm not a snob who thinks that a movie could never capture Tolkien's essence, but I also have a lot of respect for the story. All in all, I was very happy with the film.

In short, here's what I think: rather than twist the plot around too much, Jackson simply condensed it. He retained the spirit of the story, kept the narrative in the proper order (most of the time), and was faithful to the atmosphere, setting, and the nature of the characters. What limited the film the most was time. I have no doubt that if Jackson could make a movie just for rabid LOTR fans to watch, and if money was not a factor, we would have Tom Bombadil. We would have Glorfindel. We would have Gimli really be Gimli, Elf-friend, instead of a one-dimensional stereotypical Dwarf serving as comic relief. I think that Jackson did the best he could, and that few, if any, could have done a better job. In fact, I'm grateful that he got away with making it as long as he did. I would love to see more.

Then again, even when cutting the filmmakers plenty of slack, the job they did wasn't perfect.

The first 30 minutes of the movie were perfect, up until the point where Gandalf left the first time. Sure, many of those scenes weren't in the book, but they could have been, and they fit perfectly with Tolkien's vision. Ian Holm played a wonderful Bilbo, and the interaction between Gandalf and Bilbo could not have been better. I felt like I was watching the book.

Elijah Wood as Frodo is a bit too young and innocent, at least compared to the books. In the movie he's 33, where he's 50 in the book, so that makes a difference, but he doesn't show the same maturity that he possess in the books. However, I did not find it a major problem. Sean Astin as Sam captures only half of Sam's character. Sam is described as "slow but shrewd"; here he's just slow, and I felt embarrased for him on several occasions ("if I take one more step...." Give me a break!).

Merry and Pippin are also "regressed", in a way; no longer semi-mature hobbits aiding Frodo's departure from his Shire, they encounter him via a chance meeting and simply get caught up in his adventures. However, all these quibbles about the hobbits were relatively unimportant while I was watching the movie. Their characters are thinner, but they can't really develop in the little screen time given to them. So I can't complain.

The Ringwraiths are appropriately scary, but they've been Hollywoodized; rather than be subtly, discreetly frightening, they come charging after Frodo and ride screeching into Bree, making a huge commotion, something Sauron probably wouldn't be too happy about. The scene on Weathertop, though, is where the really shine; silently, through the mist, they approach the watchtower, and when Frodo puts on the ring to escape them, what he sees is incredibly terrifying and enchanting at the same time.

Let me make a point about slow motion here. Frodo's stabbing, Frodo's second stabbing, Frodo's reunion with the hobbits at Rivendell, Sam's drowning scene, Boromir's death: all these scenes slow the otherwise fast-paced action down and leave me itching for the movie to move on! Hopefully this is toned down in the next movie.

The Gandalf/Saruman battle was perhaps the dumbest scene in the movie. My first qualm is that it's not even in the book. Couldn't those few minutes have been used to stretch out the painfully short Lorien scene? Here we have two guys of the same race as Sauron and they're using their staffs to throw each other into walls. What creative genius thought this up? If we HAVE to have a wizard's duel, why is it going to be the WWF with staffs? Oh well...

The way the Council of Elrond was handled bothered me, but I'm willing to let it go because it would have taken way too long to do it right, and there wasn't really any way to trim it without altering the reasons why everyone was there. Elrond himself wasn't badly done, although he was more of the grim type than the healer type.

Legolas and Boromir rocked. In many cases I found Boromir even more vivid and multi-dimensional than in the book; here is one case where Jackson improves on Tolkien. The ambiguity of his character is clearly apparent, and it is far easier to identify with this man who in one scene is playing with the hobbits and laughing, and in another trying to tear the ring from Frodo's neck. I was satisfied with Aragorn, although he is shown less as a wise ranger/diplomat and more as a warrior prince. He seems to have less self-awareness than he does in the book.

I was disappointed with Gimli. Gimli is shown as being fairly stupid, easily able to fly off the handle, and more of a joke than a realy fighter. His dislike for the elves does not become redressed in Lorien, because two very important Lorien scenes were cut out: Gimli's love of Galadriel and the giving of the gifts to the fellowship. Unlike Bombadil, these scenes are very important and and I don't see how the future movies are going to get by without them. Sam needs the earth of Galadriel for the scouring of the shire scene. Or are they going to cut that out too?

Moria was great, although the Balrog was more frightening when you had to guess at what he might look like. Lorien got shortchanged, and the decision to make the Uruk-Hai an army of Rastafarians was questionable. I approved of the change to the ending; I thought that the Aragorn/Frodo scene was very powerful, and I liked how Aragorn got that Isildur-ish gleam in his eyes when looking at the ring. The important thing is that we ended up where we belonged.

I could go on and on. But whatever problems I may have had, there were so many scenes that were just utterly breathtaking: the desperate Elrond screaming Isildur's name at the cracks of doom; the eerily silent red light steadily approaching at Dwarrowdelf, followed by Gandalf closing his eyes in despair; the grief of the company as they depart from the fire and darkness of Moria into the sunlight; Saruman calling the lightning down on Caradhras; Boromir throwing down his load of wood in a gesture of powerless, futile fury; Frodo standing alone at the river Anduin, with the ring in his hand and tears in his eyes. I can't wait for next December.

[DanS]

I saw it tonight and think it rocks.

I have a long littany of nitpicks, many of which are mentioned above. In fact, I think the first half of the movie is pretty non-engrossing--especially the House of Elrong--although having ultra-cool elements. I couldn't suspend my disbelief, even though I was trying. Once we got into Moria, though, it was really amazing, even though there were some scenes--even in Moria--that were plain cheesy.

Among the nitpicks is that there isn't enough Gondor. The next two movies are basically about Frodo/Sam and Gondor. Frodo/Sam was done well, but Aragorn's link with Gondor was done a little ham-handedly (i.e., Do men live a long time? What have Aragorn's ancestors been doing in the meantime--smoking dope with the elves? Why isn't Aragorn in Gondor right now?)

Despite the quite high number of nitpicks, there were some things that the movie did better than did Tolkien--or at least the medium necessitated being more explicit on some points. This surprised me a lot. The passing of the elves to the West and the rise of man, for instance, were handled very explicitly without a lot exposition. Arwen's choice to become mortal, etc.

I went with someone who is a sci-fi fan but who isn't a fantasy fan and has never read the books. She adored the movie and I'm sure will now read the books. She was hooked once the Arwen/Aragorn story came to the fore.

What I came away with was that there was at least 10 scenes that could stand on their own as anchors for their own movies. The material that Tolkien gave us is incredibly rich. It just blows my mind when I think about the next two movies. Scene after scene of memorable and meaty stuff. Ents (the groundwork was laid very well in this movie, don't you think?). Eowyn. The Steward of Gondor. Mordor. Minas Tirith and Minas Ungol. Wow!!! I'm giddy!

My money's on reforging the sword in one of the other movies.

This is the kind of movie that you can see over and over.

[Jac de Molay]

I am an anti-critic of sorts. I am willing to suspend disbelief when I walk into a theater and such. But, now I am an anti-anti critic because I just can't figure why I LOVE THIS MOVIE SO MUCH.

For me, I guess, it was the scene between Arwen and Aragorn, where they speak words of love in that silvery, elvish tongue. I almost felt tears welling in my eyes at the utter splendor of what I was seeing (that is no joke). Scene after scene, I felt completely immersed in this movie in a way I haven't felt about such in a long time.

[Kaak]

just an affirmation...I saw it again tonight. It REALLY IS GOOD...

[Ecthy]

I saw it for the second time last night... it is still a good movie, evry impressing are the camera tours into the forges of Isengard, but after seeing it for the second time, I agree that Elrond looks sh!t in the 3rd age... when in armor, he looks cool, but especially in that mystical scene of healing Frodo, he looks like.... *insert never-implemented puking smiley here*

[Ecthy]

Have you ever seen it? Ecthelion's White Tower?

And when we wil ride through the gates of the city, they will call from the walls "The Lords of Gondor are returning!"

[Dr.Oogkloot]

[off-topic]
By the way, Ecthelion: just got your Christmas card. Thanks!
[/off-topic]

[Ecthy]

You're welcome!

Watched the movie as well?