Ok, I'm going to start this off with a rant. My rants are not necessarily
negative, so don't take it as such.
This was NOT Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. This was Peter Jackson's Lord
of the Rings. I'm still not entirely sure whether that's a good or bad
thing, but I think it's pretty unquestionable. Jackson yanked out and
changed quite a few rather large plot elements, and many of the themes he
explores just weren't present in Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring. On the
other hand, we should remember that Tolkien cared about Middle-Earth and the
setting more than he really did about the characters and themes.
The other reason why I think a comprehensive judgement should be
reserved is because this is really only the 2nd film (to my recollection)
that was ever conceived as the first part of a trilogy (the first being Star
Wars: A New Hope). Many of the themes and plot elements that were
established here are obviously going to carry over into The Two Towers, and
my opinions of them will depend greatly upon how they are handled in that
film.
Character Reviews:
Frodo - One of the differences between film & novel is Frodo's age. In
the books, Frodo sets off on his quest on his 50th birthday, 17 years after
Bilbo leaves. In the film, he leaves the day after Bilbo's birthday party.
The major problem with this is that he looks & is treated far more like a
child than he is in the novel, and Sam's reference to him as "Mr. Frodo"
seems out of place.
Sam - Sam doesn't really come into his own until later in the series, so
I'm going to reserve judgement. Based on this, though, I liked what I saw.
Pippin & Merry - Used as the comic relief in the film, these two are
made out to be far less intelligent than they are the novel. Most likely,
Jackson wants a coming-of-age story, so later on, we'll seem them mature and
develop. I hope...
Gandalf - Perfect. Ian McKellan IS Gandalf the Grey. The character
portrayal could not have been better.
Saruman - SHOULDN'T HAVE SHOWN UP. In the novels, Saruman doesn't even
make his appearance until the 2nd book. Gandalf relates his trials at
Orthanc to the Council of Elrond, but we never see it first hand.
Christopher Lee, however, portrayed him well.
Aragorn - Definitely a different character than Tolkien's Strider. In
the film, there's a strong internal conflict over his claiming his
inheritance. The only problem here is that it sheds doubt upon Aragorn's
otherwise unassailable confidence. In the novel, Aragorn is second only to
Gandalf in terms of leadership ability and power, and we just don't see that
here. I'll wait for the other two to decide if it's a good or bad
divergence.
Arwen - I went into the movie expecting to hate her: big-name Hollywood
actor inflating a minor part just so she can get top billing. But the
character was interesting, and her part wasn't overblown. Naturally, not
Tolkien's Arwen Evenstar, but since the original had maybe a paragraph to
herself, that's no surprise.
Boromir - Urgh. If I'd been Frodo, and Boromir had been half as obvious
about his intentions, I would've bailed with the Ring before entering
Moria... Not the actor's fault; Peter Jackson was catering to a movie-going
audience, and he figured (probably rightly-so) that better too much
foreshadowing than not enough.
Legolas - Good. Very good. And every female I know now wants Orlando
Bloom.
Gimli - I did NOT like what they did with him. They made him angry &
stupid, and the original Gimli was neither.
Galadriel - Too wooden & distant. Lothlorien is meant to be a sanctuary
after the horrors of Moria, and ease the blow of Gandalf's loss. The
Galadriel of the film seemed as much a threat as anything else. And they
over-emphasized her change when offered the Ring.
Plot:
Because so much was cut out, many of the plot elements seemed somewhat
contrived. Aragorn just *happens* to have 4 hobbit-sized swords on him?
Maybe one, if he knows Frodo's coming, but 4? Furthermore, time and space
tended to get skewed. Gandalf rides to Gondor and back in one day, between
the party and when Frodo leaves? Bree is a day's march outside the Shire?
Some of the things that were cut out, in my opinion, should have been
left in instead of the continual flashbacks to the first War, and the arming
of Isengard, neither of which were dealt with in the novel. I would have
liked to see the Old Forest and Bombadil, and Butterbur (the innkeep at the
Prancing Pony) should have had his full part.
On the whole, I think this was less a film adaptation of the Fellowship
of the Ring, and more of a different telling of a familiar story, in a new
medium. The look was incredible, with excellent cinematography, special
effects, and costumes. Out of 10, I would give it a 9 for style and 7.5 for
content. My one worry is that this could become the "definitive" Lord of
the Rings, and while it is good, it is NOT Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. If
you've only seen the movie, you don't know Ring.
Eric Steiger
Go to forum!
(Due to spamming, old forum discussions are no linked.)