Slashdot Mirror
Review:Fellowship of the Ring
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?
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...
"I do not fear computers. I fear lack of them." -Isaac Asimov
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.
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...
They eat seven or eight times a day, like to take naps, have never been far from home and have eyes that grow wide at the sounds of the night. They are like children grown up or grown old, and when they rise to an occasion, it takes true heroism, for they are timid by nature and would rather avoid a fight.
Good god! I never thought of it before, but you have just described the vast majority of the IT department where I work. No wonder geeks love Tolkien so much.
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.
______
Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.
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), but I wouldn't say that the romance between her and Aragorn isn't mentioned in the book. It is, however, only glancingly hinted at. Of course, the story of their romance is expanded upon in one of the appendices. Aragorn's love for Arwen is also the source of his discomfort upon meeting the lovely Eowyn in The Two Towers. 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.
It's all in the books, but if you blink, you'll miss it. Subtle nuances that one misses reading the book for the first time as a nine-year-old, then catch years later upon subsequent re-readings as an adult...
As for omissions, that is entirely understandable. I can't imagine American audiences sitting through a five hour version just to see scenes such as those involving Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights (hmmm, wonder if those parts were actually filmed? DVD anyone?), which, while adding to the overall mythic feel of the story, don't really advance the plot or contribute to character development.
*** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
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!!
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Look everyone, Roger Ebert is an anonymous coward posting on slashdot... oh wait.. just some plaigarist i bet. Here is the link this poster should have cited: Ebert's review of LOTR.
porp
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.
Lasers Controlled Games!
All digital sound if off the print. The film contains the information for two channel stereo, and may contain some cues to help out SRS. DTS, SDDS, and Dolby Digital use off-film CD media. There are some non-digital four channel formats that are on the film itself out there, but they are usually magnetic strips on a 70mm print.
It is not uncommon for a film produced in massive quantities such as this to have sound problems. Expect replacement sound media to be out within a week, if that is, in fact, the problem.
I used to work as a projectionist for Landmark Cinemas, if anybody cares.
- W. Blaine Dowler
http://www.bureau42.com
Ok, there really needs to be a peer to Godwin's Law which replaces "mentioning Nazism" with "prefacing the comment with a recantation of a lusty love affair the author had in their youth". Preferably this would be built right into the net, so such posts are automatically purged, and a squad of roughnecks with bats immediately dispatched to the author's place of posting. How about "Pygmalion's Law"...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
[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.
SOURCE: http://www.dolby.com/tm/filmsnd.html
I have a website. It's about Macs.
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.
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*.
My only bitch is that I will have another bunch of dweeb kids who want to have their username/password to be:
SunOS 5.8
login: gandalf
password: 6O11uM
Please, God. Spare me.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Tolkein was no Shakespeare, no Chaucer, no Hemingway, no Faulkner, etc.
... mishmash, baldly told, with little style. Moving on to Spenser, there's no doubt that Spenser's poetic and descriptive gifts are far above Tolkien's - when he's on. A good part of the Fairie Queen, however, is dull and lifeless, and if there's an overall plot to it, it got lost somewhere.
No, he wasn't, but then, few authors are. Tolkien's major relative failings are his prose style, which is servicible and clear, but rarely memorable, and his characterization, which is somewhat flat, without being too cliche'd. His strengths, however, put him among the greats of our century. If anyone has managed to create a complex world with a multi layered, epic mythology and married it seemlessly to a moving and relevant plot, it's escaped my attention. You've compared him to Malory, which is a good start - Malory takes the mishmash of Arturian myth and turns it into a
Moving on to Chretien DeTroyes, again, as far as I can tell in translation, he's a much better stylist, but his organizational skills were lacking. The Eddas and Sagas have a baldness of style that can be appealing but again, don't quite make a coherent whole. I could go on and on, hop, skipping and jumping in and out of the fantasy genre, but I'll save us some trouble by saying that I don't know of anyone in the field who's come up with a world of this kind of depth and integrated it so well into a meaningful story.
As far as the rest of modern literature is concerned, what are we comparing him to? SF novels? - not many can come close to him in that field, either. Mainstream literature? I don't suppose Tolkien had much to say about middle class angst in America or the joys of growing up in the ethnic subculture of the week, which seems to be what the modern novel has devolved into. There are a lot of good novelists around these days, but they have little to say that a lot of other good novelists aren't saying either. There were a lot of good novelists of the last century who aren't being read anymore. I can be fairly certain in 500 years that people will be reading Kafka, Joyce, and Faulkner, and to a lesser extent Hemingway. And yes, they'll be reading Tolkien. He's already had an enormous influence on culture - not just in the fantasy genre, but in the concept of creating a fictional world so thoroughly that the reader/viewer has no choice but to be caught up in it totally. He was the one who showed the creators of Star Wars, Star Trek and Dune how it had to be done. Anyone who wants to create a unique place for his characters to interact with depth HAS to study Tolkien and how he did it. He had his weaknesses as a writer, none of them fatal, but in the matter of world-making, he was the master.
I wanna hear more about Denise.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
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.
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.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned