Ebert's review/my take on LOTR

[Hella Fakhro]

I posted this on webview earlier this afternoon and it doesn't seem to have gone through - if it comes twice, my apologies.
I saw FOTR last night and it was amazing, really I was stunned by the film. I did read Ebert's review, I see his complaint about the film was that it didn't follow too closely to the book whereas the HP film was a truer adaptation. (If I'm mistaken about what he's saying, please correct me.) If you're going to compare the two (which I probably shouldn't do as they're very different types, but oh well) I would say that Peter Jackson breathed life into that movie unlike Columbus with Harry.

I never perceived that the hobbits were pushed out of center stage by the people, elves, etc. And I never got the feeling that the elves "tower like Norse gods and goddesses, accompanied by so much dramatic sound and lighting that it's a wonder they can think to speak, with all the distractions." It's a very *grand* movie but it's also very intimate and never strays away from the essentials: the characters. The focus is always on Frodo, and I expect Merry and Pippin and Sam will have more focus in the later movies as their roles expand. 

Maybe because I am not too attached to the Lord of the Rings books, I don't have any problem with the adaptation of a beloved book, so comparing it to Harry Potter where I love the books but thought they butchered the movie is probably not a good idea. Someone more objective would probably have a more balanced opinion. Here's an interesting quote, which I found myself agreeing with from the salon.com review:

"The Fellowship of the Ring" looks lavish but never wasteful, miraculous given the way everything in Hollywood these days costs big money, and yet nothing looks like it. (Compared with "Fellowship," the gaudy and lifeless "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone" looks like a play mounted at a school for rich kids, where no expense was spared in the attempt to cover up clumsy amateurishness.)  

from: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2001/12/18/lord_of_the_rings/index.html

Does anyone else find it painful to criticize the Harry Potter movie!<bg> Sorry if I offended anyone who loved the film, but I do think that it could have been done much better. Maybe I'm wrong but with HP I have the feeling that a lot of people working on it took it for granted that it would be a success and so didn't have to really *try* (the kids were wonderful as were Rickman, Smith, Shaw, Hurt and Coltrane) but a lot of other actors and the director, I think treated it more as a cutesy film rather than taking it seriously.

Whereas in Lord of the Rings, everything is taken seriously. Ian McKellen as Gandalf is superb, you can tell he has respect for his role and for the story (unlike another actor Who Shall Not Be Named). Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortenson were also highlights and there wasn't one actor that made me wince. Most importantly, it is evident that director Peter Jackson respected the book. The languages were spoken with reverence and fortunately they didn't sound weird. I think the actors really studied the books and had language training and so on; they put a great effort into understanding their roles, which makes a huge difference. I felt that they respected the book and yet weren't afraid to make the movie an interpretation rather than a slavish re-telling, and this is what made it a good movie. All those who are waiting to rent it on video or DVD, don't! It is one of those movies that you have to watch on the big screen.

Best,

Hella



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]