LOTR-Ebert's review and my take

[hella_42]

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/in
dex.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 book 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