LOTR review

[John Walton]

Having just read Amy's review, as a complete non-LoTR book fan (I reread
them a couple of years ago, during the Famous Sojourn In Portugal, and was
unimpressed compared with, say, The Wheel of Time), let me say that I will
be dashing out to buy LoTR *today*. Cass, Ashley and I saw it last night,
and I was totally bowled over. I need to see it again, mainly because my
inner HP fan was saying "This is so much better than our movie" about four
times a minute (that's about 700 or 800 times during the movie). I need to
see it without that, as I now *know* it's much better than our movie, and I
also need to see it alone or without someone like Cassie sitting next to me,
as I felt the urge to make slashy comments *far, far* too often. ("Did that
dirty little dwarf just feel up Frodo? Eww!"  "Did you see that look on Ian
McKellen's face? Oo-er...where did Saruman just hit *him*?")

My review is probably going to make lots of comparisons with the PS/SS
movie. Hey, this *is* an HP list :D

Everything about this film was SO much better than PS/SS. I can't think of
one thing (besides Sean Biggerstaff) that I enjoyed more in PS/SS than I did
in LoTR. Hero? Dan looked the part but his acting was, understandably since
he's not even a teenager yet, a little lacking. Despite Amy's concern about
Frodo's age, Cass, Ashley and I were discussing it in the car last night and
agree that it's showing Frodo's immaturity more than anything else.
(However, neither Ash nor I, who aren't book fans, realised that there was a
40-year gap between the Ring being left with Frodo and Gandalf's return.)

> All that time showing us lush scenery and amazing sets, as much as I loved
> them, could have been spent giving us a lot more of JRRT's dialogue.

As someone none too keen on JRRT's dialogue and characterisations in the
first place (I found most of the characters much more multifaceted in the
movie and, unusually, I had a less vivid mental picture for almost all of
them than the movie pictures), I didn't miss it. I thought that the scenery
and sets were what really *made* the movie in a different world. I will now
have to go visit my cousins in NZ to visit it.

> If I hadn't read the book, I would have left the movie theater knowing
> Gandalf and Boromir and no one else.

As someone who spent most of the movie going "Oh no! I hope Legolas doesn't
die! If he dies then I can't lust after him because that would be squicky!",
I disagree to an extent. Character development in a movie with nine
protagonists is very difficult. Perhaps you're comparing the character you
got from the book with the one you got from the movie?

> A possible exception is Sam, who is thus far *better* than he is in the book
> (where "he keeps on saying 'sir' to Frodo until one begins to have mad visions
> of founding a Hobbit Socialist Party," to quote my second-favorite JRRT fan,
> Ursula LeGuin); 

I *still* agree with Ursula LeGuin. I think that the "sir" thing could have
been left out. They're meant to bloody well be contemporaries... *frowns*

> also missing is insight into the moral dilemma.  Boromir isn't just envious
> and overly proud; he makes a really important point, one with a lot of merit
> (and one that any of us might make concerning, oh, say, nuclear weapons):
> isn't it folly to destroy the most powerful weapon we have, especially since
> the only way to destroy it is to carry it right under Sauron's nose, which is
> most likely as effective as FedExing it to his door?

I agree with you, that aspect *is* missing and would have been easy enought
to insert in the Council scene...

> Another thing missing from the decision is all the tension about
> leaving the Shire.  Aside from telling us about Sam, the scene where
> he looks into the Mirror of Galadriel is important because it shows
> that they might be sacrificing the Shire by going to Mt. Doom.  What
> they left in shows what will happen to the Shire if they *don't*
> complete the quest; that makes Frodo's decision to go on easier.  But
> in the book, Sam's choice to go on is made *harder* by what he sees
> there, and the moral question is compounded--should he be staying home
> to take care of things there, or should he gamble everything he loves,
> everything they're trying to save, on this crazy long shot to destroy
> the Ring?  We know the right answer, but in the book Sam doesn't; he's
> tormented.

I think this *is* a necessary cut. Sam will get much more character
development in the next two books. I think the time was better spent on
developing the other characters (however little).

> Their mistrust of Strider is likewise excised.

I didn't get that feeling at all. Their mistrust of *everyone* in Bree
extended to Strider.

> Something that could have been drastically cut to provide time for
> all this stuff was the fight with the cave troll in Moria.  What the
> heck was that all about?  Come on, have a little skirmish in the tomb,
> let us see Frodo get stabbed so everyone learns about the mithril
> mail, and get to the main action with the Balrog.  In general the
> fight scenes went on too long, but this one was breaking records.

I have to agree with you. My inner Draco was rolling his eyes and going, "A
FIRE demon? Puh-leeeeze..." And the troll, however well done, did go on for
too long. 

> I loved lots of the details:  Elrond's hair tied into Celtic knots,
> the winding stairs in Lorien, the white hand on the Uruk-hai (I always
> pictured it as a little tattoo-like thing, and I don't think JRRT
> specified; having it a mark literally branded by a hand is terrific),
> the way the orcs look and move, the hand of the Nazgul.  I loved the
> way things look when Frodo's invisible:  it really captures the sense
> that the Ring doesn't just make him invisible, but makes him more
> visible to evil (and evil more visible to him).  All the acting was
> fine--well, I'd be happier if Liv Tyler would just face facts and stop
> calling herself an actress, but she didn't have much to do.

I agree heartily on everything but Liv Tyler -- I thought she and ALL the
other acting was absolutely fantastic.

> Sean 
> Bean, who gets the best role in the book, was terrific, and I hope he
> played Faramir too so that we haven't seen the last of him (doubt it,
> though; there's no mention of it at IMDB).  I love that they cast Cate
> Blanchett, who does not have movie-star beauty, for Galadriel; it
> conveys the fact that her magnetism is based on something much more
> powerful than sex appeal.

Cass and I were discussing how great it was that they pumped up the women's
roles in the movie -- both Arwen and Galadriel are actually *characters*
now.

> I love the way they intercut between what
> is happening to Gandalf and what's happening to the hobbits (though
> they cut the travel time between Hobbiton and Rivendell so drastically
> that Gandalf appears to have been imprisoned at Isengard for only a
> week or two--and the orcs deforested Isengard and did all that forging
> in that brief span of time as well).

I didn't get that feeling -- I felt that, for the orcs to have deforested
Isengard, it must have taken longer and that everything else must therefore
have taken longer too.

> I love the way the hobbit children look, and the
> furry feet.  I was even okay with the fact that Elijah Wood looks 17
> instead of Frodo's 51 (or, since he's had the Ring since age 33, 33),
> though I still find it bizarre that they made this choice.  I suspect
> they were going for teen girl appeal.

*coughs, says nothing, looks at Al and munches on humble pie*

--John
________________________________

John Walton -- john at walton.vu

Percy smiled back, reminding himself not to let his face show exactly how
gorgeous he found Oliver.  *Aloof, unavailable, Head Boy. Aloof, unavailable
Head Boy. With girlfriend.*

>From Keeper's Secrets, Chapter 2, by Wood's Keeper
http://www.astronomytower.org/cgi-bin/links/jump.cgi?ID=301
________________________________