|
613 of 622 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Finally! A fantasy masterpiece for the cinema!, December 22, 2001
A cinematic version of Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS ranks up with the hope that Lucas will indeed make another Star Wars Trilogy, and, I think I can safely say, this is one of the most anticipated films in the movie industry's long and checkered history. You would think it's movie paradise, considering Lucas has been in the midst of another Star Wars trilogy and LORD OF THE RINGS has finally got a cinema deal (live action!), but PHANTOM MENACE proved something of a disappointment (Mesa Jar Jar Binks!), and I think quite a few people will enter into the theatre with a certain amount of trepidation. There's a reason for that. Three animated Tolkien films have been released with very problematic results. The 1978 Bakshi release is just embarrassing; the film is both incoherent and confusing. Rankin & Bass's two movies are fine for little kids; those two films are Tolkien for Saturday Morning cartoons. They proved my introduction to Tolkien and for that I am thankful, but the movies still fail to capture the grandeur of Tolkien's imagination. There are two things to consider here about a work of literature. Although all good literature has a polarization effect on its readers, this work has a gigantic legion of followers which are extremely dedicated to Tolkien's vision (I count myself a member of this camp). The other camp cannot figure out what the big fuss is about and why they should care about the novel. Now, there's a reason why all this is relevant to the film: had Peter Jackson gone to far either way the film would have fallen apart. Appeal to much to the fan-base and you loose the general movie-goer. Appeal to much to the movie-goer, and you'll lose the fan-base. So when the fan base learned of Peter Jackson's decision to film all three films at once, an unprecedented move in movie history, most of us really wanted it to be good but were just simply afraid. We've already been burnt. Would it be so bad that it would alienate both fan base and those who are just looking for a good movie? Not only does Peter Jackson's film work, it's glorious, beautiful, has all the myth and grandeur of the book. Jackson, a Tolkien fanatic, could have gotten so involved with bringing out the extremely detailed world Tolkien gave us that the pacing would suffer or we'd lose patience with all these obscure details which would alienate the regular movie goer. Not only does he not alienate the general movie goer, but he entices the fan base so much they can't help but fall in love with his vision of Tolkien's world. The only real flaw is how rushed first section of the movie is. Although I can understand cutting the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the way they handled getting the hobbits out of the Shire was unacceptable. There is not that sense of camaraderie between the Hobbits that there is in the book, there is no "conspiracy," and Merry and Pippin just join without any questioning from Sam and Frodo. While Jackson does a good job at building the Hobbits' characters and establishing their personalities, I couldn't come up with a good reason why Frodo and Sam would just let Merry and Pippin join them. The Prancing Pony is worst. There is no questioning from the Hobbits about Aragorn proving himself, there is no scene about him asking them to trust him, and the whole sequence feels much too rushed. Sam only questions Aragorn while they're actually out of the inn and traveling. Thankfully, however, that is the only real flaw. The rest of the things the script changed (tightening Elrond's council, the expansion of Arwen, cutting Sam from the Galadriel mirror sequence, tempting Aragorn with the ring, etc) I can see why they did it for dramatic tension. I also liked the way they handled Elrond's council, because that could have ruined the movie like it did with Bakshi's. They had established and covered much of the material in that chapter elsewhere by means of voice-over prologue and actually showing the viewer what is happening (especially with the Isengard sequences), and as a result lessened the screentime of that scene and helping with the dramatics of it. As for the controversial expansion of Arwen, I tend to agree with the film makers in their decision to enlarge her role. By making her part of the Ford sequence it introduces the character and establishes her in the viewer's mind, and the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn is more fully explored. As for their romantic interlude in Rivendell, not only do I agree with that but think it should have been done in the book. Tolkien did not know who Strider was when he was first writing FELLOWSHIP, and did not go back and change the scenes to further explain the romance between Arwen and Aragorn, and by not including a scene in Rivendell to establish their love for one another lessens by far the impact of their union in Part III, and (for once) this romantic scene is actually an improvement on the book. As for her role in the Flight at the Ford, for the movie they made the right choice though the book is still preferable. In achieving the balance between fan base and the more causal fan, this film is a spectacular success. Making a movie out of a book the size of Fellowship, the fact is you will have to condense, tighten, rearrange, and make changes for dramatic tensions. The mediums are different, and you cannot have a direct translation from a book to a film. Despite of what they cut, the movie still clocks in at three hours, which is very generous. The real problem with this film, as others noted, is it's going to be a full two years before we finally get to watch THE RETURN OF THE KING. In the end, we get a movie that stays true to the SPIRIT of the book. This is what we Tolkien fans have long been waiting for. Thank you so much Peter Jackson and your cast and crew.
|
DVD ~ Sean Astin
DVD ~ Keanu Reeves
DVD ~ Ian McClellen, Liv Tyler, Vigo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett,j Elijah Wood
DVD ~ Viggo Mortensen
