← Back to Reviews
in
I had just laid eyes upon a Balrog; far and away, the most amazing movie monster I had ever seen. I had just borne witness to what will go down in history as one of the most terrifying, yet beautiful, sequences in the history of cinema. But there was no mistaking it: I was starting to cry. I was not weeping or blubbering; just glazing over. To tell you why would do a disservice to all those who do not yet know the story, but I can tell you that it was simply because I completely identified with the loss the characters had just suffered.
Such is my general feeling on "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." It is a great movie, as I had expected it to be. What was so strange about it, however, was that it was not great in the ways I had expected it to be. Leading up to this film, I read virtually everything I could find on the subject. Review after review passed over my eyes. I was hungry for it; my mind was bent upon it. This had two eventual side-effects: certain scenes did not, perhaps, surprise me the way they were meant to, and the scenes I had not read about caught me that much more off of my guard.
This story is one of courage, and corruption. Frodo does not want The One Ring. Ironically, though, that is precisely why he bears it. One who wanted it would succumb to its power. Only a reluctant soul, in this case a simple, peace-loving Hobbit, could bear such a burden without giving in. He begs not to be led into temptation, and as a direct result, he is. The power of The One Ring is demonstrated midway through the film, in what I can only describe as one of the most perfect and telling shots I've ever had the pleasure of seeing on the big screen. It entails The One Ring sitting on a pillar, while The Council of Elrond bickers and argues over what is to be done with it. This debate starts off with a very civil tone, but very quickly degenerates into racial hatred and greed. Frodo looks at the ring, and in its reflection, we see the argument taking place, nearly at the point of blows. That one frame completely sums up The One Ring's nature. Hats off to Jackson for such a brilliant shot; it stands out, even in this visually spectacular film.
This film also, in addition to being particularly well shot, knows how to handle action. It is epic, and it is awe-inspiring. This is not "Terminator" action, this is "Braveheart" action. It is action with a sense of honor, and a sense of integrity. Every battle in this movie gives you a feeling of the overall war against evil. Even during the coolest, most amazing computer-generated battles and villains, the focus is on the story, not the technology. The integration of CGI with live action in this film is very nearly perfect. Nothing looks particularly fake. The world is eye-popping, yet completely believable. It does not transport us to Middle-Earth...it brings Middle-Earth to us. It makes it real in the way we know things not to be real, whereas most movies would bring us into their world, where belief can be suspended now and then. LOTR: FOTR transcends that.
The film, needless to say, does fall short in some areas when compared to its literary counterpart. The Nazgul, for whatever reason, genuinely scared me as I read the first book. In the movie, they are indeed frightening, but more in a "what if they were chasing me?" sort of way. With The Nazgul, I was a spectator, and not actually on the journey myself. A small quibble, perhaps, but one worth noting. I also must take issue with the film's portrayal of Lothlorien. It seemed too dark, and the glowing was a bit extreme. I pictured Lothlorien as a much more sunlit place, though I must admit that the film's rendition is still breathtaking.
One front in which the film can claim victory over the book, however, is that of the handling of the ring itself. It is, as director Peter Jackson said, its own character. In the book, we are told that the ring has a life of its own. In the movie, we see it for ourselves and, most importantly, we believe it. The ring shrinks or expands to fit the hand of its new master (an incredibly clever addition to the film). It pulls toward The Dark Lord whenever it can. It coaxes its bearer to put it on at the worst of times. It is alive. More importantly, though, is what it does to those around it. Bilbo's threatening nature, and raw desire for The One Ring, is made very intense here, to great effect. Even a simple Hobbit, we are shown, can succumb to greed, and a hunger for power.
What completely surprised me, though, more than anything, is the emotion involved. This is not a mission, or an adventure: it is a burden. It is, to put it very simply, not a happy story. It is exciting and breathtaking, but also heartbreaking. I nearly lost control over myself during one scene near the very end, where a particular character fights while staring death in the face. He fights to, as one other person put it, win back his soul. To redeem himself. It is beautiful, and saddening, at the same time. That scene got more of an emotional reaction from me than a thousand fiery demons or violent orcs ever could. I cried during that scene as well; though it was only a solitary tear, it may as well have been a waterfall. The scene is played to perfection. It drums on our heartstrings, but not in a flippant, annoying manner. It is genuine, through and through.
In terms of pacing, I can find no complaints. In terms of casting, the movie is pretty much dead-on. Frodo is, I'd say, the best of the lot. Ian McKellan's performance as Gandalf has been widely praised, and for good reason, but I find that Elijah Wood's Frodo, while perhaps not as challenging a role as McKellan's, is the most convincing of the film.
The most moving role, however, is far and away that of Boromir, played by Sean Bean. With every other character, I can find some flaw: Viggo Mortenson's Aragorn frustrates slightly with harsh whispers that sound almost goofy at times. He also mumbles a bit much for my liking (the same goes for McKellan as Gandalf). Legolas (Orlando Bloom) is propped up too highly, and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) too lowly. Boromir, however, is more than I had ever hoped for. He is a man, and, fittingly, one of the easiest characters to relate to. He makes mistakes, but you never doubt his true intentions, or his courage. His weakness is evident, and important, but he is not an evil man. You may very well find yourself experiencing Boromir's internal conflict as if it were your own.
The effects? As I've already stated, they are virtually flawless. Be it an earthly demon, a deadly sea creature, a massive battlefield, or a giant statue, nothing is beyond belief. You never have to let any of the shots slide by your nitpicking radar. They are all as real and authentic as the shirt on your back. Your mind tells you that it's not real, but your eye insists that it is. Don't let this inner-argument steal your focus from the movie, however. You'll regret it later.
Peter Jackson has put together an enjoyable movie. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was meant to be nothing more than the book in cinematic form. It accomplished its goal handily, and was a joy to behold. Jackson, however, knows that such a rendition of LOTR: FOTR is patently impossible, and as such, he hails his movie as another version of the story. He does not let technical details and obsessive purist fans compromise this brilliant film.
Go see this movie. The underlying themes of friendship (the bond that Frodo and Sam share is inspiring), greed, corruption, personal loss, and self-sacrifice are interwoven to perfection. This film is more than an optical feast. It is more than an important lesson. It is more than a book come to life. It is a representation of what movies should be, and sometimes are. I am not throwing mere adjectives at you: the film truly does inspire, terrify, amaze, and sadden. It does Tolkien justice in that it makes Middle-Earth seem completely authentic. It does not haul us off into its own outrageous world: it shows us a believable, realistic world that is reminiscent of our own. In a word: bravo.
Such is my general feeling on "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." It is a great movie, as I had expected it to be. What was so strange about it, however, was that it was not great in the ways I had expected it to be. Leading up to this film, I read virtually everything I could find on the subject. Review after review passed over my eyes. I was hungry for it; my mind was bent upon it. This had two eventual side-effects: certain scenes did not, perhaps, surprise me the way they were meant to, and the scenes I had not read about caught me that much more off of my guard.
This story is one of courage, and corruption. Frodo does not want The One Ring. Ironically, though, that is precisely why he bears it. One who wanted it would succumb to its power. Only a reluctant soul, in this case a simple, peace-loving Hobbit, could bear such a burden without giving in. He begs not to be led into temptation, and as a direct result, he is. The power of The One Ring is demonstrated midway through the film, in what I can only describe as one of the most perfect and telling shots I've ever had the pleasure of seeing on the big screen. It entails The One Ring sitting on a pillar, while The Council of Elrond bickers and argues over what is to be done with it. This debate starts off with a very civil tone, but very quickly degenerates into racial hatred and greed. Frodo looks at the ring, and in its reflection, we see the argument taking place, nearly at the point of blows. That one frame completely sums up The One Ring's nature. Hats off to Jackson for such a brilliant shot; it stands out, even in this visually spectacular film.
This film also, in addition to being particularly well shot, knows how to handle action. It is epic, and it is awe-inspiring. This is not "Terminator" action, this is "Braveheart" action. It is action with a sense of honor, and a sense of integrity. Every battle in this movie gives you a feeling of the overall war against evil. Even during the coolest, most amazing computer-generated battles and villains, the focus is on the story, not the technology. The integration of CGI with live action in this film is very nearly perfect. Nothing looks particularly fake. The world is eye-popping, yet completely believable. It does not transport us to Middle-Earth...it brings Middle-Earth to us. It makes it real in the way we know things not to be real, whereas most movies would bring us into their world, where belief can be suspended now and then. LOTR: FOTR transcends that.
The film, needless to say, does fall short in some areas when compared to its literary counterpart. The Nazgul, for whatever reason, genuinely scared me as I read the first book. In the movie, they are indeed frightening, but more in a "what if they were chasing me?" sort of way. With The Nazgul, I was a spectator, and not actually on the journey myself. A small quibble, perhaps, but one worth noting. I also must take issue with the film's portrayal of Lothlorien. It seemed too dark, and the glowing was a bit extreme. I pictured Lothlorien as a much more sunlit place, though I must admit that the film's rendition is still breathtaking.
One front in which the film can claim victory over the book, however, is that of the handling of the ring itself. It is, as director Peter Jackson said, its own character. In the book, we are told that the ring has a life of its own. In the movie, we see it for ourselves and, most importantly, we believe it. The ring shrinks or expands to fit the hand of its new master (an incredibly clever addition to the film). It pulls toward The Dark Lord whenever it can. It coaxes its bearer to put it on at the worst of times. It is alive. More importantly, though, is what it does to those around it. Bilbo's threatening nature, and raw desire for The One Ring, is made very intense here, to great effect. Even a simple Hobbit, we are shown, can succumb to greed, and a hunger for power.
What completely surprised me, though, more than anything, is the emotion involved. This is not a mission, or an adventure: it is a burden. It is, to put it very simply, not a happy story. It is exciting and breathtaking, but also heartbreaking. I nearly lost control over myself during one scene near the very end, where a particular character fights while staring death in the face. He fights to, as one other person put it, win back his soul. To redeem himself. It is beautiful, and saddening, at the same time. That scene got more of an emotional reaction from me than a thousand fiery demons or violent orcs ever could. I cried during that scene as well; though it was only a solitary tear, it may as well have been a waterfall. The scene is played to perfection. It drums on our heartstrings, but not in a flippant, annoying manner. It is genuine, through and through.
In terms of pacing, I can find no complaints. In terms of casting, the movie is pretty much dead-on. Frodo is, I'd say, the best of the lot. Ian McKellan's performance as Gandalf has been widely praised, and for good reason, but I find that Elijah Wood's Frodo, while perhaps not as challenging a role as McKellan's, is the most convincing of the film.
The most moving role, however, is far and away that of Boromir, played by Sean Bean. With every other character, I can find some flaw: Viggo Mortenson's Aragorn frustrates slightly with harsh whispers that sound almost goofy at times. He also mumbles a bit much for my liking (the same goes for McKellan as Gandalf). Legolas (Orlando Bloom) is propped up too highly, and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) too lowly. Boromir, however, is more than I had ever hoped for. He is a man, and, fittingly, one of the easiest characters to relate to. He makes mistakes, but you never doubt his true intentions, or his courage. His weakness is evident, and important, but he is not an evil man. You may very well find yourself experiencing Boromir's internal conflict as if it were your own.
The effects? As I've already stated, they are virtually flawless. Be it an earthly demon, a deadly sea creature, a massive battlefield, or a giant statue, nothing is beyond belief. You never have to let any of the shots slide by your nitpicking radar. They are all as real and authentic as the shirt on your back. Your mind tells you that it's not real, but your eye insists that it is. Don't let this inner-argument steal your focus from the movie, however. You'll regret it later.
Peter Jackson has put together an enjoyable movie. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was meant to be nothing more than the book in cinematic form. It accomplished its goal handily, and was a joy to behold. Jackson, however, knows that such a rendition of LOTR: FOTR is patently impossible, and as such, he hails his movie as another version of the story. He does not let technical details and obsessive purist fans compromise this brilliant film.
Go see this movie. The underlying themes of friendship (the bond that Frodo and Sam share is inspiring), greed, corruption, personal loss, and self-sacrifice are interwoven to perfection. This film is more than an optical feast. It is more than an important lesson. It is more than a book come to life. It is a representation of what movies should be, and sometimes are. I am not throwing mere adjectives at you: the film truly does inspire, terrify, amaze, and sadden. It does Tolkien justice in that it makes Middle-Earth seem completely authentic. It does not haul us off into its own outrageous world: it shows us a believable, realistic world that is reminiscent of our own. In a word: bravo.