A short review, a little perspective, and a few gripes.

This being my first post at The Barrow-Downs I should say that I am not a purist fan, but a very big one. I've only made it about half way through the Silmarillion and other tales while I've read LOTR on atleast 3 occasions.<P>Enough about me. The movie, in short, was excellent. Not without it's faults (my gripes of which appear later), it certainly exceeded my expectations and raised the bar for every fantasy film yet to come (including the next 2). <P>I think for a fan the film is best viewed in this light; I have a coffee-table like book called Paintings of Middle-Earth. It contains several pieces by different artists at different stages of the story. It contains very little of the story itself, does that make it a bad book? NO, it is a companion piece, nothing more nothing less.<P>There are, however, problems. I've read through many of the posts here and tend to agree, so I won't repeat. I will add a few things, all of which center around lothlorien. <P>1) Gimli - Only 2 places that I can remember Gimli standing out in FOTR, moria and lothlorien. moria was done well, but did he even have a line in lothlorien? his love of Galadriel and the golden trees (mallorn?) played a large part (I felt) in his changing as a character. Sad to see it left out.<P>2) The mirror - Where is Sam? This leads to #3:<P>3) Gifts from Galadriel - yes I see that they have them (the cloaks atleast), and Frodo receives his... but where is Sam's seed and fertilizer (whatever it was =). As long as he has them in the end, all is well... but will anyone that hasn't read the books understand this? And Galadriels lock of hair, will it make it into the crystal? (IIRC, goning back to #1).<P>4) Trees - umm, mallorn, golden... did I miss something?<P>I understood most of the movies additions/subtractions, but # 1-3 seem to be glaring mistakes.<P>Favorite piece of the movie: Boromir. Sean Been was exceptional. I got a little misty near the end (which is unusual). Someone else here said the movie did a better job than the book relaying his conflict... it did for me as well. Though that may not be the case upon further reading. Best example I can recall is on the mountain when Frodo falls and drops the chain and ring. While he readily gives the ring back, the pain is seen inside, well done.<P>Thanks for trudging through, hopefully my meaning wasn't lost.<P>Kien

I agree with your assessment - probably the most accurate posted to date. Overall, the film was excelent, the characters all looked real, the scenery and music were great. Frodo's transition was superb. Animation was a little sub-par compared to what Lucas does but not enough to warrant criticism. The film could not have exceeded 3 hours and the intro (necessary for the mindless masses who will account for 95% of the film's gross income) forced PJ to make some hard choices. My guess (and hope) is that #2 and #3 will be better in terms of purism. Some thoughts:<P>1. Arwen's expanded role was not too terrible. All she did was ride Frodo to the river. It saved time as the trek from Weathertop was actually a few days. After that, it was mostly by the book.<BR>2. Tom Bombadil MIA. I missed his character as PJ did such a great job with everyone else but I think this was the most 'removable' piece of the plot. In the film, Aragorn gave the hobbits their weapons after leaving Bree - so the issue with Merry's sword vs the Nazgul king can be handled that way.<BR>3. Merry & Pippin - some people complain that they were portrayed as bumbling fools but in essence that is what they were. In the book, they joined the Frodo and Sam mostly throught their naive sense of adventure - without any clue as to what they were getting into. Granted, their loyalty and friendship to Frodo was not depicted too well in the film. My guess films #2 and #3 will do them more justice as the books do, to a degree.<BR>4. The growing banter and relationship between Gimli and Legolas was missing. A true shame. <BR>5. Gimli's adoration for Galadriel and growing appreciation for Elven beauty was also sadly missing.<BR>6. Galadriel & Co's gifts to Sam and the others, as well as Aragorn's reforged sword were missing. The elven cloaks and the lembas play important roles in the next books. Hopefully, PJ introduces them via a flashback in the next film. There are scenes in the trailers/ads that hint this - unless they were cut from the film altogther.

[amyrlis]

I have finally seen it! These are my thoughts:<P>(just some background notes: I am a big book fan and have read them many times. I went with my husband who read ½ of The Hobbit last year and is 100 pages into his first reading of FOTR.)<P>I really enjoyed it! It is a good movie, the acting is great, scenery is beautiful, and the special effects are amazing. It was surreal to see something I know so well and have been anticipating for so long brought to life. I LOVED Gandalf, Ian McKellen was exceptional. The corruption and lust caused by the Ring is portrayed very well in Bilbo and Boromir, anyone who hasn’t read the books will still understand it’s evil. The Balrog scene is fantastic and the Ringwraiths are terrifying. The hobbits are endearing, and the relationship between Frodo and Sam is well established – I look forward to their trek to Mordor. I was not bothered at all by Arwen’s amplified role, and was thrilled with the sub-titled elvish. Sean Been’s Boromir was very good, I could see his inner struggle, his departure was emotional – I’m sad he won’t be around for the next two installments. I loved the scene when Frodo asks Aragorn if he would be able to destroy the Ring.<P>There were a few things however, that I was not thrilled with. But this is just my own opinion based on my interpretation of the books. And, I’m not saying these were BAD things, just things I would have pictured differently.<P>Will you get it if you haven’t read the books? I was worried about this throughout the movie because I really wanted my husband to enjoy it. At the end he assured me that he had enjoyed the movie and understood the important things. But, he did not know much about the characters in the Fellowship and why they were chosen. It’s true, the movie does not introduce Boromir, Legolas and Gimli at the Council the way it needs to. Wish they would have spent a little more time on that. I know there was not a lot of development in the relationship between Legolas & Gimli, but having just reread FOTR, they really don’t have much to say in the book as well.<P>Elrond & Galadriel – they were so comforting and helpful to the Fellowship in the books. I did not really get that sense from them in the movie. Instead they were kind of strange and scary. The Lothlorien scene was so short! And the scene with Frodo offering Galadriel the Ring was a little overdone – I would have eased up on the special effects there.<P>But all in all, the true themes of the book are present in the movie – the evil of the Ring, the desperation of the Hobbit who carries the burden, the gentle wisdom of Gandalf and knowing that there’s more to him than meets the eye, Aragorn’s struggle with his humanity and his legacy, the enduring friendship of Frodo & Sam. Great job PJ and all who were involved. I look forward to owning it on DVD and seeing the next two movies.<P>Well, that’s my two cents. I’m sure that others have voiced similar opinions and I apologize if I’ve been redundant. I’ve been avoiding the Movie Thread until seeing the movie yesterday, and don’t have time to read all the posts in here. Hope everyone had a great holiday yesterday!<P>p.s. Kien – I think that they skipped the gift giving part in Lothlorien because I’ve heard the Scouring of the Shire part is not anticipated to be in ROTK – Sam won’t be using the soil. But, I thought I’d seen the gift giving in a trailer?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by amyrlis:<BR><STRONG><BR>p.s. Kien – I think that they skipped the gift giving part in Lothlorien because I’ve heard the Scouring of the Shire part is not anticipated to be in ROTK – Sam won’t be using the soil. But, I thought I’d seen the gift giving in a trailer?</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No scouring? Interesting... Especially when you consider exactly what Frodo saw in the mirror, the scouring. The interesting part is what Galadriel says, something like; What you have seen is what will be IF you fail. I don't recall her telling this to Samin FoTR, only that it was a possibility. This opens the door for them to succeed and the scouring never to happen... But what then happens to Saruman and Grima? Will be fun to watch!<P>Kien

I thought that Merry and Pippin were VERY well done and fleshed out so to speak. I'm glad they had more then ONE funny character in there. The movie needed the comic relief...alot. I did'nt like the scenes where the Watcher in the Water thinks Frodo is a saltshaker and the scene where Galadriel turns into Opera Viking Woman. HACK GAG. Other then that the movie was one of the best I have ever seen. I thought that they did a good job casting Legolas,Merry,Pippin,Sam,Aragorn,Elrond,<BR>Arwen, Frodo,Boromir,Bilbo and Gandalf.I thoughtt hat they did a good job in portraying Sam at the end how he goes out to the boat and all. I was CRYING when I saw the movie the second time.<BR> Goldenwood

There were a few other changes in the movie that I wondered about. In the movie Aragorn does not carry the broken sword, but a whole one and in the movie the broken one is in Rivendell. They also call it Narsil and not Anduril. I can understand some of the differences due to time constraints, such as leaving out Tom Bombadil (sadly), Radagast the Brown, and greatly simplifying the Hobbits' departure from the Shire and trip to Rivendell. But some of the changes don't seem to have any purpose to me. The movie did not say much about Gollum following the Fellowship (not as much as the book anyway). Legolas and Gimli have not developed their friendship. I hope that they do later on. I really liked Legolas's archery. Shooting 2 arrows at once and stabbing an Orc in the eye with an arrow and then shooting another with the same arrow! I loved the movie, however, and I saw it twice. I rarely see any movie more than once. Although I have read the trilogy a few times. This is my first post and I hope that it passes muster.

[Lush]

Hi Robertkillen, I'm new here too, but your post definitely passes muster. In my book, at least. <BR>The word I'm looking for in order to describe Legolas' fighting style is...<I>badass</I>. I'm sorry, there isn't any other adjective that would capture Legolas when he is in action-mode. Of course, the same applies to Aragorn. But we <I>expect</I> Aragorn to be this way. He's unshaven, he wears a cloak, he is Viggo! But having gone into the movie pretty unfamiliar with Tolkien, I was surprised to see a blond-tressed, baby-faced, pointy-eared young elf turn into such a skillful orc (and other scum) exterminator. Well done PJ & Orlando Bloom!

[Elrian]

I am happy to see that I am not the only one who thought that Galadriel at the mirror scene was overdone. On the other side they are supposed to be more beautiful not like a big eyed black and white spook.