[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Ebert (of the former Siskel-sp? & Ebert) had a very good point in his review of the movie. <P>He liked the movie, but was puzzled because it didn't quite seem like the books he remembered. He went back and paged through the LotR, and said, sure enough, the movie is very different from the books, the main focus is moved off the hobbits to the elves and men and so forth. <BR>He's right. <P>He went on to say that the kind of story the books are, meandering through middle earth, is probably impossible to do in a movie. <BR>He's right about that, too.<P>So I don't disagree with you D-Girl, the increased role of Arwen is necessary since the focus Is placed more on the elves and men and greater folk of Middle Earth. <P>But Arwen's role is not convincingly written, though Liv's soft touch with the acting makes the best of it.<P>What's wrong with the portrayal of Arwen?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><BR><LI>The poorly timed entrance. You do not introduce a romance at a moment when the audience is distracted with the injury of a main character. Takes attention away and diminishes the impact of both.<BR><LI>The sword at Aragorn's throat. I've gone into this at length in my previous posts so I won't belabor the point. It's amateurish, bravado, and it rings false. Likewise her words at Bruinen.<BR><LI>The lack of explanation why someone so important yet so poorly trained with a sword (all the others are well-trained) is out wandering the woods. A soldier (such as Glorfindel or Legolas) would require no explanation. But that something she's clearly not.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have no problem with a convincing change in Arwen's role. PJ just didn't throughly think it through, leaving lots of holes and unanswerable questions.<p>[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]