[Morthoron]

davem,
The reviewer is, of course, correct on some points; however, he loses his moral high ground by being utterly ignorant of the original story, and even of PJ Jackson's intent for the movies.

The Lord of the Rings is essentially a recasting of the war into an emotionally bearable form. Everything that made the war such a psychic torment is carefully contained, or eliminated from Middle Earth altogether. Nobody in the hobbit fellowship displays cowardice under fire; nobody ever accidentally kills somebody on his own side; nobody goes mad in the heat of battle. The warriors don't get bored or irritable or horny on their long journey to Mordor; not even the studly Aragorn ever sneaks away from camp at night to look for the nearest elf bordello. The few people in the book who oppose the war invariably turn out to be under the malign influence of Sauron. Even at the climax before the Black Gate of Mordor, when our heroes make a useless, suicidal charge against a fixed position (as tended to happen quite often on the western front), nobody suggests, even as a theoretical possibility, that their noble commanders might be fools.

Does Aragorn being horny for someone other than Arwen make the movie better? Does getting the clap from a bar wench in Edoras somehow enrich the story, and what other more important item needed to be edited out to make way for yet another secondary storyline in a tale already overflowing with separate storylines? Do you think Tolkien got into someone's pants in France, ignoring the fact that Edith was waiting for him back home? Would he ignore his Catholicism for a cheap night out?

Nobody in the Fellowship displays cowardice? I would suggest the Fellowship was chosen precisely because they could overcome fear. They all display doubts and fears at times, but they move ahead in spite of them, just as millions of other soldiers have over the centuries. Cowardice in a disciplined army is an anomaly, not the rule, and those that flee are branded for life.

As someone already pointed out, Aragorn's army at the Black Gate defends two hills, not as Jackson portrayed the charge in the movie; however, what does it matter that they defended hills or attacked head on? It was a suicide mission, a tactical means of buying time for the real mission to succeed. They knew they were outnumbered, and they knew they had no chance of winning. I would suggest the only fool in this instance is the reviewer, who just doesn't get it.

It's an adolescent view of war, which is one reason the book tends to take adolescent readers by storm. You can see it reflected in every frame of the movie's battle scenes, which are teenage daydreams to the highest power, spiffy and dry-cleaned and sparklingly pretty, the best video games ever. The on-screen body count may be higher than Saving Private Ryan and Dawn of the Dead combined, but when the camera swoops and dives and soars over the swarming chaos of the virtual battlefield, somehow it never catches a glimpse of anybody writhing gracelessly in agony or sloppily bleeding to death. No wonder the movie copped only a PG-13 rating for its "epic battle scenes." "Epic" evidently means "wholly unreal." It's not true violence; it's barely even movie violence. It's just a million orcs blowing up real good, the way orcs are supposed to.

Again, would the movie had been better if it received an R rating? How about going all the way and just making it X rated, with Saturnalian Rohirrim copulating wildly with their horses and dwarves bumping stubbies, while orcs eat the brains of children as they quiver with still beating hearts? Does that somehow make the movie (or the book, for that matter) better? The reviewer in his blithe inanity wishes to restrict the viewing of the movie to adults, and not just ordinary adults, but those who relish burst craniums and spewing disembowlments (and whore houses on a weekend furlough). The enduring legacy of Lord of the Rings is that it can be read by children and adults, and enjoyed by a wide spectrum of readers. Why pick on just Lord of the Rings? How about the utter lack of graphic violence in Star Wars? Or the Narnia Chronicles? Or the Wizard of Oz, for that matter? I want to see the crushed body of the Wicked Witch of the East pulled in fleshy shreds from under Dorothy's house!

Originally Posted by davem

people in the story, however badly wounded, don't 'vomit the filth of their entrails' on the earth but the earth itself does.

OK, now I don't go all the way with the writer - Tolkien was writing an 'epic romance' not reportage. I think he fails to appreciate Tolkien's art, & insults his work unnecessarily... but I don't think he's completely wrong. A very real, vital aspect of war is absent from Tolkien's war epic, & I certainly think its valid to ask why that's so, & what that means.

Bottom line, if it contained the type of graphic realism you are asserting is necessary, I most likely would not have been allowed to read it in grade school because it would not have been allowed in the library, and a fundemental part of my literary experience would have been witheld. My daughter would not be allowed to read it, nor could she watch the movie with me, and an endearing part of the bond we share would be utterly lost.

I'll take the fantasy over the disembowelments.