Movie comments - don't read if you haven't seen the movie yet!

Wow. Greatest movie I've ever seen. Some of the changes were annoying but the whole thing was spectacular. Durin's bane pretty much summed up everything I'd like to say, so I won't talk long. The only thing that really, truly irked me was that ARWEN the magical elf princess that goes down to save the Hobbits and Aragorn, was the one who called the flood. It would have been much better if PJ had just kept Elrond and Gandalf doing it. The opening battle was jaw dropping. I wish it were longer though. And later the flashback of Elrond and Isuldur in Odruidin was well done.<P>Great movie

I don't know what's wrong with you people. I love the books, And I thought the movie was awsome. I missed Tom Bobambadil, though. It was exciting, and scarry, and just great. I hate to say it, but It was so good it beat Harry. And that says a lot.

[Zippo]

I missed tom too...

[Man-of-the-Wold]

My concurrence with Thenamir. Well put.<P>Lets face it. Super strong movie. It is a testament to Mr. Tolkien's work that should have been done years ago. (9 out of 10) Sometime I'll relate some of what I remember from the whole thing with Bashki and all that in the 1970s. Yes, I was alive then.<P>One has to do different things and focus on certain characters and things to make a film work. Over time, the Harry Potter movie will be seen as a disaster for its dogmatic adherence to the book, as the critics said. I could get into a lot of film intellectualism that I may or may not understand, concerning visuals, character recognition, and so forth.<P>But the basic point. A book is a personal investment. Time must be created and manipulated in both the author's text and the reader's mind. A movie is locked into real event time. Even for a very long one such as this, IT'S ONLY THREE HOURS. But it is not about the length of time available. But the emotional and rational attachments of the viewer, if too many key characters or places come and go rapidly in that time, you won't care for them. Film has enormous strengths of letting you see facial expressions, physical perspectives and so forth, which are to be treasured for being potrayed like these were on the big screen.<P>Because I read LOTR and Co. several times years ago, I don't even know how many times in total.<P>BUT IN TERMS OF LOOK, FEEL AND POINTS THAT RESONATE, THE MOVIE REMINDS OF HOW READING THE FELLOWSHIP THE FIRST TIME HIT ME.<P>And the filmmakers found balance. You have to think of the folks who haven't read the books (poor souls) but many may do so now. Hell, book displays are everywhere.<P>This should be a very successful film, which is as it should be. This film will get around in our real world.<P>Now to get some of my minor quibbles off my chest:<P>I found the Council of Elrond to Moria a little mixed. (1) Council to much wham-bam-thank..., (2) We could have done with more elves in the background at Rivendell, they haven't all left yet, (3)Between Gandalf and Gimli there should have been more clarification on their perspectives for entering Moria. Clearly, in the film Gimli assumed all was well. At least Gandalf could have expressed an argument about no word from Moria in some years, instead of only having Saruman imply that Gandalf and he knew of the Balrog. Still, you are free to think in terms of the book story, or if uninitiated you'd assume that Moria (but why the name?) was a long-standing kingdom with no previous abandonment and recolonization.<P>And the thing with Arwen, again, you can believe that Elrond and Gandalf caused the flood, if you like, and that she was simply tripping the trigger. I think PJ is to be congratulated for leaving things vague enough that book-enthusiasts can fall back on that explanation in places, while those not so graced can just take it at face value. Don't be surprised if Liv Tyler ends up a composite character in for her book-bound brethren too, as part of the Grey Company. And ya know what, Man-of-the-Wold don't mind.<P>********<P>"the Riders of Rohan look almost as boys beside them" -- Gimli

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Ah. Well, I'm back. Just saw it. <P>The movie was like seeing the story of the LotR through a different set of eyes. <P>The essence of the story is captured, but it's like when two people describe the same events, their perspectives are different, they emphasize different things, one person leaves out this, and adds that, another stresses the other thing or gets a detail wrong. Yet it's definately the LotR. Wow.<P>It enriches my experience of the books immensely, gives a new perspective, like particularly good ME artwork does. In a word: I loved it. I want to see it again. Tomorrow.<P><B>I think it's greatest strength is how the movie is carried by the characters. Its second greatest strength is cinematography. And I expected it to be the other way around.</B> Frodo's face is emblazened on my mind's eye, as is the compassionate twinkle of Gandalf. Bilbo is delightfully complex, eccentric and fun. <P>Galadriel is amazing. Cate Blanchet is both bewitching, mysterious, distant but very present and real. She turns in a very subtle performance. With a performance like that I don't think they needed as many special effects in the scene of the mirror. (She also seems like she's really ejoying herself as Galadriel.) <P>Ian Holm did not need special effects either, what an actor. <P>You know who really is the character? Sam. That's not an actor, that IS Sam. <P>Though the man who played Elrond surpasses my expectations by far. That's a tough role to make real, and he's a force to be reckoned with. <P>Elijah Wood was the right choice, not for acting subtlety but because he just glows. In every scene. He has that right combination of charisma, innocence and intelligent purposefulness. I couldn't take my eyes off of him, there's so much personal magnetism.<P>Next to Sam-that's-not-an-actor, who's as ordinary as a potato, they play off eachother perfectly. The coming scenes in Mordor are going to be very, very good.<P>I think in the long run the critics will wish to banish the CGI just to enjoy the characterization more fully.<P>I saw it with a non-believer, a Tolkien infidel. <P>It was Elrond and Gandalf that most impressed him, and he was blown away by Rivendell, as well by as the statues of Elendil and Isildur, and the scenery in general, whether it was ruins or Caradhras. <P>What didn't carry for him was the compression of time - because there was so little indication of time elapse between Moria and Amon Hen, it didn't seem right that Frodo would wander off while the hordes were still fresh in our minds (and should be in his). I had to explain how long they were in Lorien, the distance between Moria and the Anduin, and the fact they'd had two months to relax their guard. Lorien is so mysterious that for a neophyte it's not a break in the action.<P>I envy him a little though, my neophyte friend, because he hadn't read the books. He could sink deeper into the story, was without that darn voice in the back of my head that kept comparing the books to the movie. I want to see it again, with that voice Silent.<P>Oh Man-of-the-Wold, you are not alone, I too saw Bakshi's version in the theatres. It struck me as being all interpretation by someone who liked but didn't "get" the LotR. Peter Jackson on the other hand understands it. This is a great movie, and any complaints are petty ungracious nit-picking. (99.5% of Peter's changes work, so leave the few that didn't alone.)<P>I'm so happy. <P>My only complaint is I don't get to watch it five times, end to end.<p>[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Tarlondeion Of Gondolin]

I just got back from the cinema and I must say thet was probably the best film I've ever seen - truly superb.I thought it was a great film all in all.<BR> I think that Merry and Pippin were portrayed as comedy characters.<BR>The Last Alliance was great as was the Balrog. <BR>The film may have missed out bits but it still inspired as the book had, it put across the great wonderment of middle Earth and the love and passion that Tolkien put into the book. It rekindled an already brightly burning that is the worldwide love for the Lord Of The Rings. The General public (A.K.A. non TOLKIEN readers) will now go out and read the next two.<BR>No film can portray a book exactly, take Harry Potter for example I loved the books (not as much as I love Tolkien's books ofcourse) but the film was crap and didn't show how good the books were, it missed out loads of the important bits, however the LOTR film managed to keep on the basic story line, added a few bits of their own and still managed to keep the magic of Tolkiens world alive.<BR>All the things they showed were as I imagined and the acting was great. I think that The actors for Aragorn and Boromir should have been swapped. Hobbits were good. I wish we had fireworks like that in our world because that would be really cool.<BR>We must remember 1 thing, whatever the director, Producer, Actors. ect. say they were not out to recreate the Land Of Middle Earth because they loved Tolkiens works. They were out for profit (which is why they left out some of the less exiting bits). So considering they were out for profit they did pretty well I thought. Sorry I dragged on a bit!<BR>PS. Victory for the Pro Wingers (Balrog Wise)

[GreyIstar]

The film is powerful because the heart and soul of Tolkien comes through in it. The scene in Moria when Gandalf falls had tears in my eyes. I know alot of other people in the theater did as well. The faces of Frodo and Aragorn there are just heartbreaking and I had tears even though I know Gandalf will return. It was that powerful. You care so much for these characters. <P>When Aragorn is talking to Boromir as he dies is another powerful scene. You really see how sorry Boromir is. Sean Bean was AWESOME in this movie. He had a very difficult role to master and he did it with perfection.<P>When does the Two Towers come out again?? <p>[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: GreyIstar ]

As many of you have said everything has it´s ups and downs, though this movie has some mayor twist if compared with The Book, it is none the less an amazing feat, it´s a great movie for those who are not totally enclosed in Tolkien´s art (i do love him, but i´m not "in love" with him as many are), PJ did what many others couldn´t have done, a great movie out of an excellent book, many would have done something awful and not have been praised by critics as much as he has, anyway, i will see it again, and enjoy it thoroughly, escentially for the good movie it is, not for my presumptuos interpretation of Middle-Earth, wich i reserve only to myself, where the secrets are best kept.

Listen up everybody:<BR> I keep hearing people say something like,"Well, you can't compare the movie to the books because, etc., etc., etc." So fine, let's just talk about the movie.<BR> I would rate it about a 1.5 out of 10! I thought the acting was sub-par, their was no character development, the Elves were basically a group of mean-spirited jerks (Legolas was alright), Frodo was weak, and Aragorn was an unconvincing gimp. Frankly, I wonder what many of you consider to be a good movie??? Remember, we're just talking movie; I haven't even begun to rip it to shreds in respect to the gross inadequacies, embellishments, and false depictions it suffered in relation to the REAL story.<BR> Of course I cannot think it possible to critique the movie in an unbias form. However, I tried hard, and I believe that if I had not read the book I would not rate it well (though I may have enjoyed it more). It lacked in full the element of great story that any great movie has. I walked out of the theater feeling like I could really care less about any of the characters, save Boromir (who I thought did the best acting job of the nine).<P>So, no folks, it can't be like the book; but for goodness sake, it could have been something interesting!<p>[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[GreyIstar]

I take it you didn't like it then?? hehehe<P>Sheesh do you like any movies?

Yes. I like movies with an accessible plot. I also like movies that don't make me feel as though I'm watching a trailer the whole time.<BR>I guess I'm a little hot about it, because I think it made the story look stupid; and as we all know, it's the best story ever written.

[Eol]

I have been reading through the reviews on this movie, and it has not removed my balking any less. It cannot be a terrible movie because of a few elements( and not just because its Tolkien...) I might see the movie if I want to split with a few dollars for an afternoon matinee, and not an evening show, it would be suicide. I did not freak out at Star Wars and I have not freaked out on this. Mostly I will be viewing this film out of curiousity and to say I had seen it.

[obloquy]

If Bean and Mortensen had switched roles we wouldn't have Bean in the role that he mastered to absolute heart-wrenching perfection, and vice versa. Their casting was perfect.

Alright then, I have now seen the movie again. The first time I went with some of my friends who also had read the books many times.<BR> Now I took my kids to see it. My brother, his wife and child, my brother-in-law and some more friends ,none of who have read the books, went with us. I enjoyed the movie much more the second time simply because I watched the movie without having a desire to compare it to the books.<BR> I still have three major gripes: 1.) Arwen, 2.) wizard duel, 3.) the ending. I will tell GreyIstar about why I did not like the end. It is because of the simple fact that Frodo left without telling anyone he was going. This coupled with the abduction of Merry and Pippin left Strider with a decision to make that he did not have to make in the movie. He wasn't 100% positive that Frodo and Sam went together but he was pretty dang sure. He knew that Merry and Pippin were taken. He had to decide, do I go after the Bearer and continue the quest or do I go for the friends that are in danger. <BR> Another reason I did not like Merry and Pippin in the movie is that their characters are left out so much that you have to wonder why Strider would even go after them.<BR> I think that the Elves at the beginning of the movie are awesome. I loved the way Elrond's hair flies up when the Elves fire their bows into the oncoming enemy.<BR> So I will give the second viewing of the movie a much higher rating than the first time.

Who thought the Hobbit waitress in the Shire in the movie was hot???

[Erulasto]

I haven't seen the movie yet... for some odd reason, our local movie distributor decided NOT to premiere LOTR on december 19th along with the rest of the world... probably because it would have clashed with Harry Potter, which was released here a week ago. (a country of 1.4 million doesn't have that many moviegoers to go around, so they often juggle release dates to make more money)....<P>Okay, even though i haven't seen the movie yet, i feel i have to get this off my chest... to all the naysayers who've been *****ing about the omission of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs... What the hell is wrong with you? as much as i love Tolkien and LOTR, I've always had a problem with Bombadil. What the hell is a character too wacky for something like Narnia doing in LOTR? I was 11 when i first read LOTR, and it was quite an achievement on my part, as my native language is not english, and reading a 1000-page novel in a foreign language was something that i thought i might not be able to do... my father certainly thought so, and i had to fight him hard, so he'd buy the book. Eventually he did, and I found it to be the best book ever, and i still stick to that opinion. And what i found most refreshing was the serious manner in which the story was presented... I had read the Hobbit before, translated, and it was translated as a kid's book. Dwarf was translated using a word that had about much credibility as using the word 'leprechaun' for the Eldar. And when i had to do a book report on my favourite book, i felt quite embarrased, as i'm sure all of you would, at age 11, desperately trying to get that girl sitting behind you to like you, having to tell everyone how your favourite book was about 'leprechauns'. Okay, back to my point... What I liked about LOTR was the way it took a serious angle to what was, in all honesty, a fairy tale. And the only thing I had a problem with in the book, was Tom Bombadil. And I am glad he's not in the movie. I seriously doubt I'd enjoy a film with someone singing 'hey dol, merry dol'. I don't care if it's LOTR or not, that's a bit too much. My girlfriend already thinks it's a kids' book, I'd rather not have her misguided notions justified in the movie theater, thank you very much.<P>As for the barrow-downs, I sort of think that some of the people here are putting a bit too much weight on that chapter... Anything can be made of any line in the book, but I seriously doubt Tolkien created that scene for any other reason than arming the hobbits, and giving them (and the reader) an idea about the general inhospitability of Middle-Earth. To denounce a movie on the omission of Bombadil and the barrow-downs is, in my belief total idiocy. I for one am VERY grateful the movie got made, and I was very pleasantly surprised to hear of Enya's collaboration on the soundtrack. I'm hoping i'll hear the melody she created for Lothlórien when the fellowship first enters it.<P>And I am pretty damn certain this movie will be the greatest I have ever seen, thank you, Peter Jackson. And as for those who would call me a newbie who should keep his mouth shut, i think that reading the books annually for 11 years now makes me a fan. And if I don't know the lineage of Glorfindel by heart, that does not take anything away from my 'fanhood', so to speak. And if anyone thinks it does, they should invest in a life. It's pretty fun once you try it.

[Erulasto]

To Rhudadlion:<P>Character development can hardly be blamed on actors. Character development is measured by the character's reactions to the events that they encounter. Given a good enough script, even Ed Wood Jr. can direct Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pamela Anderson, while keeping the CHARACTERS very well developed.<P>So, by saying that there was no character development, you are actually dissing the writer. And... *drum roll* ...by a totally unforeseen, completely random event of pure chance, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien happended to write this particular story... Ergo - you are blaming Tolkien for lack of depth in his characters. Are you quite sure you want to do that on a Tolkien fan site? :P

[obloquy]

Incredibly, I actually agree with unigolyn in his second post. <P>The reason Merry and Pippin -- and even Legolas and Gimli, to an extent -- seemed undeveloped is because they really didn't have much of a role in the first book. There were <I>some</I> aspects that could've been better (for instance, I always pictured Merry a good bit more mature than Pippin rather than a partner-in-crime), naturally. We all know that Merry and Pippin and Legolas and Gimli have much larger parts in The Two Towers. You're really criticizing the roles of characters who have not yet even had the focus of the story. Why was Bean so spectacular as Boromir? He was one of the primary focuses of the Fellowship of the Ring. His character developed (in the book) within the space of the first third of the story. All the other characters have much more to do. Don't condemn the characters (or the actors!) based on the first third of the film! <P>And unigolyn, welcome to the Downs. Your opinions are welcome here, but so are everyone else's!

[Meriadoc1961]

Actually, I believe the character of Merry was very developed by Tolkien in the first book, and here are the reasons why:<P>It was Merry who was the head of the conspiracy to watch over Frodo's actions in anticipation of his leaving the Shire. While still a teenager, Merry witnessed Bilbo disappear as the Sackville-Bagginses approached. He saw Bilbo put the ring back into his pocket, and Merry kept that information to himself until the conspiracy was formed because he perceived that Bilbo wished for it to remain secret. It was also Merry who read Bilbo's book, and kept its contents to himself, learning how Bilbo had said he found the ring in the process.<P>It was Merry who left with the wagon load of furniture from Hobbiton to have it prepared for Frodo's arrival for his "retirement" in Crickhollow. Merry went out in the fog by himself to look for the other three missing Hobbits, finding them with Farmer Maggot, and it was Merry who went on ahead by himself knowing they were being pursued by the Black Riders to prepare the Hobbits a second supper.<P>Merry had all things ready in advance for their immediate departure, and it was Merry who lead the companions through the Old Forest. In addition, he spent his time in Rivendell poring over maps of the countries into which the Fellowship was headed. All of this shows a very organized, efficient, and mature Hobbit. Most of Merry's depth was developed even before they met Bombadil. <P>Pippin is somewhat less mature than the others, and if I remember correctly Merry is never scolded for his behavior by Gandalf, as was Pippin. Gandalf even commends Merry for his ability to have discerned the message on the doors of Moria best, leading Gandalf to his ultimately figuring out the riddle to open the enchanted doors.<P>I really did enjoy the movie, and I believe that due to time constraints the character of Merry and Pippin may not have been able to be developed to the extent it is in the book. Merry is portrayed as more of a prankster and an immature juvenile in the movie, along with Pippin, his cousin and friend. I am not finding fault, just clarifying that I do think Tolkien was able to develop the characters of Merry and Pippin much better than could have been accomplished in a three hour movie.

The things I did not like about the movie:<P>1. Arwen. LOTR was NEVER a love story, and Arwen's part in the story was almost non-existent until the end of ROTK.<BR>2. The fight scene with Gandalf and Saruman. It was just dumb.<BR>3. The scene at Bree. That place looked like a scary, disgusting mess! Not the warm and welcoming scene that put the hobbits more at ease than they should have been on such a dangerous journey.<BR>4. Lorien was dissappointing to me, and Galadriel did not inspire the kind of love and admiration that I think she deserves, though I really liked the way she looked.<P>There were more things I didn't like, but those were the main ones. That said, I think it was the best movie I have seen in a very long time, it's the only movie I would bother going to the theatre to see, I will go and see the next two films, and I will probably go see FOTR again also. I didn't expect the movie to be as magical and wonderful as the books, but I was led to believe that PJ was very serious about sticking to the story line, so I was dissappointed. I was not upset at all at the parts of the book that were missing, I expected a lot of the detail to be left out because you just couldn't put it all in a 3 hour movie. However, like others have said, I was not impressed at all with the parts that were added. PJ could have left in some things from the book and skipped the stupid Matrix/Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon fight scene with G and S, and also the scenes with Arwen. I would have rather seen Glorfindel. I never gave a crap about Arwen anyway. And I don't think that I put more expectation into the movie than I should have. I think anyone making a movie out of a story as beloved as LOTR should keep in mind the kind of fanatics and armchair critics he is going to face. I can seperate the movie from the books, but I could not help being dissappointed. Just my opinion.

[RyAN the Pure Heart]

It was better than i expected. and as far as book-to-movie movies go i'd say it does it more justice than most. here are my complaints though :-D<P><I>Merry & Pippen:</I> these characters are reduced to nothing more than comic relief<P><I>Elrond:</I> i just dont like the guy who played him. Every time he spoke i remembered him in the matrix. I think the guy who played "grant" in the jurasic park movies would've been great<P><I>Gandalf:</I> He looked TOO old and frail, can you say sean connory? he would of been great.<P><I>NO TOM</I> enough said<P><I>cave troll</I> it looked like a bug eyed rhino.<P><I>sauron</I> he was alright, but lets face it. they couldnt do him justice.<P>I do however have some positive things to say...<P><I>balrog</I> it was awesome, unbelieveable. (and winged)<P><I>actors</I> good casting for the most part i thought<P><I>parallel to book</I> no it isnt perfect, but it did a fairly good job. and the history lesson in the beggining was good for my brother (who read LotR but not silm)

[Man-of-the-Wold]

The thing I'd just ramble on about with respect to the Bashki effort is that that arose because he convinced the heirs that it could not be done except by animation. It was not so much a question of technology necessarily, although that now helps a lot, because much of the special effects in LOTR:FOTR are relatively longstanding. What's different now is the money for the time and labor to get them right.<P>This was just before Star Wars, and big bucks just weren't thrown at movies, and for three whole blockbusters films, $270m is going to be an pretty good bargain, to say the least.<P>And the reason it waited this long to be done, as it must be, was that the rights got all tangled up. But finally.<P>The last part of the Bashki film is just a diaster, but it has its good points. And seeing the current film -- which will be the first one ever that I see twice during the same release, when I go back tomorrow -- I could see where PJ couldn't help but make some of the same good decisions as were made the by Bashki.<P>But seeing it then in the theaters (picked up the video about four years ago) I knew it was O.K. in some ways but would fade into obscurity.<P>And in fact it can't be done rightly with animation. Middle-earth is a real-like world for the most part, with very real characters, and needs to be acted out.<P>The original material is too intense and too brilliantly integrated and rich to be fully equaled through any dramatic or cinematic rendering, but this is as great a movie project as could be hoped for, and anyone who does not give that cast the highest possible marks does not know what they are talking about.<P>To ask them to be any of those characters in the way that you would be is impossible and churlish. I don't know who could have done as well.<P>To have seen Boromir so beautifully potrayed is in and of itself worth 20 evening-time tickets. Now for Eomer, Eowyn and Faramir, who along with Aragorn was Tolkien's greatest testament to the potential of true men.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

It was magic, guys, just magic. I haven't walked out of the theatre with that rosy glow of wonder since the first Star Wars came out. Trying to describe it I find myself overcautious, defensive, not wanting to seem as though I'm blind to this or that fault but... really it's like walking into Camelot and then trying to explain the experience after by telling the details, buildings.. people. You can't nail this butterfly to a board and think you have it. Go see it. Then go see it again.<p>[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

sorry to say that, but the movie was just another episode1..... i was looking forward to it and then this........ sad sad sad...<P>´my favorit charekters were the orcs..... they had a funny habbit of dying before being attacked;-)....right befor legolas and gimli join aragorn when the kamara mooves and legolas enters the picture a orc runs up to aragorn, and then before he comes anywhere neer beeing in danger falls over dead.....<P>did anybody else notice this??? just curius....

rhudiadlon...<P>your opinion is about 100% the same as mine.... well maby not.... i would have given it 4 out of ten.....

The best part of the movie was the battle with the Balrog and Gandalf. It is one of the most spectacular movie moment of all time.

[Nenya]

Wow.I belive that I said "wow" about ten times the night I saw the movie, (wich was yesterday, so I'm still in kinda zombie-state)and that was only after the movie. watcing it was a constant wow... <BR>I think it's clear to you all that I loved it, though I don't think it was perfect.<BR>You all have said loads of stuff I also wanted to say about FOTR, so I won't repeat it. But I'll have to say some things though!<P>-When I read the book, I didn't really love Gandalf. Of course I liked him, but didn't love. But Ian McKellan...Well, he changed that! I don't think that anyone could have presented Gandalf in such a way, with all that warmth and wisdome. He WAS Gandalf, and only now I can really enjoy the character.I think that's bacause now he really seems like a person to me, with faults and everything.<BR>-Now don't get me wrong, Ireally think that Elijah Wood was great , but there was one thing that bugged me. He used this "oh-my-god-they're-gonna-kill-us" look a bit more than I think he should have. Or maybe it was the fact that the other hobbits weren't looking scared enough in places where they should have been been terrified.Dunno. Or maybe it was just me...<BR>-Arwen didn't bug me at all!<BR>My closing argument: I'm gonna see it again, and soon!

[KayQy]

I saw the movie last night. I was going to wait until I got to London so I wouldn't have to deal with subtitles, but I caught sight of a new trailer with exciting-looking stuff and, well... the subtitles were only a problem when they spoke Elven.<P>As a movie, it ruled! I love it! I was a little irritated at first, but I was quickly swept along in the excitement. The wizards' duel was annoying, not so much the fact that there was one as how they made it; and Lothlorien was way too short (director's cut! director's cut!). Other than that, it was spectacular. Although there were times when I wanted to say, "Wait! Go back! Press Pause!" there were also times to make people laugh, and cry, and applaud. I thought it was a good idea to move Boromir's death forward a bit; gives us a bit of completion to tide us over and keep us going until next Christmas (can we really wait that long?). People applauded at the end (and laughed when Aragorn sliced off that orc's head), and I didn't hear any complaints, but then most people were speaking French, so...<P>Sum up: as a movie, I loved it. As an interpretation of Tolkien's work? It certainly surpassed my Lost World criteria. To be more specific than that, I'll have to wait until I've seen it a few dozen more times. <P>Wheeheee!!!!!<p>[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: KayQy ]

I´ve seen the movie two times now, so i can finally make an objective critic, the movie was good, in fact really good (at least for me), the problem is that it is being compared to a masterpiece, i believe that no director could have made a good movie out of the FOTR without chopping pieces and adding a new life to the book, because it is a book translated to a movie you can´t expect it to be a replica of the book,<BR>it would be a weird piece of work, writing isn´t acting and visuals aren´t poetry, at least not at an equal level.<BR> For me it is a must see movie even if you´re an "anal-retentive" Tolkien fan, or if you just love him, or even if you don´t even know who he was, it´s way better than many others and it´s probably the best that could have been done, we have to be thankfull because someone finnally made us see the greatness of JRR Tolkien´s work with our own eyes, in a tangible way, not the ephimeral matter that has tormented humanity for centuries but the kindness of heart that has made us go further and further.

[Erulasto]

thanks for the welcome, good to be here <P>and sorry for the general obnoxiousness of my posts... friday night, bit too much beer, and feeling generally preachy. won't happen again, at least not often <P>still stick with not being a huge fan of Bombadil, and most of what I said. I'll just keep it a notch less self-righteous next time.

[Valeria, Witch of Angmar]

*pushes up sleeves and cracks knuckles* Okay, now it's time for the witch to add her two cents. I LOVED the movie. Say what you want, I think it was masterfully done. The scenery, as has been said before, was gorgeous (unlike my spelling abilities...).<BR>I'll admit, I went in to the movie more than a little scared. The whole Arwen thing was my biggest worry (Xena, Warrior Elf-Princess came to mind with some of the trailers...). Instead I was pleased with how they handled her and the change was almost appropriate. After all, there can't be an index to the movie, so a little backstory and intro of Arwen would be nice. Otherwise, in RotK, when Aragorn gets married, half the audience will be going, "Hey! Who's the elf chick??"<BR>On the retraction of Tom Bombadill...I'm gonna come out and say it: That guy drove me crazy! He wasn't a bad character, but frankly, I think the hobbits could have left his house a little sooner than they did. Pulling him from the movie didn't exactly break my heart.<BR>The special effects were unbelievable. The Lidless Eye was as creepy as ever, as was the wraith world where Frodo ended up when he put on the Ring. Yeah, so there wasn't much Gollum; there wasn't much Gollum in the book either. What else...Agent Smith...er...Elrond was better than I expected. There were only a couple times I was waiting for him to end a sentence with "Mr. Anderson." Aragorn (my man! ) was great; all the actors were. Who ever did casting was really on the ball. (The test will really come for Wood, however in RotK, when all the stuff lands on Frodo and he has his little manic depressive stage. I'll be watching.)<BR>One final thing: my gripe. The little morality thing at the end. (This is more my friend Erin's than mine, but I agree with her so here it is.) You remember, right? When Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are standing on the bank and Gimli says something about how the fellowship has failed, Aragorn (They made my man say it! ) says something about how the Fellowship hasn't failed as long as they remain true to it. I'm sorry! That line just grated on my nerves! Oh, well. Still wasn't enough to ruin the movie for me.<BR>Hehehe...as soon as possible, I'm gonna go see it again...and again...and again...<BR>Hey, gotta get my fix somehow until Two Towers... <BR>Now it's someone else's turn to argue over the movie. See ya!

To Unigolyn:<P>In response to your comments about my comments on character development...you are certainly right...about one thing: Character development does mostly depend on the writer. But you are wrong about this: the writer of THIS script was NOT JRRT. I was not critiquing the book; I was critiquing the movie. And if you haven't noticed, they are quite different. It would be nearly impossible to compare the character development in the book to that of the movie. When I said that the character development was lacking, I was speaking strictly about the movie. I thought that ws plainly clear.<BR>It would be a HUGE stretch to take a comment about the characters in a movie and generalize that comment to apply to the book--in fact, it would be falacious!<P>P.S. I never blamed the lack of character development on the actors.<p>[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

hello<BR>i am new to this, and a little bit nervous, but i have a question. It is about hobbit ears. Are they pointed in the books? i can't remember reading that they were. i did not like the hobbit ears in the movie, they seemed too floppy. Anyway, i guess that is all i wanted to say.

[Sindalómiel]

I saw the movie when I was only 2 chapters into the book, but now that I've finished it I've realised there are some big differences between them. However, I thought the movie was absolutely brilliant. I think I even liked it better than Harry Potter which is saying a lot, I LOVED that movie. Yes, there are differences but the LOTR movie was just fantastic, and some of the additions like the Saruman/Gandalf fight really helped non-readers understand what was going on.

Brilgoniel:<BR>Unless I am mistaken, there is no evidence from Toljien's works to suggest that Hobbits have the kind of ears they did in the movie. I think this was just PJ's touch.<P>WELCOME!

Thank You. That is what i thought, but i wanted to be sure. I thought the movie was good for the most part. Lothlorien was a disappointment, though.