I have seen it, and it is... (no spoilers)

[webwizard333]

*Spoilers* (did you really think there would be none?)
I really enjoyed the movie, one of the best more "serious" mvies I've ever seen. In fact I have only one major problem with this movie: I can't see the next 2 right away. Oh well,it was very good (loved the fireworks I was tryign to figure out if they'd do the dragon one and then when I saw the rocket shape . . .), I couldn't tell for sure, but wasn't the Balrog's neck a litte snakish? And I thought how they did Sauron was the best for a movie, because it showed just how powerful he was. Btw, wasn't it the Balrog that caused the storm on the mountain? The insect thing with the Nazgul was sheer genius. All those little critters trying to get away from it was terrifying. I had to restrain myself from talking aloud about this and many other parts in the theatre during the movie.

[ArwenEvenstar]

Originally posted by Lelondul
Anyone else think that Sauron on the battlefield during the prologue was as friggin awesome as could be?! I don't think Sauron in physical form could have been potrayed any more frightening

Who play's Sauron?

Yeah I get to go see it very soon!

Also dosen't this suck? Empire theatres won't let you use a movie pass to go see FOTR!

[Arwentomboy]

Th only problem i had was that Gandalf didnt want 2 go into moria, while gimli did. In the book, (if i remember right), Gandalf wanted to go into the mines, but ARAGORN urged him against it, at least until then had triend getting over Carahadas, (is that how u spell it??). In fact, didn't Aragorn warn Gandalf that if he went into the mines of Moria, 'to beware'?
Sorry about the nit-picking..... But otherwise the movie was great! Although i will warn everyone the that balrog is EXTREMELY scary/creepy, especially beacauseit'as demonic looking.... in other words, be careful of going with younger kids!

[noldo]

With the first viewing leaving me way too numb and confused, I went to see FotR the second time today. That movie is soo great, and on second time it felt twice the better than on the first time. I truly loved it and will see it many times again in the future.

Stylistically, FotR was way more modern than I had expected (even knowing the director was Peter JAckson), which of course was good, but there was some stuff that annoyed me a bit (like many of those cheesy slow-motions) but also a whole lot of things I loved. The CG and special effects were too excellent. So were the costumes and sets (one of the best things about the film was that it perfectly conveyed Middle-Earth and brought it alive).

My favorite scenes must have been the Ford (Liv Tyler was great as Arwen, hands down ), Moria and of course Lothlórien (love the way how "occult" and mysterious PJ made it, comparing to, for instance, Rivendell) and the Mirror of Galadriel. I wasn't disturbed by the "thing" Galadriel went through, but I was left missing the presentation of Nenya to Frodo. Only things that I didn't quite like were only minor and small things with the editing (the cheesy slow-motions) and then, the duel between Saruman and Gandalf... I mean, it was not bad looking at all or anything... It was quite good... I almost just laughed at it a little bit.

In the end, we're talking about a great movie here. Definitely, reaches up to the very top chart of my all time favorite movies. I mean, it really was spectacular, but also took a lot of time to get it all straight.

[Renille]

Oh wow, oh wow oh wow... My parents let me see it before Christmas after all...and wow. It was the single best thing that I've ever done...okay...maybe I'm exagerating a teensy bit, but really, I didn't realize how little I had been breathing until I got home. The only things I really didn't like were- A.Bombadil B.All the poems/songs! Especially "All that is gold does not glitter..."
C. My little brother (13) hated it...and called Frodo "Rodo" and the orcs "dorks"(sigh) And to think I hoped to make a new Tolkien freak out of him....

[Treebeard's apprentice]

I can't wait to see it! I can't believe I almost thought about waiting until it came out on video!
Now if only I can find three hours to watch it somewhere in the space of the next few weeks...

[Agburanar]

Sorry. Probably only my opinion but the film was RUBBISH.

It was a poor excuse for a big action movie with too much cut out and some stupid pantomime sequences thrown in. Character's lines were unneccesarily twisted around and the whole sense of mystery and forboding was lost by too many 'clear' shots. Bilbo was excellent, Gandalf was good and Arwen was passable but the others weren't worth mentioning. Definately wouldn't go and see it again. Too much Troll as well! (Very Harry Potter-ish)

Oh and I forgot to mention: My favourite bit of the book (except Moria) is the journey to Rivendell and this wass too cut up, I was bored of the film before they got to Bree. It's still the unfilmable book.

[IronParrot]

Does anyone have any complaints that aren't in relation to their own preconceptions based on their personal interpretation of the books?

[potyondi]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Does anyone have any complaints that aren't in relation to their own preconceptions based on their personal interpretation of the books?

How about the homoerotic teletubby-esque Shire at the beginning? Or perhaps the "funkmaster P" breakdancing Gandalf and jammin' Sauruman was your favorite part. Or the shredder from ninja turtles Sauron that flung people with his mace in the classic style of children's cartoon movies from the 80's. Peter Jackson, master of the horror genre, didn't even have the decency to include a little "mature content"

The movie was not that great, and certainly NOT a classic, as some of you immature film "critics" have been touting it. If you need a list of more gripes, I'll be glad to list them when I have time.

Final verdict? 2-3/5 stars. Nice try PJ, but I'll stick to the book.

[onering]

What a lousy piece of corporate "shove it down your throat" cinema. Did Peter Jackson even read the Trilogy ? What in Hell was this piece of Garabge ?

I went twice just to make sure it really was as bad as I thought the first time, and, cause I get in free. The only character's he got right were the bad guy's, and maybe, maybe Galadrial. And did he forget that we show the passage of time by doing a slow fade, with a title "10 years later". Instead he show's MiddleEarth time as "CNN standard", and has bedraggled,weak,sniveling Gandalf galloping down the breath of WilderLand, twice, in 40 seconds.

Except for a few small bright spot's this was a lousy movie. NOT! a lousy "adaptation" but a lousy movie. It was more like a pile of clips thrown together in a rush while forgetting to tell a story.

My thought's ?

1, Jackson slaughtered about every character in the movie, especially the hobbit's. They were mis-cast, mis-dialogued,mis-clothed, and mis-storied. Worst was Frodo Baggin's,Elrond "Matrixman".

2, Most people were "mindscrewed", by the new Corporate Movie Industry, into thinking this was a great movie.

3, If you actually paid full-price for this thing you got robbed.

Sorry, but it was a bad movie. It cant even begin to compare to the great "recent" epic's, like "Gladiator" , "Dances With Wolve's" "StarWar's" "Braveheart", it wasnt even as good as "Willow".

Jackson tried to tell a story and make an adaptation. He ended up doing neither, but as long as he makes money he will keep doing it...........OneRing

[Darkside Spirit]

I'm not as extreme as you are, OneRing, because I think that within the task of making a three-hour movie out of the Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson did quite well. I disagree in the first place with that task - to avoid demeaning the book horribly, you have to make a four-hour movie for all of the six individual sub-books - but I reiterate: within the set framework of the film, and faced with the horrendously difficult task of putting something like LOTR on screen, he did fairly well.

However, it's very refreshing to read the views of someone who wasn't captivated by it and wasn't involved in the spontaneous applause that seems to pepper every viewing.

I'm definitely going to see it again soon. I can't remember it as nearly as well as I could because I was too busy being captivated by the effects and making mental notes of all the departures from the books.

[IronParrot]

Second attempt at this message (I was almost done the first time, before my browser crashed). Now I'm pissed.

Let's get right to business. potyondi -

"How about the homoerotic teletubby-esque Shire at the beginning?"

How about it? I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.

Are you complaining about the idyllic Munchkin happy-happy-joy-joyfulness of the Shire? If you'd actually read the novel, you'd know that this sort of innocence - one that would be considered naive and childlike by any contemporary standards - was a staple of what the Shire was all about. Go back to your Prologue, and the first section, "Concerning Hobbits." The hobbits are described specifically as a "merry folk", with faces "good-natured... bright-eyed, red-cheeked" and "mouths apt to laughter." How did the movie not reflect this?

Or are you complaining about things like the little kids running after Gandalf's cart (something that distracted me the first time but not the second)... well, do you have a better idea as to how one would portray the hobbit-children and their love of Gandalf's fireworks and Bilbo's tales? Why don't you go and film one (or at the least, storyboard it) and tell us all how you'd do it.

By the nature of your criticism here, I'd say that the movie succeeded exceedingly well in portraying the Shire exactly as it wished.

Did the film achieve its goal in portraying the Shire as idyllic, innocent and merry? Yes.

This criticism has "armchair director" written all over it.

As for the bit about it being homoerotic... well that's something that's been equally levied against the character dynamics in the novel itself, for whatever reason, so you're not really saying anything about the movie here.

Or perhaps the "funkmaster P" breakdancing Gandalf and jammin' Sauruman was your favorite part.

I, too, found Gandalf spinning on the floor to be cheesy, so I see how this complaint is justified.

But - let's see how Gandalf is imprisoned in Orthanc in the book. "They took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle of Orthanc... there is no descent save by a narrow stair of many thousand steps," he says.

Now, without the luxury of narratively explaining how the stair is an unfeasible escape when one deals with visuals, including the stair in Orthanc would only make audiences wonder, "why didn't Gandalf take the stair?" So that's right out. Then how else can you get Gandalf up to the top of Orthanc? Well, you can leave a plot hole by making him suddenly appear there... or you could have Saruman use some sort of trick to throw him up there.

And do you believe that Gandalf would put up no resistance to this sort of thing?

Or maybe your true complaint is not about the presence of the duel, but rather how it was done. Well, I suppose you'd rather have laser beams shooting out their staves... then it's just a matter of taste. I frankly don't have a better solution to choreographing such a duel in any way other than portraying the magic of the wizards as invisible. It would be cheesier if it were blatantly visual (i.e. said laser beams).

Did the film achieve its apparent goal in using the duel as a vehicle for explaining how Gandalf was imprisoned... Yes. Though I do agree the spinning bit is cheesy. Didn't distract me so much on the second viewing, though.

Or the shredder from ninja turtles Sauron that flung people with his mace in the classic style of children's cartoon movies from the 80's.

Oh, and I suppose Sauron, still in his corporeal form at the end of the Second Age, would be more threatening if he were clad in a Nazgul cloak or just regular old black armour. I suppose his power would be better portrayed by lightning bolts from his eyes and fireballs from his arse. Or maybe he could shoot laser beams out of the Ring...

Could you please sketch your visualization of Sauron for us and demonstrate how it is superior?

I'm not saying that Sauron's soldier-golfing with his mace was a masterwork of battle choreography - it wasn't. But once again... could you come up with something better?

Did the film succeed in portraying Sauron as pretty darn powerful... Yes

Peter Jackson, master of the horror genre, didn't even have the decency to include a little "mature content"

Could you please demonstrate what you would consider "mature content"?

The movie was not that great, and certainly NOT a classic, as some of you immature film "critics" have been touting it. If you need a list of more gripes, I'll be glad to list them when I have time.

I think what you're actually trying to say is that you don't think the film deserves to attain classic status. Whether it does or not will really depend on its ability to stand up in the public consciousness in the long run, and the extent of its permanent effect on the way films are made. That, we won't know for years to come.

For example, I don't think anybody can deny that Mary Poppins is a classic, though I certainly didn't think much of it. And Lawrence of Arabia is undeniably a classic, though some people can't even sit through the whole thing.

And I suppose you, Mr. "Zoolander was the best film of 2001" here are a "mature" critic with a demonstrable grasp on analyzing visual storytelling in the cinematic art form, instead of one who just merely lists (admittedly often warranted) gripes and never once evaluates the film as the sum of its parts, nor demonstrates that these gripes outweigh all the successes and cripple the film as a whole.

That's okay - at least you're an armchair director with a point to make.

In contrast, I present onering -

The only character's he got right were the bad guy's, and maybe, maybe Galadrial.

Who are you to say whether he got something "right" or "wrong"? Why don't you try criticizing the film as cinematic art instead of whining about how it didn't match your personal vision?

And did he forget that we show the passage of time by doing a slow fade, with a title "10 years later".

Uh, no.

More likely, Peter Jackson actually had some grasp on how films are edited together, and certain restrictions on pacing in film that are not present in the written word.

For a demonstration on how reliance on the "X Years Later" method does not work, please waste two hours of your time to watch Bicentennial Man. If that film doesn't show you how the "X Years Later" technique fails on every level when one deals with frequent and irregular transitions in time, nothing will.

Instead he show's MiddleEarth time as "CNN standard", and has bedraggled,weak,sniveling Gandalf galloping down the breath of WilderLand, twice, in 40 seconds.

Maybe you should notice that there is one big difference between the abrupt transition and the ambiguous transition. Perhaps you should actually criticize the film instead of criticizing your own misinterpretations.

Except for a few small bright spot's this was a lousy movie. NOT! a lousy "adaptation" but a lousy movie. It was more like a pile of clips thrown together in a rush while forgetting to tell a story.

Please present us with a more detailed description of your ideas on how it should be done.

1, Jackson slaughtered about every character in the movie, especially the hobbit's. They were mis-cast, mis-dialogued,mis-clothed, and mis-storied. Worst was Frodo Baggin's,Elrond "Matrixman".

Ah, another complaint in relation to your personal vision of the book. Not really a criticism of the movie by any standards (if it was, you certainly provided no basis behind your comments to demonstrate that it's so) - but I'll tear it up anyway.

"Mis-clothed" is the one that really cracks me up here. I have yet to find a notable discrepancy in descriptions of clothing between the book and the movie. Atmospherically speaking, the various styles of clothing are extraordinarily consistent within the various cultures of Middle-Earth. I didn't see Aragorn in any blue jeans... if you did, could you please point out the scene?

It also seems to me that your complaint about Elrond was that you recognized Hugo Weaving's face and voice from The Matrix. By that logic, you should bash every single actor in every single movie that you recognize as having been in more than one movie you've seen.

If you're trying to make a point here, I'm not catching it.

2, Most people were "mindscrewed", by the new Corporate Movie Industry, into thinking this was a great movie.

Post proof or retract. (I know, it's difficult to prove blatant generalizations with no factual basis, but you can try...)

Speaking purely for myself, at no point was my opinion of the movie manipulated by Burger King's light-up goblets.

3, If you actually paid full-price for this thing you got robbed.

I won't even dignify this with a response until you've actually fleshed out your complaints so I know exactly what you're complaining about.

Please make a point so I can argue with you. I'm sure potyondi would be glad to offer you lessons on how to do this.

I would like to re-state my first question and add two more.

1. Does anyone have any complaints that aren't in relation to their own preconceptions based on their personal interpretation of the books?

2. If so, how do you think that aspect of the film should have been handled?

3. Does this gripe outweigh all of the film's qualities?

So far, I've seen admirable (attempts at) analyses of flaws in specific scenes, and many not-so-admirable sweeping and bigoted generalizations.

Please remedy this soon.

Merry Christmas.

[potyondi]

Sorry, IP, I didn't realize that dissenting opinions about the movie weren't allowed here. Who's being the bigot now?

I will go over my gripes again even though you'll simply explain how they did not affect your enjoyment of the movie (hint, bigot! )

In the shire, the obnoxious, corn-gold hobbit theme is playing full blast whilst Gandalf rides into town. Everything is artificial to the point of looking like a disneyworld exhibit. Frodo jumping onto the wagon and saying something akin to "I'm so glad you're back, I love you." while staring up at Gandalf with his innocent doe eyes made me both sick to watch and embarrassed to know that people around me would be getting the idea that this was in the books. Can we all spell a word IP? C-L-I-C-H-E-D C-R-A-P. Oh wait, that's two, but you get the point. This phenomenon has been the death of many far superior films.

As for Sauron making the poor elves and humans fly like birds with his face and the spinning top Gandalf (I expect to see that one at burger king in no time), I can't comment as to how these scenes might have been improved. I'm no movie director, but then again, PJ isn't much of one either, judging from this film.

Mature content? How about the mace sweeping the torsos of the soldiers off their legs, something like what we saw in the Gladiator fight with the runaway chariot, only more graphic. Too bad for the children if this would raise the rating, they can go watch the hobbit. I did not pay $9 to see some cartoon fairy-tale.

Other gripes include:
MAJOR, annoying-as-hell plot deviations, but since those don't fit into the context of this discussion (gee, wonder who that sways it to )...

The Ford scene was weak, the flood was far too undramatic

The Hobbits, Legolas, and Gimli were made to be peripheral characters

Elrond was annoying as hell. "The ring cannot stay here, Mr. Anderson. One of these hobbits has a future, one..."

The final battle with the Uruk-Hai and the beheading was pathetically melodramatic and everyone in the theatre chuckled at it, which was extremely indicative of this.

Lothlorien was skimmed over like so much fat off buttercream.

Galadriel looked farcical when she lusted for the ring.

et. al. There are more, but I'd have to see it again, which I won't probably won't end up doing.

I'm sorry, but 2-3/5. Without Tolkien's prose, the stuff that got cut out, and today's demand for a movie that's too short to convey all the story, the plot's just too weak.

Since you're obviously no hypocrite IP, I'll ask you the same question you asked me. What made the film such a masterpiece?

[IronParrot]

Sorry, IP, I didn't realize that dissenting opinions about the movie weren't allowed here. Who's being the bigot now?

Oh, you can dissent all you like... just make a convincing case with support behind your points.

I will go over my gripes again even though you'll simply explain how they did not affect your enjoyment of the movie (hint, bigot!)

No, I'm just asking you to explain the specific ways in which these gripes, for you, outweighed the rest of the film.

In the shire, the obnoxious, corn-gold hobbit theme is playing full blast whilst Gandalf rides into town. Everything is artificial to the point of looking like a disneyworld exhibit.

What about it was artificial? Could you point out specifics? As for the "corn-gold hobbit theme", in what way did a diatonic woodwind leitmotif fail to lend audial enhancement to the rustic, pastoral design paradigm of said Disneyworld exhibit? If anything, the neo-Haydn melodic diatonality and the use of the specific instruments that were applied (notably wood flute and fiddle) were directly representative of the English countryside feel that Tolkien founded the entire Shire on.

Are you calling something fake because you've never seen it before? Replace the hobbit-holes with huts and you've got the same setting as Braveheart's Scotland... did you have a problem with the authenticity of that, too? (Not meant to be a leading question - am awaiting a genuine answer)

Would you prefer the natural colour tones of Tomb Raider, which managed to make the Cambodian jungle delectably (but naturally!) ugly?

Frodo jumping onto the wagon and saying something akin to "I'm so glad you're back, I love you." while staring up at Gandalf with his innocent doe eyes made me both sick to watch and embarrassed to know that people around me would be getting the idea that this was in the books.

Okay, so we've established that you have a weak stomach for innocent doe eyes. However:

In the book, Frodo and Gandalf's first "on-stage" meeting is not until after Bilbo leaves; in fact, Frodo does not even appear to any capacity until Bilbo's party itself. The film does not have the luxury of a voice-over or a subtitle saying, "This is Frodo - Bilbo's nephew." Nor does it have the luxury of a peripheral scene of people talking about how innocent and good-natured Frodo is, before we even know who he is. That, I assure you, would have been far cheesier than Frodo's actual introduction in the film.

This necessitates an expository scene that does the following:
- Introduces Frodo
- Establishes his connection to the already-introduced Bilbo
- Establishes that he and Gandalf know each other
- Establishes Frodo as a totally innocent character

And the scene in the film does exactly that.

Can we all spell a word IP? C-L-I-C-H-E-D C-R-A-P. Oh wait, that's two, but you get the point. This phenomenon has been the death of many far superior films.

Totally out of interest: examples?

As for Sauron making the poor elves and humans fly like birds with his face and the spinning top Gandalf (I expect to see that one at burger king in no time), I can't comment as to how these scenes might have been improved. I'm no movie director, but then again, PJ isn't much of one either, judging from this film.

So what, here, is the flaw to be fixed?

*cough* Armchair director...

Mature content? How about the mace sweeping the torsos of the soldiers off their legs, something like what we saw in the Gladiator fight with the runaway chariot, only more graphic. Too bad for the children if this would raise the rating, they can go watch the hobbit. I did not pay $9 to see some cartoon fairy-tale.

You've hit a good point here: The film did have to be edited down for a PG-13 rating from the MPAA, and even that is being stretched, with the orc beheadings and all. And yes, Sauron would have been more menacing if he had been even more violent.

However, you're still linking all this to how Jackson's interpretation does not represent your vision. Though you're free to call me a hypocrite here... I found the all-too-comfortable setting of Voldemort killing Harry's mother in The Philosopher's Stone to be far too light in the midst of dark material.

MAJOR, annoying-as-hell plot deviations, but since those don't fit into the context of this discussion (gee, wonder who that sways it to )...

Well, those are legitimate complaints about what you didn't like about the film. It's just that you wouldn't be talking about characteristics intrinsic to the film itself.

The Ford scene was weak, the flood was far too undramatic

Well, it was too short, I'll concede. But a flash flood can only go so slow on screen. The scene could probably have been improved by a more continuous and extended look at how the river settles again once the Riders were washed away, instead of an immediate shift of focus to Frodo's complete collapse.

The Hobbits, Legolas, and Gimli were made to be peripheral characters

I think we should see how The Two Towers deals with this before jumping to conclusions, since Merry, Pippin, Legolas and Gimli don't get much "screen time" until then. Though I do miss the character dynamic explored by the omitted "blindfold scene" upon entering Lothlorien.

Elrond was annoying as hell. "The ring cannot stay here, Mr. Anderson. One of these hobbits has a future, one..."

See what I said to onering. This comment isn't bashing Fellowship - it's complimenting The Matrix for making the villain so memorable. That's like saying Prince Feisal in Lawrence of Arabia was annoying because you had this image of Alec Guinness in mind before watching the film that made you expect Feisal to say something like, "Use the Force, Lawrence!"

The final battle with the Uruk-Hai and the beheading was pathetically melodramatic and everyone in the theatre chuckled at it, which was extremely indicative of this.

It did seem tacked-on, but how else do you show the final attack on Boromir onscreen and explain why he was left alive by the orcs? Ambiguity in this respect is acceptable on paper, but when you actually see it, it raises questions of common sense. Would you rather have seen the orcs walk away with the captured hobbits, their mission accomplished, but fail to carry out the order to kill the others in the Fellowship?

Lothlorien was skimmed over like so much fat off buttercream.

Now that I'll agree with.

Galadriel looked farcical when she lusted for the ring.

And I quote:

She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.

Could you please suggest a better way to transform Galadriel in this fashion? (I'm not saying this portrayal was perfect; I was distracted by the excessive reverberation added to her voice.)

Now, nothing I contend will make you like the movie any more than you do, and nothing you contend will make me hate it. But the real question is one of the differences in the perspectives with which we approached this film. And I see that there are some very obvious differences.

Or maybe I'm just more forgiving.

Since you're obviously no hypocrite IP, I'll ask you the same question you asked me. What made the film such a masterpiece?

I haven't written up a full review yet, and I don't plan to repeat myself when I do, so I'll just give you the Cliff Notes point form version of some of my thoughts here in my following post (I'm approaching the character limit on this one)

[HOBBIT]

Go IronParrot!

[IronParrot]

Sorry, you're missing out on the fun... we took it to ICQ

[anduin]

Well I am just glad you tackled that, because frankly I haven't the time, skill, or patience to deal with it. Well done, good work.

[Lightice]

Galadriel lusting the Ring could had been done better by changing camera angle in her feet, looking up to her, making her look much much bigger and instead of those blue light streams simple flashing, blinding white light behind her would had done the trick.
Sauron bashing mere soldiers was a bit stupid. He should had said something like "Duel me, if you're not cowards!" to Gil-Galad and Elendil, that defeat him, but die themselves and Isildur cutting Saurons finger when hes corpse already. It would been much better way of handling things. It also was a bit hard to imagine, that Sauron would have came out of his fortress before last of his minions was dead.

Movie was good, perhaps even a classic, but it could had been even better.

[Sakata]

I thought they made Galadriel to be some pysco witch instead of an elven queen, and she never gave them all their gifts! that pissed me off. I am not even going to comment on Arwen, I could barly stomach her. What was with the Gandalf and Saruman fighting scene? sorry if anyone liked it, but that was laughable, Saruman points his stick at Gandalf and Gandalf falls down, Gandalf points his stick at Saruman and Saruman falls down, Saruman points his stick at Gandalf and Gandalf falls down, Gandalf points his stick at Saruman and Saruman falls down, and so on and then Saruman was spinning Gandalf on the floor like a top, I was sitting there thinking,what the hell? Anyway other than those things I loved the rest of the movie, I think it was a good addition to Merry and Pippins trouble-making attitudes. The rest of it was pretty true to the book, Biblo's party was word-for-word! Hehe this is really sad that I have to get this off my chest before I go open presents, it is christmas morning btw

[onering]

I didnt go into this movie thinking that it would be a faithful reproduction of the book. Im way to experienced in production to think that a theatre can compete with the Human Imagination. I was just hopeing to see "any-kind" of reproduction of the book asn hopefully a good movie to boot.

But NewLine Cinema's mind-washed masses automatically drone out that "you shouldnt have expected a movie thats totally honest to the book". Thats the number 1 goal of 21'st century movie-marketing rocketeer's, to silence any such critique's, and convince people they are seeing a great movie, months before they even see it.

Read your Tolkien and see how he describes Rivendale and Lothlorien. They were both stuffed with Elv's, Sam Gamgee describes it all very pointedly. And in both Boromir's and Faramir's dream's it's quite blunt that "The halfling's forth, shall stand".

Frodo did stand in reality, both against the horsemen and the cave-troll. He had the ring for many years by them and , while it was also starting to corrupt him, it was almost makeing him strong, and givieng him insight.

And Jackson's "mis-clothed" Gandolf looked like he didnt take a bath the whole movie. He didnt act, look, or lead like a wizard of great power ; He acted like a scared bedraggled old man. And Elrond/Matrix-man talked just like The Matrix-man. I was half expecting him to say , 'The Ring cant stay here MR. Anderson"!

To be sure of my opinion's, and to give this director a fair chance, I re-read TLOTR's in two day's after I first saw the movie. I was right, in both way's. Tho the movie had bright spot's it was both a poor adaptation AND a poor movie.

Anyway here are the bright spot's, "stop reading if you have been mind-washed by NewLine".

The Black Rider's were very well done ; In Fact, The whole audio EFX track of the movie was "Oscar worthy". The soundtrack worked, as long as they dont get sued by the maker's of "The Omen".

The short scene of the BLK rider looking over the vast-grasshilled expanse of the Shire was sweeping. Pity it was almost alone in its Grand scope. Moria was well-done, except for the short 3-D of the "8" leaveing Moria, "it looked worse then Titanic". I thought Galadral was cast,portrayed, and acted very well. Pity that Lothlorien looked like something out of my garage and they could only find 6 supporting Elv's in NZ.

The Statue's of the King's of Old was real good. How could this guy get scene's like this to work and screw over so many "much easier" decision's of character portrayel, casting, and scene selection ?

I thought "The Departure of Boromir" was a very powerful scene. I loved the way Jackson showed the "gradual whitening" of Boromir's face as his lifes blood drained out of him. This scene even made me overlook that Frodo was running away piddleing his pants again, for the 12'th time in the 1st movie. I think Aragorn and Boromir were cast very well.

In the end I think that Jackson would have been much better off throwing his " bank of live video feed's from 10 different shooting location's" into the garbage and "DELEGATED" some authority to assistant director's. He bit off more then he could chew, no-doubt bowed to corprorate pressure, and threw to many scene's at the viewer without telling a good enough story.

His little ancedote's from the book's, like "It's a shortcut to mushroom's" were pathetic. Instead of showing 2 minutes in Farmer Maggott's field, and showing only his scythe, he should have left him out altogether. Throwing in a few slo-fade's, titleing in "10 years later", and showing a bit of physical & emotional maturity.

Instead we get to watch a Middle Earth episode of PBS "Frontline"!

This just wasnt , neither, a great adaptation or great movie. To those who say different, and think they havnt been mindwashed by coporate Moviedom, read the Trilogy, or re-read it, and then see the movie again. Then see if you agree with me?

Because its up to us to demand good cinema nowday's. Nobody else has the gut's to go against these Global Media Conglomerate Monstrosity's......................One