Disclaimer for movie fans: I did not like this movie; I like the books. Do not read this if you have not read the books for there are 'spoilers' and worse - unpleasant revelations of how different from the books the movie is. I don't try to be nice to PJ; I am sick of reading about how he was so concerned about being accurate with this movie and about how good it is. I think some book fan ought to speak out about it for once.
So what? - I didn't like this movie very much! The first time I saw it, I think the special effects and pretty scenery got to me, and I ignored some of the bad things. But upon seeing it again, I realized I had belittled the problems. They are really irritating. Where do I start? there is so much! Maybe I will get out of the way what I did like:
-Scenery was nice - atmosphere later.
-Ian McKellan and Ian Holm (will the real Frodo please step forward?)
-Special effects were good; nothing looks fake.
-Pippin going on about food in one scene.
-Aragorn's history being mentioned a little. Viggo Mortensen did a pretty good job, I think. I have more problems with the script writers than the actors.
-... uh.... Elvish being spoken was cool.
-Galadriel was supposed to be beautiful, but she was well acted, so that's ok.
-yeah, that's about it.
What didn't I like? How about a general issue?:
Melodrama. There is SO much melodrama in this movie it makes the infamous Fidelio look like a cold, cynical piece of social commentary. And I can compare late 20th century fantasy movies to early 19th century romantic operas, damn it. Every action scene is geared towards the stupid modern American film goer (SMAFG). PJ ignores those of us who read and love the books. Oh yes, I don't doubt PJ read the books, but I wonder if he has any real respect for what went on in the books. For the SMAFG, he completely upsets the time frame of the first book. In order to 'speed things up' he has Frodo running off immediately after he discovers the nature of the ring. He has Pippin and Merry haphazardly joining Frodo and Sam. Now it's obvious why PJ does this. He is showing the huge threat of the ring immediately by making everyone horrified of it. Tolkien lets the suspense build up - we start off with the cute little hobbits celebrating a birthday in the shire and we (along with Frodo) gradually become more aware of just how important and cosmic this ring is. As if the picture had started off with the camera too far zoomed in and gradually adjusts. But in a book you can build up suspense slowly - with the movies you get criticized if you take too long to make things interesting. So PJ has a reason for speeding everything up, but he overdoes it and you lose a lot of the charming details of the early chapters by skipping over major sections of story. I dont even need to mention Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, barrow wights - forget the entire chapters that are missing. The action scenes seem to be out of proportion - notice all the time spent in Moria. And what's up with that troll anyway? It's the same one from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone!
But this is only the start.. there are other major problems I have with this movie - the main character, for instance. Let's talk about the Ringbearer, Frodo son of Drogo. (Or Frito son of Dorito -You should know that reference, readers.) This movie - I shake my head - where did the seventeen years go? Are they even mentioned?? Why would Tolkien have Gandalf spending 17 years researching the ring? Surely the 17 years go by in order for Tolkien to develop Frodo from the just-come-of-age youngster into the more mature outsider that he is. The parallelism of Bilbo leaving at 50 and Frodo leaving at 50 is necessarily passed over. OH well - perhaps PJ could make Frodo appear mature as a 33 year old?? But we'll get to that. Other minor issues: Why is Sam calling him Mister Frodo half the time, but still acting like his best buddy? Why are Sam and Pippin and Merry apparently the same age as Frodo? Isn't Sam 37? All will power seems to be taken out of Frodo's hands in this movie - in a story about will power! How ironic. In the beginning, Frodo asks Gandalf what he should do about the ring - not arrives by himself at the conclusion that he must take the ring out of the shire and not return. So why then does Gandalf go on about hobbits being such remarkable creatures? what has Frodo said that makes him particularly remarkable? it is a non sequitur! Also, while in hiding from the first black rider, Frodo is saved from putting on the ring by Merry's tapping him? What is that? Merry's not even supposed to be in that scene. At the Prancing Pony Frodo TRIPS and the ring just happens to fall on his finger? Pj decided not to show Frodo cleverly passing himself off as some researcher of hobbit lineage, but he also decided not to show frodo making a fool of himself? Is there any character development in this movie at all? And why Frodo doesn't seem to know a word of Elvish? So much for Gildor Inglorion calling him a scholar in the ancient tongue. And, while I'm mentioning that scene, where in the movie was that most classic line "it is said: do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger?" And Frodo's classic rebuttal "it is also said: go not to the Elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes" ?? Nope, no wit in this movie. Not on part of the main chraracter at least. no time for it -too busy looking scared. I also enjoyed how about halfway through the film, PJ realized that Frodo had done nothing constructive, so he changed the Moria scene to allow Frodo to figure out the riddle of the door- Gandalf didn't suffer too much from that. And how about Weathertop? Doesn't Frodo do more than fall down and allow himself to be stabbed? Doesn't Frodo at least put up some fight against the poison of the blade? And then there's the Flight to the Ford..
Back to Frodo: what's the point of him fainting and falling after ARWEN (not Gandalf) makes the river wash off the Black Riders - it isn't as if he has just heroically used up his last bit of strength defying the BR or doing ANYTHING at all. No, as much as Sam isn't the servant, Frodo is not the master in this movie. It gets to the point where you wonder why ANYone would trust this simpering wuss with the Ring of rings. Isn't is appropriate that PJ has Frodo saying "I will take the ring though I do not know the way" quietly in the background while the other characters at the council are fighting? - No one hears him at first! Ironic. I am trying to figure out if PJ is going to make up for this character problem by making this a coming-of-age story for Frodo. Hell, maybe Gollum wont show up at mount doom and Frodo can admirably throw the ring into the fire. That MIGHT almost make up for the way he's been portrayed in FOTR. Just scene after scene: Why does he wander off at the end before the fellowship splits up? In the book, the characters look to Frodo for guidance - he is the Ringbearer, so he gets to decide what road they take, and they give him some quiet time to think it over, it being a monstrously important decision. NO - in the movie he appears to have wandered off for no good reason. Then after escaping from Boromir, he runs into Aragorn, who "allows" him to take the ring to Mordor. What is THAT? Aragorn wouldn't let Frodo go alone, nor would Frodo be dumb enough to ask for permission. Then the orcs attack - ok, PJ, I have no problem with allowing the orcs to attack at the end of FOTR, but what's the important part of this ending? That Boromir dies and redeems himself or that Frodo and Sam leave for Mordor? Tolkien thought it was fine to establish Frodo's and Sam's part in the adventure and leave the other guys wandering about in the woods. So if you're going to resolve the Boromir issue and set up a cliffhanger for the fate of Merry and Pippin, fine, but don't make the main character look like an idiot while you're doing it. How much time passes between Frodo's escape from Boromir and the Orcs attacking and kidnapping Merry and Pippin? Much time. All this action, fighting, killing - and then after the big heroic death of Boromir, where's Frodo? "10 yards down the riverbank...." it's totally quiet, and Frodo has apparently been standing there for 20 minutes staring blankly, trying to decide what to do. By this late point in time, such 'deep thinking' does not prompt admiration in the audience. It prompts: "GO, you stupid idiot!" It's even more imperative that he leave after the orcs start attacking, but apparently no one thought of that when writing this script... Frodo son of Drogo, Ringbearer, simpering IDIOT.. Oh, I shake my head.
And that's just Frodo - What about Sam? He starts out as the simple, kind gardener; when they leave the Shire his biggest dream is to see the Elves, and by the time they come back, he's taken over as the leader. Now this politically correct business of portraying him as Frodo's equal from the outset seems to belittle his development. Yes, it does. He transcends the role of servant in the book, but he has nothing to transcend in the movie - Frodo's a simpering idiot anyway, so it's probably better off that Sam isn't his servant after all. But still, it's the principle of the matter. Why don't the filmmakers address the servant issue? WHO CARES if in a fantasy world of thousands of years ago there is a servant? It's not as if Frodo beats him. .. Oh well.. But Sam...... poor Sam - where is his scene with Galadriel's mirror? and his gift from her? Isn't that important for book 6? Why dont we get to hear much about the Gaffer? (because those extra two minutes went into the big action scene with the watcher outside Moria!) Sam becomes more aware of the importance of the Ring as time goes by, but .. I didn't think that was particularly well brought out in the movie. Although it will probably be easier to develop Sam in the second movie.
Other problems with this film: (Problems other than Arwen, Frodo, Sam, and the overblown action scenes.) Dialogue? Some dialogue is simply BAD. -"Not nearly frightened enough" - terrible, Aragorn, terrible - one should know better than to try to scare Frodo anymore than he is in this movie! There is other questionable dialogue, and other lines I'd rather not remember... But you'd think that with all of the ELVISH language experts working on this movie that they'd have some ENGLISH experts who could oversee the script writing. And what exactly is "if you want him come and claim him"?? This is Hollywood at its most evil. I mean "you shall have neither the Ring nor me" can be pretty corny if delivered wrong, but if you're going to use corny lines, you might as well use Tolkien's corny lines! Really, the lost poetry of Tolkien's writing disturbs me.. Aragorn's classic "here's a pretty hobbit skin to wrap an elven princeling in" is gone - an opportunity was even there for it, but in the wrong scene. Once again PJ was too busy camping up the melodrama of Gandalf's 'death' to have them discovering Frodo's mithril shirt after escaping Moria.
Anything else while I'm on my high horse? I wanted to hear some characters sing. The (celtic) music was quite cold in this movie, but... no, let's not going to even go there. Much of the scenery seemed colder to me than I had imagined, but this is getting into the realm of atmosphere and that is very subjective. It's a lot more subjective than the difference between the dialogue that Tolkien wrote and the crap that is sometimes spoken in the movie. But for the record, I felt the first book was quite melancholy, but the warm homely melancholy of autumn, not the bleak chilliness of winter despair - that comes later. I missed the warm lazy scenes with Old Man Willow, and the afternoon tea when Frodo and Gandalf discuss the Ring, and the colors of Tom Bombadil. Two of these three were cut out, and for purposes of suspense, the discussion took place at dark. Rivendell too seemed chilly. But PJ had leaves falling in the background whenever Elves were around. WHAT ATTENTION TO DETAIL, PJ!
-That really kills me about this movie - sticking to random details does not make up for portraying characters incorrectly or for missing major plot developments. Sure, its nice to hear (SOME of) the characters speak Elvish, but then there are entire scenes that are screwed up (ie Arwen at ford). So what's the point? Instead of hearing ARWEN speak to Aragorn in Elvish, I'd rather see Gimli getting along with Galadriel and beginning to overcome his differences with the Elves. I'm somewhat disturbed by the relegation of Legolas to eye candy and Gimli to quaint comic relief (all he needs is a little wise-cracking canary on his shoulder and we could be in a Disney film). I could go on, but that's enough.
I know the arguments fans of the movie will use against this critique ('angry diatribe' perhaps more appropriately.)
A) It's hard to make a book of Tolkien's epic proportions into a movie. I know. Obviously very hard. Necessarily, you have to leave out lots of details. But I think you have to begin with one goal; ask yourself: Am I putting Tolkien's epic on the screen as accurately as I can? Or Am I rewriting it for movie audiences? PJ has done the second, no question. And therefore, we book fans can only enjoy the movie so much. I'm not going to talk about "betrayal," but we can feel mad that there were so many differences (many of them gratuitous and meaningless). We can also feel mad that PJ is claiming to be faithful to the books. If you ARE trying to accurately portray an epic on screen you should be worrying about what points from the books to fit in, not what scenes you can make up on your own.
B) We haven't all read the books, and those of us who haven't enjoyed the movie. Good for you. Now go read the books.
C) Parts of the books were slow and thankfully PJ left them out. The fact that boring parts are missing is a plus. Yes, some parts are slow, but when so many 'slow' scenes are left out that it becomes a detriment to character development, it is bad.
D) Frodo IS a simpering idiot. NOPE! Not in the books. Go read them again.
E) I like Arwen. She is cool and adds romance to the story. A different story that appeared in an appendix. The scene with Aragorn in Rivendell is all right, but the Ford scene is a disgrace.
F) Overall it did stick to the plot. Yeah, overall as in "There's a ring, and a group of guys take it on a trip." But the characters, the shades of colors, the poetry, and the general magic of Tolkien's epic were not well portrayed. That is my problem with the movie.
| Add your text here |