A Conversation for 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring' (2001) - Film Review

saw the movie and loved it

Post 1

halavana

One of the highlights of the movie, for me, was how the actors put faces on these characters. Now, even though Jackson changed and left out some things, they're easier to visualize, the hobbits in particular. They've always been too flatly cartoonish for me. Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan, with the help of some heavy duty make up and wardrobe effects, did an excellent job of fleshing them out.

No doubt there are people who are going to enjoy picking it to pieces, but I'd rather enjoy it for what it is: escapist fantasy in its highest form and a very good movie.


saw the movie and loved it

Post 2

TheMyriadWhoIsALordOfTheRingsFanatic

I agree. It is a very good movie.

However I found that I missed the character of Tom Bombadil from the story. It should have been possible to put him in somewhere - even if it was only a brief appearance. For me, he brightened up the first book of the three quite a lot and the fact that he's not in the movie detracts from it's appeal. I know that the section from when they meet him to when they say goodbye on the barrow downs is large but I feel sure that, with a little imagination, this larger than life character could have been included.





Myriad.





saw the movie and loved it

Post 3

Vip

Myriad- If you write a Space then people can talk to you. Click on the Edit Space button. Otherwise people can't welcome you!

But that done with, I agree with you- I love Bombadil.


saw the movie and loved it

Post 4

TheMyriadWhoIsALordOfTheRingsFanatic

Thanks -

I've written a space now - for all the good it is.

Myriad.


saw the movie and loved it

Post 5

Vip

'S pretty good. And at least we can talk to you now!


saw the movie and loved it

Post 6

halavana

True. I missed Bombadil too, but his section could have been a whole other movie of own.

I wonder if Peter Jackson would consider that as a possibility for future productions. Of course, I've read other places that the Hobbits wouldn't be too enthusiastic for having to don the prosthetic feet again.


saw the movie and loved it

Post 7

Vip

I've wondered how that was done, with the whole height thing- the only way I could figure is that they filmed the whole film twice- one with normal scenery, and one with giant scenery and merged the two. But I can't see that happening. It confuses me!


saw the movie and loved it

Post 8

TheMyriadWhoIsALordOfTheRingsFanatic

I thought the best example of this was when Gandalf had just entered Bilbo's home and they were both standing inside the door. The contrast in height was just amazing - particularly since Ian McKellen and Ian Holm are not that different in height.



Myriad.


saw the movie and loved it

Post 9

Vip

That's it. That was the scene I was thinking about. I don't understand it!


saw the movie and loved it

Post 10

halavana

They used at least 2 sets and had several doubles. One or two were giant sized dressed as Gandalf, Aragorn and the other average sized characters. They had very small doubles for the Hobbits. Also, a lot of computer graphics were used, cutting and splicing etc. All very involved. It's amazing it turned out so well. Check out the "Offical Wet Site" if you want to know more.


saw the movie and loved it

Post 11

halavana

And camera angles! The characters are farther apart than they appear.


saw the movie and loved it

Post 12

halavana

That's WEB site. sorry


saw the movie and loved it

Post 13

Vip

Thanks. That had been annoying me ofr ages!


saw the movie and loved it

Post 14

plato <surfer>

One thing i don't understand about the review... about the purists being disappointed with the balrog... but it DID have wings in the story!smiley - erm

Oh... and about it not being another StarWars... smiley - cross


Didnt see the movie..

Post 15

MysterySDA

I haven`t seen the movie & dont
want to! I just dont want the
books to be `spoilt`. I would
rather it stay in the realm
of my imagination, but thats just
MY opinion.......

Who`s to say its the right one!?
Certainly not me! smiley - biggrin


Didnt see the movie..

Post 16

Gwennie

That's exactly how I felt about the first animated version of The Lord of the Rings MysterySDA and I only recently saw it at the insistence of my children. smiley - bigeyes

However, I really did want to see this most recent film and thoroughly enjoyed it, as did my family. Thankfully it hasn't spoiled "my mind's eye" version of the book, which remains intact.smiley - biggrin

Mind you I was miffed that Tom Bombadil had been left out, just as the Beeb did in their audio dramatisation of The Lord of the Rings. smiley - erm


Didnt see the movie..

Post 17

Saturn Girl ~ 1 of 42 (Borg Queen A761708) ~ Gollum's keeper + some ~ [1*7(0!+2)(0!+1)=42]

I was sad at Tom Bombadil not being in there... but as it is, a lot of people were complaining about the length of the movie, so in order to sell this movie to the "normal" people with the short attention spans (have you noticed that as time goes on, movies tend to be shorter and shorter?) they had to leave one of the coolest characters in the book out. smiley - erm

I personally don't like Hobbits, but don't get me wrong I loved the books, and my favorite characters are Gollum (yes I love that little stinker! Why else would I be his keeper?), Sam (I don't like Hobbits, but he was a little better than the rest, and his interactions with Gollum in the second and the third books is fun smiley - smiley), and of course Tom Bombadil. I'm also looking forward to seeing the Ents smiley - smiley

...and don't even compare Star Wars and LotRs... It's like apples and Oranges...

And one more thing... I'm usually not a big fan of books being made into movies, since they usually end up royally screwed up, but considering the scope of these books, and how many fans they'd have BBQing them if they messed up, it 1) took balls to even attempt this and 2) they actually did a pretty good job.


Didnt see the movie..

Post 18

TheMyriadWhoIsALordOfTheRingsFanatic

Star Wars - the story behind it is extremly contrived - particularly the old hackneyed "Darth Vadar is Luke's father" rubbish.

Tolkein scores over Star Wars by starting an entire creation myth - If you read the Silmarillion it gives you a profound insight into why Tolkein actually wrote The Lord of the Rings in the first place. It wasn't just so he could send out stories to his son during the war - he needed a down to earth story so that he could show how the monumental events described in The Silmarillion would effect the ordinary folk of Middle-Earth. The story is based around the premise that even the smallest person can actually change the course of history - something that is true today - however glib it sounds.





Myriad.


Didnt see the movie..

Post 19

Beatrice

Actually I was quite happy that Tom Bombadil DIDN'T appear in the movie, he annoyed me intensely in the book. I thought the casting was excellent, and the cinematography where they got the different heights, sense of place, etc was superb.

have you read the send-up book, Bored of the Rings? It's fairly amusing, particularly the spoof Tom B character, who is spaced out on magic mushrooms.


Didnt see the movie..

Post 20

TheMyriadWhoIsALordOfTheRingsFanatic

The Tom Bombadil episode in the book does several important things;

1) It shows that the Ring is not all-powerful - that it can be defeated.

2) It helps to show that Merry and Pippin have guts - particularly in the barrow downs.

3) It connects the story to ancient times - as Tom is the oldest inhabitant of Middle earth and, also, a Maiar( one of the immortal people who are servants to the Valar - or Gods).

4) It connects the North West of Middle Earth with Gondor and the old wars against Sauron and his lieutenant, the Witch King of Angmar.

5) It gives a clue to the origins of Strider.

6) It also shows that hobbits are held in respect by the wisest of the Wise - re: Tom's comments about Farmer Maggot.

7) It continues Tolkein's theme of respect for nature and forests and all that.


So Tom's omission detracts a lot from the film because all these themes have to be introduced elsewhere. It will be interesting to see the overall picture the three movies present.


Cheers,

Myriad.


Key: Complain about this post