for some reason this post came back to me as one solid paragraph so I'll
try it again... I finally went to see "The Fellowship of the Ring" and
unexpectedly was fairly disappointed with this production. The set
design was awesome throughout the movie and I really enjoyed the
beginning scenes in the Shire but after that it seemed to go downhill.
Though they may have waited for the proper technology to attempt to pull
it off, they seem to have forgotten about everything else including
character development and acting and didn't allow such a wonderful story
to carry itself. Instead they depended almost entirely on the action,
which I found to be extremely overdone, and took away all the nuances and
subtlety that you find in the original written works, seemingly
suggesting that the movie going public are a bunch of simpletons. The
only I character I thought who showed any real depth in the movie was
Gandalf. I thought his portrayal was excellent and I also thought Bilbo
and Frodo were well cast but I was not particularly impressed with any of
the other characters and found them to be lacking. And while I certainly
did not expect the movie to be anywhere near as excellent as the book
itself, I did not expect it to be such a disappointment. I did go in to
the theatre with an open mind and no expectations but felt that so much
of the movie was so unremarkable and really missed what it could have
been....it didn't even seem to meet what I felt would have been minimum
standards. And regardless of time restraints, I think there is a lot
that could have been done differently without adding time to the movie. First
off, the character of Sam was very poorly done, made out to be some
dimwitted slow lad who happens to be devoted to Frodo when in reality, he
is much more intelligent and cunning underneath than he appears to be on
the surface, something that was not really expressed very well. It is
this kind of detail that was sorely missing in both the script and the
casting. Merry and Pippin are cast as stooges who seem to just goof off
all the time when in actuality, they are more serious in the beginning
than almost any of the others. It was not that the story was altered
that bothered me but that they seemed to completely disregard it. At
the least, they could have played off of the idea that Merry, Pippin, and
Sam had a conspiracy going on, of which Sam was the chief conspirator,
and the fact that there was no way they were going to let Frodo go off by
himself. Instead, they just seem to run into Merry and Pippin by chance
and it seems all of the sudden, they are going along without any
explanation. And while stealing the carrots and cabbages may have been
slipped in as an inside joke, it doesn't make any sense, seems
manipulative and detracts from the idea that they are off on a serious
quest. I did not like the casting of Aragorn at all. He expressed very
little of the grace and honor that Aragorn should have and in my opinion
had the completely wrong look. Once again, as with Sam, Aragorn is a
complex character with many different levels and in the movie they failed
to represent that or develop it at all. And the way he grabbed Frodo and
dragged him away completely misrepresented him. It seems to be
characteristic of this movie that the fellowship is just thrown together
without any real development. It seems very strange that all of the
sudden the hobbits are supposed to trust Aragorn when no real reason is
given. The comment later "How do we know we can trust him?" seems late
and just thrown in with no real substance. I thought the scene where
Arwen called on the river to drown the Black Riders was very well done. Rivendell
though, while beautiful, seemed like a ghost town. There was not the
slightest hint of any feasting or celebration which was a very important
facet of the elves. I think they should have made it look more like
someone actually lives there, had something of a feast and music going
on, and scratched the whole love scene with Aragorn and Arwen, which was
something that could have happened and was kind of interesting but seemed
rather unnecessary and is the kind of scene that's been in hundreds of
other movies. The character of Elrond, was way too creepy and stern and
did not convey the kind, wise nature that the original character has.
This council just appears out of nowhere, and all of the sudden the
company is assembled. The argument that ensued seemed out of character
and while I can understand Sam wanting to go with Frodo, the original
reason for Merry and Pippin demanding to come along, Elrond suggesting
they stay and he send some of his elves, is not present which would have
given more reason for them to come running up and saying that he would
have to be sent home in sacks if they weren't allowed to go. Most of
time, these direct quotes from the original seemed more like small tokens
stuck in the movie with no real effort made to weave them in properly.
And they show the broken sword but mention nothing about the
Sword-That-Was-Broken being reforged. If they were not going to handle
it properly, they should not have included it at all. Also, it is
completely out of character for Sam to have packed his bags and been
ready to go home. And Frodo mentions that he's been able to see elves as
he wanted to, but his desire to see elves should have been brought out
earlier in the movie and once again, Rivendell was practically empty in
the movie. Elves are not just stern. They are also very lighthearted
creatures who love feasts and music and this was not brought out at all
in this movie. While I thought the scene between Gandalf and Saruman was
well done, I thought way too much attention and focus was put on Orthanc
and Isengard and Saruman. In the book, Gandalf mentions being held
captive there during the council meeting and so it is known that Saruman
has turned evil but he is not a major focus in the Fellowship of the
Ring. I know that some foreshadowing is necessary for the following
movies, but I think far too much time was spent making him out to be some
evil villain like in a Batman movie, plotting to defeat the company. The
indepth look at Isengard and the graphic detail of the orcs inside was
unneccesary and could have been left out. There only needed to be an
allusion shown that Saruman was building up a force. Having him
manipulate the mountain and cause an avalanche was completely ridiculous
and did not make any sense. I think far too much effort was made
staging the attacks in the caves and not enough in developing the company
as a fellowship. The troll scene was interesting but went on too long
and seemed kind of silly. The bridge scene also seemed kind of cheap and
predictable. And the scene with gollum seems to be just thrown in at a
random time. All of this detail was given to the battle and the
creatures while the character development just seeemed to suffer. Why
are the hobbits the only ones who appear upset after Gandalf has fallen?
Again, Aragorn is just shown as harsh and resolute to continue when in
reality, he would have expressed some sorrow that Gandalf was gone as
would have the others. I thought in general, the relationship between
these characters was handled very poorly and only on the most surface
level. To provide a comparison, the original Star Wars characters had
much more personality than these did. Once again, in Lothlorien, the
elves are shown as fierce and stern which I don't think was a fair
representation. And while very pretty, Galadriel, seemed too stiff. The
scene at the end could have been handled better as well. While I wouldn't
have expected the movie to follow the book exactly, I didn't expect it
to stray so far from the original at so many times and it just didn't
have that flow that a really good movie has. The major criticism I have
is too much graphic detail and attention was given to the orcs, and the
battle scenes and not enough to the story itself. As much as I hate to
say it, I am starting to side more with Tolkien that they shouldn't have
bothered. Victor --- Johnson Victor---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real
Internet.
