Post your "Fellowship of the Ring" reviews here!

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Sat Dec 22, 2001 9:56 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
Okay, I jsut wrote an entire review and it's been lost.

*stalks off*

Owch. Sorry to hear that Loner.

Care to try again?

[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sat Dec 22, 2001 10:03 pm

3) I was a little disappointed in Gandalf the Grey. This is just me, but I expect powerful wizards to shoot lightning out of their fingertips, turn people into toads, shapechange, call down fire and teleport around; I'm sure this is not the movie's fault and comes from my experience with magic-users from AD&D and PFRPG2. If Tolkien's wizards are different in the types of power they weild, then Jackson and McKellen did a good job in bringing Gandalf to the screen (although with the crooked hat and grey robes, I was thinking of Fizban the Fabulous).

Tolkein's wizards aren't like Elminster types. They have power but its like a fear they spread. People are just scared of them because they've heard they're powerful.
Like Kayless said, the wizards are maie(sp?) lesser divine beings. So are the barlogs and Sauron. Even though we don't know exactly how the battle between Gandalf and the barlog went, its obvious Gandalf must have used some pretty powerful magic, after all the barlog is the most powerful evil being besides Sauron. TOo bad its not shown.

Aegnor · Post by **Aegnor** » Sun Dec 23, 2001 6:32 am

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
 Even though we don't know exactly how the battle between Gandalf and the barlog went, its obvious Gandalf must have used some pretty powerful magic, after all the barlog is the most powerful evil being besides Sauron. TOo bad its not shown.

(Possible spoiler, if you haven't read Two Towers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Remember in the books we don't find out about the Balrog battle until Gandalf returns and meets up with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. So maybe we WILL get to see the battle in next year's movie (are you reading this, Peter Jackson?).

OK, so its not just me that found the "Temptation of Galadriel" overdone. I couldn't even understand what she was saying, what with all the sound effects deafening me. Not that some sort of effects are out of order, after all:

"She stood before Frodo now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful." (p. 480, Harper Collins 1999 paperback.)

It just seemed too much...

Now, on a more positive note, I did like the effects they used whenever Frodo put on the ring and entered the world of the wraiths.

But they gotta stop deafening us with the volume in these theatres. If my grandmother wanted to see the movie, she'd bring her hearing aid...

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sun Dec 23, 2001 3:00 pm

I saw the movie today(guess why i hadn't posted my review so far).
Anyway it was a great movie. Although i really would have liked to seen Tom Bombadil and the stone trolls the movie was amazing. One of the best i've seen.

I found a few things i didn't like. Mostly some things the fellowship said. They're were a lot of corny lines like "lets kill some orc" and another one i forget.
The wizard battle could have used a bit of colorful magic and some lightning although i finally got to see what Middle-Earth wizards were like.
Also Saruman wasn't supposed to force the fellowship to go through Moria. They couldn't cross the mountain because it was winter and "cursed" as Gimli would say. Saruman didn't play a part there.
I really loved the hobbits. They fit what i thought of them to look like, although i felt Sam looked like what Fatty Bolger should have looked like.
Pippin and Merry looked great too.
Maybe Mr. Jackson should have had a few more scenes of the 4 hobbits going through the Shire.
Finally i really didn't expect the Balrog to look like what it did. I didn't expect it too have a bull's head.
Now that i think of all i read of Tolkein, Weis, Hickman, Salvatore seem so much worse.
Kryn seems so boring and dull compared to Middle Earth.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Sun Dec 23, 2001 7:25 pm

Bad points:

1.) I agree with Georgi's assessment of Lothlorien. Actually kind of creepy. So dark. Why??...

2.) The Inn at Bree was way too short and, well, nonsensical. First of all, there is no way the hobbits would have left without sign or word from Gandalf. Yet they assume the worst, apparently, and decide to leave without him. Instead they leave with an oddball stranger, when they know they're being chased by some very very scary things. This does not bode well for the intelligence of the hobbits IMO. There is no conversation with Strider, no oath sworn to protect the hobbits, nothing whatsoever to help us believe he can be trusted. Both of these points -- what to do about Gandalf, and whether to trust Strider -- were covered in the book by Gandalf's letter. Why they couldn't have spared five minutes to work this in is beyond me.

Another tragic omission is the interaction between Galadriel and Gimli in Lothlorien. Gimli's hatred for elves was made clear, I thought, in the Council of Elrond scene. But it was left there with no further development. In the book, Galadriel addresses Gimli in his own language and the hatred melts from his heart. IMO that is important. For one thing, it explains why the password to Moria was "Friend," which, because the relations between elves and dwarves was never sufficiently explained in the film, seemed like a random word choice.

Instead of these two important scenes, we got a half-hour fight with a cave troll. Apparently someone in the CGI department worked long and hard hours away from his family making that troll and made sure it got as much screen time as possible, at the expense of story and character development *shakes head*

3.) In the book, no one knows that Frodo goes off on his own at the end. In the movie, we have Aragorn saying "Yeah, I would have stayed with you to the end. But if you want to go to Mordor all alone, well, go on now. Guess it was meant to be. Buh-bye." Yeah, right. Like he would really allow that. So much for oaths

4.) Sean Astin: "Hi, I'm Sam Gamgee. Sometimes I have an accent, sometimes I don't."

5.) I found the backstory very confusing and thought someone who hadn't read the book would have a hard time following the story. I thought it was never sufficiently explained that the One Ring controlled all the others; what exactly did happen to Isildur; and what was Bilbo doing in Gollum's cave?? However, apparently people who hadn't read the book understood the history lesson just fine. So ironically, my knowing the story already actually did me a disservice in following the film. Weird...

6.) Frodo is not a wimp. But you couldn't tell it in this movie, from his dropping his sword and cowering in the corner on Weathertop. In the book, he dives in and slices the Nazgul, that's when he gets hit with the Morgul blade and his own sword is lost. The at the Ford of Bruinen he faces them down on his own: "By Elbereth and Luthien the fair, you shall have neither the ring, nor me!" This shows us his courage, this shows us that maybe he can succeed in his quest to overcome the evil that seeks to destroy the world. But noooooo. Instead we get Frodo dropping his sword, cringing, and getting picked up and rescued by Arwen. Then again, at Moria, Frodo runs from the troll instead of plunging Sting into its foot, as in the book. (It was either the troll or one of the big bad orcs; someone fill me in if you know...Either way, he did something.) And once again we think he's not long for Middle-earth. The only indication we had of Frodo's courage was at the Council of Elrond, when he said "I will take the ring, though I do not know the way." Thank heaven they at least left THAT in

Good points:

1.) Frodo lives, and I have seen him.

The casting was, in a word, perfection.

Elijah Wood as Frodo, what more needs to be said? It was the direction of the character, dropping pretty much ALL the stands he makes in the book and looking kind of pathetic as a result, that I have a problem with, not the acting. That is superb. Now I must desist, lest I gush uncontrollably

It would be easy to portray Boromir as a straightforward greed-ridden power-hungry creep. But Sean Bean brought a real depth and sadness to the role that made me really feel for the character and his dilemma. Same with Aragorn. I never liked Aragorn in the book (flame me now

); I always found him arrogant and annoying. But Viggo Mortensen plays a strong, intense-yet-accessible, burdened, king-warrior-lover, that I couldn't help but sympathize with. That was the most pleasant surprise of the film.

Sean Astin, barring the accent thing mentioned above, was a great Sam and I'm looking forward to him getting more screen time in the next two films.

Christopher Lee standing on Orthanc directing the storm...I'd pay $8 again just to see that one thing. McKellen rules as Gandalf. I loved the fact that they made Gandalf and Saruman as strong, haunted, realistic beings of great power, instead of the warm-fuzzy, doddering, stereotypical kind of cute film wizards we're used to seeing. I liked that there were no lightning bolts shooting out of their fingertips and the like, during their battle. Even with Gandalf breaking the bridge for the Balrog...it was more like the wizards could control and direct energy forces, which I found more plausible, and more interesting to watch.

2.) Speaking of the Balrog. Heh heh, clever clever, eh? Does it have wings? Should it have wings?? Turns out you can't really tell. It looks as if it could, or couldn't, all at the same time. Sneaky

3.) Settings, and I'm not just talking New Zealand's landscape. The construction of Hobbiton, Rivendell, and Moria was simply breathtaking.

4.) Legolas rules the earth with that bow

5.) The script. Wonderful!! I was so surprised and delighted with the writing. Even where dialogue was not lifted right from the book, they did their best to stay true to Tolkien's tone, rhythm, and style of language. I didn't even mind "Let's hunt some orc" (@Georgi

). Speaking of language, the Elvish speech was simply beyond description. Including Celeborn's halting way of speaking, indicating he wasn't accustomed to speaking the Common. I also loved the Elvish singing in Lothlorien. Fantastically done. *Applauds for dialect coaches*

6.) Did I mention...Frodo?

7.) Gollum. Cool. Wants more screen time, yess preciousss.

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 11:15 am

Originally posted by Aegnor:
So maybe we WILL get to see the battle in next year's movie (are you reading this, Peter Jackson?).

Heh. Even if Peter Jackson was reading this, it's a bit late to do anything, since filming has finished for all the movies

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 11:31 am

Originally posted by loner72:
and what was Bilbo doing in Gollum's cave??

Well, IMO that's not particularly relevant to the story in LotR. All one needs to know really is that Bilbo was off adventuring and that's where he found the ring. So you know where he got it, and you know who Gollum is when he turns up later. I thought Jackson did a good job summarising the back-story.

Then again, at Moria, Frodo runs from the troll instead of plunging Sting into its foot, as in the book. (It was either the troll or one of the big bad orcs; someone fill me in if you know...Either way, he did something
Yes, but then the scenario was changed slightly. He stabs the foot so they can close the door, the troll wasn't in the room at that point in the book. And the foot part was kind of ambiguous, I believe:

There was a blow on the door that made it quiver; and then it began to grind slowly open, driving back the wedges. A huge arm and shoulder, with a dark skin of greenish scales, was thrust through the widening gap. Then a great, flat, toeless foot was forced through below. There was a dead silence outside.

Later Gandalf says something about leaving before the troll comes back though, so I think it's the troll

2.) Speaking of the Balrog. Heh heh, clever clever, eh? Does it have wings? Should it have wings?? Turns out you can't really tell. It looks as if it could, or couldn't, all at the same time. Sneaky
Actually, it should
The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall

Makes me wonder though - if the Balrog has wings, surely the bridge crumbling underneath it wouldn't be a problem, because it could fly?

I didn't even mind "Let's hunt some orc" (@Georgi ).

Hey, not my fault if you have low standards

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Georgi ]

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 11:54 am

@Georgi

1.)At one point it says "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." Then, after that, as you say, it says "its wings were spread from wall to wall." First we get a simile and then an apparently concrete reality...I just think it's funny. They probably knew the debate that was raging over this issue and they found a nice way to slip around it

2.) Re Bilbo: I'm not saying they should have gone into great detail as to why he was in Gollum's cave; just saying the intro in general might have moved a bit fast, and tried to cram in so much information as to be confusing to someone who hasn't read the books. Like I said, I think my familiarity with the story was actually a disadvantage, in some ways...

3.) Re Frodo: I realize the scenario was changed for film purposes; my point was that in the book at least he did something, took some action against the enemy. Whereas in the film he did pretty much nothing. I mean, come on, there was plenty of opportunity for Frodo to attack the troll at some point during that 45-minute sequence

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 11:59 am

@loner72:
I have not read the books and I thought that the history lesson at the beginning was very good. Not only did it bring us up to date on how Bilbo got the ring, but it let us in on the mythology of Middle Earth and set the ground rules for the fantasy setting. I know that some people didn't like The-Hobbit-in-Five-Minutes treatment at the beginning, but the most important thing it did was to place the One Ring in Bilbo's possession. Unless anything else that happened in The Hobbit is earthshakingly important, it is unnecessary for the movie.

I did have one question from the backstory about the other ninteen rings; if the humans who held nine of the rings became the Ringwraiths, what about the three elves and seven dwarves who had the other ten? Did they become corrupted when Sauron forged the One Ring or do the elves and dwarves still have them?

Also why didn't Elrond kill the human king (I forget his name) when he didn't throw the the One Ring back into the fires under Mount Doom after vanquishing Sauron at the beginning? I would have, then destroyed it myself. The glib answer is: because then there wouldn't have been a movie to make . . .

The books would tell me this if I'd only read them, but I figure you guys will know.

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 12:29 pm

I've seen the movie last Sunday. There are good points and there are bad points. But overall, the good points overrule the bad points.

Good points:

1) The acting: I thought the acting was very well done. My favorite is Boromir. Throughout the entire movie he showed me his inner conflict in a subtle yet detectable way, especially in scenes such as on Caradhas and in Lorien. The part where he died as moving, my eyes were misty. I thought that was the most poignant part in the movie.

2) The FX: Mind-blowing to say the least. The huge battle of the Last Alliance was epic, and the cave troll battle was intense.

3) The cinematography: I have now officially decided that I will go to New Zealand on my next vacation. The natural scenery was so pretty. The snow, the mountains, the forests, the falls, and the rivers look so so beautiful.

4) Storytelling: Overall the storytelling is pretty good, although it could have been better at the expense of more time. I love how Peter Jackson did the Wizard Battle scene. I think that Wizards in Middle-Earth should not shoot blue lighting out of their staff. Tolkien wanted us to imagine the Wizards' powers, that's why the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog under Moria was not shown. Arwen's role, although not the same in the book, was well done. I loved the Elvish dialogues, they sound very pretty.

Bad points:

1) The FX: the FX makes the evil powers look so menacing and threatening, but the FX mostly ditched the good guys. I agree with most people that the FX in Lorien was unnecessary. Also, did anyone find the CGI for the Balrog completely unoriginal? Come on, it's a rip off from the cover box of Diablo. I was disappointed.

2) Storytelling: The movie totally destroyed Lorien and Galadriel for me. I imagined that Lorien was a place of rest, and Galadriel a peaceful and lovely queen who salve the Fellowship's wounds. Instead, Lorien's loveliness was not emphasized, and Galadriel was turned into some sort of testing witch who is sinister. I think Peter Jackson focused too much on Galadriel's test and forgot about her good side.

3) Character Interaction: The interaction between Legolas and Gimli should have been expanded. The movie never explained why Dwarves hate Elves. The movie also cut out the turning point in Gimli's attitude toward Elves when he sees Galadriel. Aragorn's character and his background should have been expanded. The hobbits' true inner strength were not shown in the movie, instead, characters like Pippin and Merry were only there for humorical purposes.

I am evaluating the movie from a point of view of a die-hard Tolkien fan. I know that my expectations of the movie can never be passed. But with that in mind, I thought LOTR is the best movie of this year. Time remains an important factor in this movie. Had Peter Jackson been given say like four hours of film time, the movie could have been alot better. After all, I also enjoy the book for its little things, the little dialogues and actions, which the movie cut out. I don't blame Peter Jackson. He had to consider the people who never read Tolkien, and he's receiving pressure from New Line Cinemas.

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: humanflyz ]

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 2:19 pm

@HighLordDave: I will attempt to answer your questions, although they may not be perfect.

1) Tolkien basically viewed the human race as the least stout of the races. He viewed them as easily corrupted and swayed, always hungry for power, greed, and knowledge. The humans are less resistant than Elves and Dwarves, and the rings easily corrupt their hearts. Also, the Elves were aware of Sauron putting on the One Ring, so they hid the ring and Sauron could not detect them. The Dwarves mostly used the rings to get treasure and delved into the earth. Four of them are taken by Sauron, and the other three are lost. Because of the resistance to corruption innate in Elves and Dwarves, they did not become Ringwraiths.

2) Elrond did not kill Isildur, the human king, due to his belief in the human spirit. Elrond figured that although humans may be less pure of heart, they still possess some natural good. Elrond took pity on humans and just left things be.

Recoba · Post by **Recoba** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 5:03 pm

Hi All,

Just went to see Lord of the Rings : Fellowship of the ring last night and I really enjoyed it. I thought the acting was good and the special effects looked appropriate and fitted in with the story. The special effects actually complemented the movie rather than dominating it like in some other films I have seen.

Good character casting, though I was a bit disappointed that Sean Bean had lost his yorkshire accent from his sharpe days! Gandalf and Saruman (sp?) were IMHO the two best on show.

Fight scenes were well done though sometimes they cut a bit too quickly for me to figure out what was happening (might just be me though!).

Overall rating 9/10.

Seasons Greetings Everyone!

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Recoba ]

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 6:34 pm

@Dave:
1. The elves hid their rings. Some that belonged to the dwarves were consumed by dragons and Sauron found the dwarves to strong willed and uncontrollable.

2. Elrond is a good guy and he won't kill another good king. Plus he would have a war between the elves and humans then.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 6:35 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
 Although i really would have liked to seen . . . the stone trolls the movie was amazing.

IIRC, there is one scene almost imediately after Frodo was wounded where they were standing around talking, about what I don't remember; but if you looked in the background, you could see vine covered troll "statues."

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 6:58 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
I did have one question from the backstory about the other ninteen rings; if the humans who held nine of the rings became the Ringwraiths, what about the three elves and seven dwarves who had the other ten? Did they become corrupted when Sauron forged the One Ring or do the elves and dwarves still have them?

Others have provided answers(right or wrong, I do not know), but I'm going to answer with what it I recall.

First, the mortal men were the easiest to corrupt.

Second, IIRC, all 7 of the Dwarven rings had been destroyed through the ages.

Third, IIRC, the 3 elven rings were forged by the elves, not by Sauron, which I would think would make it more difficult for Sauron to control them.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 8:05 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
IIRC, there is one scene almost imediately after Frodo was wounded where they were standing around talking, about what I don't remember; but if you looked in the background, you could see vine covered troll "statues."

Yeah, I thought I remembered that as well - a nice touch I thought, even if they didn't actually mention it

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:16 pm

Can't remember if Elrond was even at the battle a the end of the Second Age (the Last Allience between elves and man). Gil-Galad (or something like that) was the commander of the elves, not Elrond.

Someone clairify that?

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Wed Dec 26, 2001 9:17 pm

IIRC Elrond was Gil-Galads standard bearer.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Wed Dec 26, 2001 10:38 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
@Dave:
1. The elves hid their rings. Some that belonged to the dwarves were consumed by dragons and Sauron found the dwarves to strong willed and uncontrollable.

2. Elrond is a good guy and he won't kill another good king. Plus he would have a war between the elves and humans then.

Good insight, Thorin! I also was wondering why Elrond simply didn't back-stab Isildur for quadruple damage while he sauntered out of the volcano. The likelihood of a war between the Elves and humans never occurred to me. Now I see it as something inevitable. The Ring was Isildur's by right of having cut it off Sauron's finger.

If I might add, even if Elrond were to attack Isildur, there's no guarantee he would have been successful - Isildur could have simply put the Ring on his finger and gone invisible, thus avoiding him like Frodo did to Boromir.

And what if Elrond did succeed in wresting the Ring Isildur? The long term consequence, as you say, would be war with humans, since only by killing Isildur would he have been able to do so. But how would the Ring affect Elrond psychologically? Elrond confessed openly during the Council that "I fear to take the ring to hide it." Like Gandalf, he didn't trust himself to wield the Ring since he understood its corrupting powers have their most virulent effects upon the great. He could have succumbed as quickly and as easily as Isildur did to its temptations.

In the book, Elrond was but a herald to Gil-Galad, although in the movie he was presented as co-leader of the Last Alliance with Elendil. In the book, he tried to persuade Isildur to cast the Ring into "nearby" Mount Doom, but failed. His attempt seemed half-hearted, as though he expected the attempt to be in vain, and there was no way he could wrest it from him by force. Thus his conclusion of the war with Sauron a "fruitless victory."

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Dec 27, 2001 9:34 am

I ask this because in the movie, Elrond and Isildur are under Mount Doom and the elf is imploring the human to destroy the One Ring. Isildur refuses and walks off with Elrond watching frozen in horror.

If I'm Elrond, and I have the chance to end evil in the world by killing a single human, I may have taken the opportunity. There was no one else around, and he could have stabbed the human king in the back, destroyed the One Ring and gone back saying anything he wanted (it would be his word against a corpse's).

If he had killed Isildur, from the scene in the movie, he could have used his sword to pick up the ring and throw it back into the fires; in effect Elrond never would have had to touch the One Ring. It's the "Needs of the Many"/"Ends Justify the Means" argument justification for killing Isildur.

The flip side is this: Is committing a single act of evil to save countless other lives justifiable? (The "We had to destroy the village to save it" argument).

Also, if he knew that the Isildur had the One Ring, and he knew that Isildur had been killed, don't you think that Elrond or some of the other elves would have moved heaven and earth to find the Ring and destroy it, if for no other reason than to see that no one worse got their hands on it? The opening narrative said that in the 2,500 years or so that passed, the One Ring passed into legend, but Elrond had seen Sauron with his own eyes, he had watch Isildur give in to temptation and he knew that the One Ring was real and had the potential to return. Why would the elves have let the One Ring just disappear?

On a side note, I think our friend humanflyz's comment about Elrond's belief in the human spirit to be very ironic, considering Agent Smith's (Hugo Weaving in The Matrix) view of humans. I had also forgotten that Hugo Weaving was in The Adventures of Priscilla: Queen of the Desert; I'd have paid extra to see Elrond break into an ABBA tune or "I've Never Been to Me" halfway through the movie.

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: HighLordDave ]