Bored of the Rings? (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (DVD))

Member Name: a-true-ben

Product:	The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (DVD)
Date:	23/12/01 (903 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Just a truly great realisation of a truly great novel - most of the effects, acting and setting is spot on and I couldn't have asked for more

Disadvantages: May not suit non-fans, Is rather long, The troll

My Story

I must begin by confessing, I'm a bit of a Lord of the Rings nut. Now, I know many people going won't have read the book, or may have done so (or started doing so) years ago and forgotten it. Well, I was read The Hobbit as a child, after enjoying a spoof computer game 'Bored of the Rings' at the age of 10-11 I read Lord of the Rings for the first time. Since then, I've read it two more times, plus other Tolkien books (including The Silmarilion and Book of Lost Tales), played the games, seen an animated version of LOTR (as it shall henceforth be know) and to be honest, I was rather apprehensive about whether the film could live up to expectations.

Well, I went to see it with three friends tonight (Genny, George and James) and I needn't have feared - we all really enjoyed it. Despite a variety of backgrounds (me being a Tolkien nut and George never having read the book) we all thought it was an excellent film. Oh, and I must warn I don't have a copy of the book on me, so despite using a couple of internet sites, I may just have to check some details (spellings) later.

First things first, it was really busy. The film's certified PG-13 in the USA and PG here in the UK, although the trailer carries a special warning that some scenes may be unsuitable for under 8s. There's not really any sex or bad language, but there are battle scenes and the orcs and other monsters might frighten young children. Despite this, there were plenty of children in the audience, and I can't remember when I last saw the cinema so busy. We'd bought tickets in advance (thankfully) for the 5 o'clock showing, and still faced quite a queue. The film itself didn't actually start until about 5:15, and went on for just under 3 hours (so we regretted not having eaten) - and I can't honestly say I never once found myself fidgeting, or unhappy in the chair (being 6'3" I don't find cinema seats at all c

omfy) but I was so entralled I almost forgot about my cough!

The Book

J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was began before the war, and first published sometime around 1954 (I'm afraid I don't know the correct date) and remains a hugely popular book - voted Best Book of the Millennium in a Waterstone's poll and also hugely influential on the fantasy genre. If you've ever been into anything from Warhammer games to Terry Pratchett, then you'll see where many of the ideas were taken from - George even said she could see how Harry Potter was influenced by this. The book's a separate opinion (which I've been meaning to write since the summer) but suffice to say I love it. It's traditionally published as three volumes, 'The Fellowship of the Ring', 'The Two Towers' and 'The Return of the King', and the film version follows this - creating an epic trilogy, gaining inevitable comparisons to Star Wars.

The Film

I won't give a load of detail here about directors etc. If you want to know these things, see:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120737 (internet movie database) or
http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_flat.html (official site, non-flash version)
The trilogy was filmed in New Zealand at great expense, in a particularly daring move all three films were made at once, with the subsequent two films due for release at yearly intervals (2002 and 2003) - they're still in post-production I believe, but I think they should be released sooner, as the story caries on.

The Plot

This won't come as a surprise to anyone who's read the book. I'll try not to spoil things, but here's a brief overview. Long ago an evil being called Sauron created rings of power - three for the Elves, seven for Dwarves and nine for men, and the one ring for himself to control the others. Following his defeat, this ring was lost, and eventually it turned up
in t
he possession of a hobbit called Bilbo Baggins (exactly how is recounted in The Hobbit). LOTR begins with Bilbo, having reached his 111st birthday (yes, in the book he's eleventy-one, not one hundred and eleven, although the film says the latter).

The ring he uncovered is left to his nephew Frodo, but Gandalf the wizard uncovers its importance. Sauron's evil forces are growing strong again, and the ring must be returned to the cracks of fire beneath Mount Doom (where it was forged) and destroyed. The LOTR trilogy recounts the whole epic tale, a struggle of good against evil. It's worth noting that the film stays true to the book in terms of a lengthy and fairly slow paced introduction. In this film, you're given a lengthy introduction to events, and the actual fellowship of the ring isn't formed until almost half way in. The film then tells their journey, from Rivendell through the Mines of Moria and almost as far as Mordor itself. It might be said little happens, but you have to remember (if the end of the movie seems unsatisfying) that it's just the start of the whole story.

Back to the Film

So how well does adaptation to the silver screen work? Well, the film begins as I said with a lengthy introduction, designed to fill you in on events. It's more comprehensive than the book in terms of history, but it does leave out some details - not just the full story of the ring, but also important points like it's powers (it's never once explained in the film that the ring grants it's wearer invisibility, it's only revealed when Bilbo first puts it on). In some ways, I think those who hadn't read the books could be easily confused by this - similarly there are no explanations of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and the rest of the fantasy world. Of course, given that much of Tolkien has become standard fantasy material, anyone familiar with the many worlds influenced by Tolkien will recognise
much, but
again I thought the film catered for existing fans rather than novices (which suits me fine, I don't see why those who've never had any interest should care so much about the film).

The acting throughout I found superb. Sometimes, as with Boromir (Sean Bean) and Aragorn (Viggo Mortesen) I found myself consciously thinking the acting was good. Best of all, however, were those like Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen) and the Hobbits (particularly Elijah Wood) who didn't even seem to be acting - they were so believeable that they really seemed like wide-eyed innocent folk of the book, not just actors.

Quite how the Hobbits were shrunk to size was a matter of debate in the pub afterwards - sometimes I thought clever use of perspective played a part, and I think stunt doubles (child actors) in some cases (such as where Frodo threw himself into Gandalf's arms). I think in other cases computers were used to shrink footage of the Hobbit actors, and then combine this with separately filmed shots of the normal size people. In the end, it doesn't matter and I gave up wondering - it was totally believeable.

Characterisation was fairly standard - the Hobbits were peaceful rural folk, whose life in the Shire seemed like a combination of rural Yorkshire and Thomas Hardy's Wessex. Dwarves are much like in Terry Pratchett, the Elves are sleek, noble and graceful (sometimes you have to watch for details - I was talking to Genny afterwards and she missed the fact that Legolas walked over the snow drift the others waded through!). These are slightly stereotyped, but individuals are distinguished, such as Frodo's faithful companion Samwise contrasted to the mischevious Pippin and Merry. Also it must be remembered that if Tolkien seems to be using a 'stereotyped' version of Dwarves and Elves, he is largely responsible for that image...

The Hobbits and Dwarves were both really well portrayed. The Elves I though
t slightly less
convincing - they perhaps should have been more 'Elvish' - we all agreed afterwards more graceful and beautiful (despite using Liv Taylor (Arwen) and Cate Blanchett (Galadriel)). The bad guys were more variable - the orcs were good, but the computer-generated troll I thought was pretty bad (it could have been worse, but had more room for improvement). The uruk-hai were convincing outside, but where Saruman seems to create one (which is for some reason blue) I thought they looked rather dodgy, and the Balrog wasn't quite as convincing as the orcs either. That said, the overall verdict on the effects was very good - from full on battle scenes to close ups of individuals the only real disappointment was the troll.

The scenery is breathtaking - from underground caverns, sacred forest, the Shire, the town of Brie, Elven homes, mountain passes - the decision to film in New Zealand fully justified. The music played a big part too - often the sign of good music in a film is not noticing it, whereas I often found myself aware of instrumental music being used to set the mood. Some scenes it seemed over the top - combined with slow motion scenes, people fighting on in drawn out death scenes riddled with arrows, and so on, I got the feeling maybe they were over-hamming it a bit. It was never quite too much though, LOTR is an epic tale, and I think the film just captures this without over-stepping the mark (even if it strays close at times).

The pacing I found about right. Some have said it's intense, others that it drags on. Strangely I found they were both right - an awful lot happens, and if you go to the toilet there's always the chance you might miss something important, but most of it is at a gentle pace, it's just rarely let up. There were moments where I was able to check my watch or fidget in my seat, and there were fast-paced action scenes, but for the most part it just kept on going in a truly epic way. r>
The Overall V
erdict

Well, what can I say? We all enjoyed this film very much. I had the feeling it might be a 'Titanic for blokes' - something that is extremely well made, big budget and hyped that fans (like myself) will love but non-fans (sexistly suggesting mostly girls I'm afraid) would admire simply as a well-made film but not really 'get' as it were. That proved slightly unfounded, because even George who hadn't read the books enjoyed it. I do think you'll get a lot more out of it if you know the books - and have some idea of events - George said she was lost as so many names (Sauron, Saruman, Mordor, Moria, Idengard, etc) were thrown at her and certain things about the ring and the fantasy creatures weren't really explained. Despite this, I highly recommend it to anyone. Ok, I know I criticised a few points above, it isn't quite perfect, but nothing is and I can't imagine much improvement, so I'm giving this a definite 5* - just a shame we have to wait so long for the sequels.