|
|
INTRODUCTION
I really enjoyed J.R.R.
Tolkien's trilogy when I read it about five years ago, so I simply had
to watch the movie as soon as it was released. Nevertheless I doubted that
this American film team would be able to make a good transfer of the cult-classic
trilogy to the big screen, and in my opinion they failed in many aspects.
Let me explain what I mean:
PRODUCTION
Ralph Bakshi directed
the animated picture LORD OF THE RINGS released in 1978. Although well
made it didn't do well enough at the box office, and the sequels were cancelled.
Bakshi's failed attempt to transfer J.R.R. Tolkien's Ring trilogy to the
big screen has stood as a warning for film-makers for over 20 years until
finally Frances Walsh and Peter Jackson had the guts to try. What's so
hard about filming Tolkien's trilogy?
* There's no way to
fit the whole trilogy into one movie, there will have to be one for each
book. This makes filming a huge project, in this case costing about $300M.
* The first two books
end abruptly which may be a setback for the first two films.
* There are many different
type of characters; dwarfs, hobbits, elfs, humans, orchs and wizards for
example.
* Many have read the
books. Usually people who have read the books don't like the films.
* The adventure takes
place in many different locations, some which are very difficult to reproduce.
* Considering the films
fantasy theme, it may be hard to draw a big enough audience. There are
no superstars in the leading roles, no romance in the film.
CASTING
There are some very strong
performances in some of the key roles of this film. Elijah Wood is good
as Frodo and Ian McKellan superb as Gandalf. Ian Holm is equally great
as Bilbo and veteran Christopher Lee as Saruman the White is perfection.
A very difficult problem is that there are so many different races. When
I picture myself a hobbit in my mind I don't see a small human with larger
feet. In the books hobbits, humans, dwarfs and elfs are completely different
races with nothing in common, here they all look more or less like humans.
STORYTELLING
I understand that they
couldn't transfer all the deatails of the book to the screen, but I think
they made some serious mistakes. To start with I don't think that Tolkien's
books just describes a big adventure, it describes a world. I don't think
the filmmakers appreciated that fact. Or perhaps they did, but they didn't
have the guts to challenge the audience by opening the film with a lengthy
background introduction about the hobbits and the world they live in. The
way I see it it the hard way is the only right way in this case, because
as it is we don't feel for or know the characters or the world they live
in enough. I am certain that a voiceover should have been used throughout
the film to guide us. If a voiceover would have been used many of the existing
scenes could have been shortened or cut and replaced by a meatier introduction
and more from the book could have been included further on too. Of course
the film would have been heavier, and a lot more finesse required from
the film-makers, but as it is now the story is very thin. I don't think
that Tolkien would have liked it at all. The story about Tom Bombadill
is typically skipped altogether. Obviously the filmmakers didn't dare challenge
the viewer with Sam and Frodo being eaten by a tree and then saved by the
singing Tom Bombadill. But I think it's this type of passages that really
set the right atmosphere. The film takes up an awful lot of time with battle
scenes of various kinds. Tolkien doesn't waste many words on the battle
scenes, yet they almost dominate the film. Also it was often hard to know
where in the world the action took place, showing the map with the journey
marked out wouldn't have been a bad idea at all. The filmmakers try to
keep us on the edge of our seats for three solid hours with action and
highly dramatic situations which I think is an idiotic goal. Most of the
scenes are over dramaticized. There are cases of overacting and bombastic
music and sound effects are used almost non stop. This was to be expected,
but it's disappointing anyway. Of course it makes the film easier to watch
for younger people, but for people with an intellect this film has some
serious shortcomings. What I do like is the way the ring itself is handled.
It is very important that the viewer feels the power, danger and importance
of the ring, and a lot of effort has been made in this department. Just
look how hard it is for Bilbo to part from his precious in the beginning.
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
The character development
in this film is very thin indeed. We don't feel the special bond between
Sam and Frodo the way it should be. Merry and Pippin, who are they? Why
would they risk their necks for Frodo? The film certainly doesn't answer
that question. Who are the other characters of the fellowship? The film
fails badly in letting us get to know these charcters and the races they
represent, which is an essential part of Tolkien's work.
SETTINGS AND COMBAT SCENES
The settings in this
film generally looks very good. I was deeply impressed with the way Shire
and Rivendell looked. Director Peter Jackson said they tried to make the
settings as if TFOTR was history and not fantasy. There are way too many
action scenes and they don't look as good as in some recent action-films
such as MATRIX.
SUMMARY
This film is an average
movie. The Tolkien world is recreated well visually but not mentally which
is an important setback. Also the character development is very thin except
for three or four characters. Much of the story is skipped and battle scenes
are given much more weight than in the books. Altogether, pretty disappointing.
Rating: 
/Erik Stahlberg
Here are some of the comments I have received:
I think different. The movie is great even if I have read the trilogy.
And it's impossible to take with all the mentall scenes cause then the characters would have cried through all the movie, an the movie would be like 9h long. The battle scenes makes it to a movie and me and my friends has talked alot about how nice they were. so my rating would be ****
MvH:Ivan/swe
Let's face it very few films can do justice to a good book so LOTR is
never going to manage it. Those of us who know the books can fill in the missing parts and hopefully put up with the imagery which does not match imagination. Those that have not read the books will maybe enjoy the film enough to be inspired to read them. The film for all its faults is still enjoyable I think.
it was very good one of the best
I've read the trilogy twice before I even herad a movie was being made, and then once more once I heard of the movie.
Although I was disappointed in the removal of some scenes, such as Tom Bombadill, this was necessary to make the movie a viewable length. Trying to fit everything in would have taken 6 movies, not just three. Removal of scenes was expected and necessary, and for the most part the removed scenes were not needed for the plot of the movie. What greatly upset me, however, was the addition of scenes not in the book at all. In particular, the addition of some sort of dramatic romance between Aragorn and Arwen was completely out of place. This took time that could have been used for other more important aspects, was not in the book at all. Furthermore, there is no room in the remainder of the trilogy to develop this
theme. I was very disappointed at this obvious Hollywood addition in the attempt to draw more people and therefore more money.
Overall, however, I was impressed with the casting and acting of all the characters and the scenery was absolutely breathtaking and fits the emotions of the book perfectly.
