I am disgusted with myself.
Not so much because it wasn't time and money well-spent, pounds gladly gained, or numbness bravely born. No, I don't regret any of that. Nor do I regret driving my friends to the edge of insanity and beyond because of my strange need to discuss and analyze this movie endlessly. The source of my disgust is rooted more in the fact that I would happily do it a dozen times over, until they had to surgically remove my ass from that hard movie-theater seat if need be. The messiah, as far as I'm concerned, has arrived and his name is Peter Jackson. I love this movie.
Which presents a bit of a problem. You see, shortly before going to see this movie for the first time, I wrote a particularly scathing essay on the evils of making movies based on books. So loving this movie goes completely against my principles. I should be pissed that they cut out poor Tom Bombadil, a beloved character from Tolkien's books. I should complain bitterly that Saruman had nothing to do with the avalanche on the mountain in the book. I should be irked to no end by the fact that a few of the hobbits are not as hobbit-like as they should be. I should be writing letters of complaint that Liv Tyler (of all people) was chosen to play Arwen Evenstar.
Instead I find myself blissfully uncaring about all these things. I mean, Tom Bombadil's part of the story did not exactly move the plot along. Saruman being the cause of the avalanche was not a particularly notable offense, although it was kind of hokey. I also don't feel a great need to complain about the hobbits being un-hobbitlike seeing as how I'm too busy drooling over all four of them to really care. As for Liv Tyler...her part was too small to really be worth wasting too much breath on (although I would like to know how she got her voice to sound so deep...). I guess this could be because this movie is just too great to concentrate on being a nitpicker. Sure, it cut out a few things here and there and changed some things around, but the important thing is it stays true to what matteres with an affection that can only be attributed to someone who was more interested in opening up this story to those who normally wouldn't be drawn to it in its book form than the notability that bringing such a masterpiece to the screen could bring him.
The little things that survived the transfer from page to screen are by far the most fun and interesting to see. For example, another director could easily have cut out Gandalf's sense of humor in favor of a disposition more stereotypical of a wizard including a mysterious wisdom that doesn't have to make sense as long as it sounds cool. Not to say that Gandalf doesn't have bits and pieces of good advice to pass out every now and then, but what he does have to offer is only effective because his humorous moments make him all the more human.
Also, Sam Gamgee could have been (and was reportedly in danger of) turned into a cartoonish sidekick whose bumbling naivete only got in the way of the smarter characters. Instead, he is allowed to stay the loyal friend of Frodo and unsung hero of the story. Early signs of his bravery promise all three dimensions this character deserves.
Boromir could have been portrayed as a villain because of his weakness against the power of the One Ring. Fortunately, the movie chose to portray this weakness with Boromir's nobility very much in tact. He was not treated as a convenient bad guy. Hallelujah!
I suppose my love for this movie may also come from how it makes George Lucas look like the devil. Not that I'm insulting the venerable Lucas's ability to tell a story. Rather, I'm criticizing the fact that he treats the cool things he can do with computers as though they're far more important than the cool things he can do with his pen. Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, also makes good use of technology but in a way that doesn't interfere with the story. The writing does not suffer here as it did in the Phantom Menace and that is key. Of course, to be fair, I will say that there are two movies in each trilogy yet to be released, leaving George Lucas room to mend his ways and Peter Jackson time to fall from grace. Only time will tell.
So, there you have it. These are the conclusions I have come to after three viewings of this movie. I shall go and hide under my rock now, automatically despising any movie based on a good book until next year when Two Towers is released and challenges my line of thinking once again. I suppose there is an exception to every rule.
Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring
Starring: Elijah Wood (Frodo Baggins), Ian McKellen (Gandalf the Gray), John Rhys-Davies (Gimli), Orlando Bloom (Legolas), Sean Astin (Sam Gamgee), Billy Boyd (Pippin Took), Dominic Monaghan (Merry Brandybuck), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn/Strider), Sean Bean (Boromir), Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), and Liv Tyler (Arwen Evenstar)
Eye Candy Factor: Are you kidding me? Have you seen the cast list? A perfect "10"!
The Yeah Right! Factor: 8 (out of possible 10); there was definitely some hokiness here and there. I blame Saruman.
Chick Flick or Dick Flick?: Hardly a few minutes go by without a battle being fought which will appeal to the men. However, the number of good looking male actors in this movie will definitely get the women's vote.
Ewan McGregor Connections: a whopping three (Ian Holm was in my most favoritest Ewan McGregor film of all time, A Life Less Ordinary, Orlando Bloom was in Black Hawk Down, and Christopher Lee will appear in the upcoming Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones alongside Mr. McGregor)
Sense and Sensibility: 7 (out of possible 10); I definitely found the movie easier to follow than the books, but I've heard a lot of people who haven't read the books say that they had no idea what was going on.
The Coolness Factor: 8 (out of possible 10); all special effects work seamlessly with the plot (in my opinion!). Eat your heart out, Lucas!
To Sum it All Up: 9 (out of possible 10)
Care to challenge my opinion? Come on down!
Back to Allison at the Movies