Subject: Review: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001)

From: Karina Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 20:03:01 -0000

Lord of The Rings: Fellowship of the Rings

Full price feature

This is a difficult review to write.  It's no secret that everyone I know
who has seen this movie has loved it with a fever beyond normalcy.  It's
well known too that J.R.R. Tolkein's Middle Earth books were the zygotes of
fantasy literature as we know it.  I have to tell you, Gentle Readers, that
reading the Fellowship of the Ring was comparable to having your front
teeth pulled (which I had done as a child - it's quicker).  Before the
firebombs get mailed to my house, let me finish:  The film is much, much
better than the book, and for that I must credit director Peter Jackson,
not the revered Mr. Tolkein.

I am one of the fortunate but relatively few who have known Peter Jackson's
work for a while, back to Dead Alive and Meet The Feebles.  Those are
markedly different films from this movie, which owes more in filmmaking
slickness to The Frighteners and Beautiful Creatures.  In the OFCS awards,
I nominated Jackson for Best Director, but not LOTR for Best Picture.  LOTR
is filled with what are now (but weren't in the 1950's) the ultimate in
fantasy stereotypes - mystical talismans (rings, swords), halflings, elves,
dwarves, orcs, every D&D staple from the beginning of it all.  I was an
enormous, addicted fantasy maven in my day, so those who do not know me
please do not think that I roll my eyes at that stuff; but also keep in
mind I have seen plenty of it.

Like truly classic films (Casablanca, Gone With The Wind) the idea, the
sense of such a world, had to start somewhere, and it started in these
books.  What I found frustrating about the book was all the extraneous
mystical mumbo jumbo that was irrelevant to the plot; long elven songs
about warriors and whatnot that are not germane to the story being told,
and such.  Like the "begat" section of the Bible.  Jackson mercifully
dispensed with that and gave us the actual story, with all the walking and
meeting singing beer-dispensers deleted and all the actual drama and
excitement left in.  Great score, too.  Do not see it in a non-THX theatre
if you can help it - the sound is mixed badly for crappy theatres.

Jackson also has the visual gift of (I presuppose) presenting on screen
exactly what it was that he wants us to see - any film of LOTR has some
huge shoes to fill.  Die hard fans are having to wear double layers of
diapers to survive their enthusiasm while watching this one.  That speaks
volumes about how he has touched the heartstring of the work.  His gift of
presentation can be as varied as hilarious undead, heroin-addicted puppets,
or murderous virgins, and what you see you rarely forget.  The visuals are
largely computer and New Zealand nature- generated, and, like (I shudder to
compare) Phantom Menace, fill the screen with beauty and minute detail.
The difference between Lucas' drivel and this is of course better source
material and a better sense of what works.  I especially enjoyed how the
human-sized actors were seamlessly resized to be onscreen togther (with
faces, not always children from behind) in their correct species
proportions.  Small detail but huge impact.  I also hope the New Zealand
Ministry of Tourism is prepared for the onslaught of travelers hoping to
glimpse that small but beautiful country.

Only strong actors and a solid screen play could make Tolkein's weepy
romantic mysticism mystical again like it was for us when we were children.
This interpretation comes very post-Dragonslayer, when we were all throwing
money at anyone in a leather doublet with a sword, but it brings back the
simple pleasures of the conventions of dwarvish pride and human arrogance.
I hazard to add that in this film, I actually understood better the power
of the ring, watching how it affected Frodo's companions and of course
"Ring-Wearer-Vision" where evil is white and good is black.  The craft of
the film is superior to the source material, in my opinion, and all of
Jackson's movies are paragons of craft.  He clearly takes very close care
of what he does, and his attention to visual style and meaning serve him
well in such a dense tale.

I will admit that it was not my very favorite film of the year, for which I
will surely be hung out to dry, but it is to be applauded, appreciated, and
viewed again.  I do not think anyone will be dissatisfied; I certainly was
not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These reviews (c) 2001 Karina Montgomery.  Please feel free to forward
but just credit the reviewer in the text.  Thanks.
[email-masked]
Check out previous reviews at:
http://www.cinerina.com
http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com - the Online Film Critics Society
http://www.hsbr.net/reviews/karina/ - Hollywood Stock Exchange Brokerage
Resource
http://www.mediamotions.com
http://www.capitol-city.com

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 30676
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 276278
X-RT-TitleID: 1108476
X-RT-SourceID: 755
X-RT-AuthorID: 3661