Fellow Victims: Tom Crowley, Joel Fuernsinn, Josh G., Jeff Hunt, Carrie Jurney,
Chris Jurney, Melody Hunt, Erik Lystad, Sean Marston, Kim Martin, Vernard
Martin, Ross Newberry, Josh Rowan,
It's 4:30 am and the stupid grin that I've had plastered to my face since
leaving the theater an hour and a half ago has receded enough so that I could
write this review. This, at last, is the Fantasy movie that I've been waiting to
see for as long as I've become interested in media as a form of expression. I
believe and hope that The Lord of the Rings movies will come to define the
Fantasy genre the way it was meant to be in the same way that Psycho
defined the Thriller. It's not a stretch to say that I consider this movie to be
one of the best movies that I've seen all year if not the best.
I won't waste time giving a plot summary. You've either read the books or you've
heard it somewhere else by now. J.R.R. Tolkein's books are the prototype for
almost every Fantasy related item in any media since their publication. There
also won't be any interesting spoilers about what we saw. I'm finding it
difficult articulating why I liked this movie so much - and not because I
haven't been getting a lot of sleep in the last few weeks. I can tell you that:
1. I'm almost certain that my jaw found its way to the theater floor and stayed
there for about 70% of the time. The movie's settings and elements are visually
stunning. Every time a new vista appeared, whether the Shire or the Halls of
Khazad-Dum, I would be stunned all over again. The movie definitely owes a lot
to the artwork of John Howe, arguably the best visionary of Tolkein's works. And
the hobbits are simply amazing. I kept looking for flaws to exploit (I love
making the drive-in lists) but simply couldn't find any worth reporting.
2. I wasn't surprised by the plot because I've read the books umpteen times but
I was still engrossed in everything that happened. The Fellowship of the Ring
succeeds in balancing the demands of the long book with the time constraints of
a movie. Not a second of the hefty 2 hours and 58 minutes is wasted. The
exposition scenes needed to initiate the audience into Middle Earth were
efficient. The action scenes were exciting and had a great sense of flow as
opposed to being obligatory sequences that directors usually insert into their
movies to appease the young male audience. This movie tells what is a great
story and respects the original material in the process. This is very uncommon
in a genre movie.
3. I fell in love with the characters as portrayed by these actors. I actually
empathized with them and that hasn't happened to that extent with any movie for
a long time. I've seen characters that I've liked or others that I could
associate with but never seen characters that involved me in their lives. This
has to be credited almost entirely to the excellent acting.
4. My thought at the end of the movie was "Damnit! I have to wait a year to
see the next one?" We were all ready to sit there for another 6 hours, if
possible, to see the next two movies - mostly completed but not due to release
until December 2002 and 2003.
I read somewhere that the director, Peter Jackson, had this project in mind for
many years before finally getting the support he needed to make it the way he
had it envisioned. This movie is clearly an act of love. No details were spared
in the film's visual appearance. Purists might quibble about the way Merry and
Pippin are introduced or Liv Tyler playing the character of Arwen. They may
complain that the plot was changed from the books in some portions. I myself
missed seeing Tom Bombadil or the bits of poetry and song that Tolkein scattered
throughout his books. But unlike the Harry Potter movie, which tried to leave
everything in and only managed to kill the spirit of the books, the Fellowship
of the Ring trimmed what it had to, added scenes to help the audience follow the
story, and preserved the spirit of Tolkein's books.
At their core, the three books comprising the Lord of the Rings trilogy give us
a battle of good versus evil that takes place on material and spiritual levels.
A lesser director would have taken the story and turned it into a simple good
vs. evil battle waged in the physical and bloody world. Characters in such genre
movies tend to be overpowered stereotypes and caricatures. With good actors,
we'd be left with a watchable movie that would quickly collect dust after it
finished its run. Jackson has clearly understood the books enough to know that
the real battle described in Tolkein's books took place in the minds and spirits
of the characters and shows us this struggle as well. Combined with these actors
who have taken their characters and given us real, breathing people with fear,
love, and hope, we have been given a movie with depth as well as beauty.
But the tenor of the movie that I appreciated the most was its attention to the
friendships and loyalties shared between the characters.
I give this first of three, a 10 out of 10 on the Good Movie Scale. There
are probably some moments that are probably mockable, once the surprise and awe
have worn off so it also gets a 2 out of 10 on the Bad Movie Scale. Let me close
by saying that this is what the art of movie making should aspire to
reach. It is a movie for our time filmed in a way that was inaccessible to
directors even five years ago but combined with the techniques learned from
almost a century of filmmaking. LotR:The
Fellowship of the Ring could not have been made without the technologies of CGI
and film that we have now including things like modern fight choreography melded
with the older tricks such as forced perspective shots. But more than
simply a special effects extravaganza, it's a movie that tells a deep story
populated and moved by very real characters. I strongly encourage you
to see this movie. And if you haven't read the books, you should do that too.
