Some problems I've noticed (spoilers)

Rating: 10/10 (22 November 2002)

Before I begin complaining, let me say that along with Moulin Rouge, Amelie and a few others, this is one of my favorite films of all time. It is enchanting. So much so that it took me up-teen viewings of the movie to notice anything to criticize. First, and so glaringly obvious, it galls me that it took me so long to notice, there is a HUGE timing discrepancy near the beginning. Bilbo had left the Shire, and Gandalf had warned Frodo to "keep it secret, keep it safe" and ran off to figure out what the Ring really was. He was in Gondor reading the account of Isildur, a country which took the Fellowship months to reach from Rivendell, and as he's reading there's a cut of one of the Nazgul talking to a hobbit. We assume from the architecture that the Rider is in the Shire, but even given the benefit of the doubt, no hobbits live further from Bag End than Bree. So the Rider could not be more than a couple days away from Frodo. Yet when Frodo goes to his house and all the windows and doors are open, the intruder turned out to be Gandalf. The relief was so great (though rather obviously contrived) that we never stop to think that even if Gandalf had had Shadowfax at this point, there was no way he could have beaten the Nazgul to Bag End, much less have time to sit down for tea and a chat. Second, though Christopher Lee did an excellent portrayal of Saruman, whoever scripted his dialogue must've come from writing B horror films. Practically every one of his lines is a cringe-worthy clichÃ©. One of his greatest weapons is supposed to be his voice, his ability to convince anyone of anything. Not to mention the embarrassing fight scene between the two wizards. Two powers that have been around since before the world began and are the Middle Earth equivalent of arch angels would have a much subtler and more... um... dignified battle than tossing each other around the room. The last major objection I've developed is the portrayal of Sauron. Just the fact that they DID portray him. Tolkien never once physically described Sauron because he knew that his embodiment of evil would be severely limited by making it tangible. During the prologue, Sauron comes out and starts throwing people around, supposedly to show how powerful a warrior the Ring made him. But that is not the nature of the Ring. All of the evil in the story is very subtle. Gandalf came the closest to explaining this when he said he would want to use the Ring for good, but that it would turn his works to harm. Sauron is supposed to be the same way. He did not demand that the rulers of surrounding kingdoms subjugate themselves to him. He poisoned their minds, allowing them to continue to believe they were working for their own good, while really helping the forces of Mordor. Sauruman, Theoden, and Denethor all thought they were trying to promote themselves and protect their people even while being manipulated by Sauron. The movie, I guess did not have the time to develop these concepts well, but to see the thoughtful and subtle manipulation by evil turned into brute force was rather disappointing. Like I said, I truly love this film, I think it did nearly as perfect an adaptation of the masterwork novel as possible. I really had to like it enough to spend the time to find these problems. Well, it's something to think about the next time (or first time) you watch it.