Ballsy, Beautiful, Engaging, Exciting, Profound, Smart, Satisfying

Rating: 10/10 (26 December 2001)

I am not someone who uses adjectives like those lightly. I'm very much a discerning film viewer,have spent my life working in and studying the arts and literature, and have little to no love for the average Hollywood mediocrity, be it the sad attempt at social profundity known as AMERICAN BEAUTY, the latest marketing masterplan like HARRY POTTER, or the annual exercises in macheesmo, like GLADIATOR and BRAVEHEART. That said, I love this movie, because it has everything the big blockbuster is supposed to have- action, romance, brilliant visuals- plus everything I've come to only expect in indie and foreign film- truly complex characters and plot lines, genuine respect for the brains of its audience, conviction in it's themes and story, and an overall emotional strength and consistency that leaves one haunted by the film for days. Of course I know that Tolkein's monumental novel shares much of the credit, but film is a completely different medium than literature and has many different objectives and problems that need to be overcome and so the movie is Jackson and company's baby- and they deserve it. It is one of the most successful literary adaptions I've seen since James Ivory's A ROOM WITH A VIEW, in the sense that it succeeds in becoming a brilliant movie in and of itself, as well as maintaining the spirit, story and themes of the original novel. Pulling off such a feat isn't easy- observe such failures as THE SCARLET LETTER, or DUNE for examples of how NOT to adapt a famous novel.
OF course the movie isn't flawless- Arwen's plea for Frodo to live (just after she's squelched the Nazgul- a totally viable change, I think, in light of the fact that Glorfindel does nothing else in the novel and Arwen, whose story is essential, desperately needed something to expand her into what a modern audience would consider an acceptable mate for Aragorn)is so schmaltzy and gooey that it stands out in an otherwise fascinateingly gloomy film flooded with complex emotions. Also, the almost complete lack of Gollum was a little disquieting, and will probably bite the filmmakers on the ass later on when Golem becomes so essential in part two and everyone in the audience who hasn't read the book goes, "What? He's been following them all along? Who is that slimy thing?" I mean, come on Jackson, all it would have take was two more well placed shots of Gollum trailing the Fellowship, just for continuity's sake.
But really, stuff like this is so nitpicky, and proof that this movie is so amazing- especially compared to similar films in the genre, like the new STAR WARS films. LORD OF THE RINGS succeeds where PHANTOM MENACE, for instance, ultimately fails: Middle Earth is so tangible, it's denizens so believable, that you really do believe in it and get caught up. Superbe attention to details- from close up shots of people's hands that were ACTUALLY DIRTY, to houses and gardens and skyscapes that were real and not computer created, to ornate belt buckles, bootheals and arrowheads- permeates the film, creating a rich, almost tangible world. The special affects are totally tasteful and mostly reserved for the Ringwraith's world, which is appropriately spooky and alien. True, the Troll seemed just a touch too CGI, compared to everything els, but he looked a hell of a lot better than the centaur in HARRY POTTER, which didn't even look like the animators finished before the film went to print.
Performances also make this movie amazing- because normally, directors and producers of special affects ridden adventure epics don't feel that the actors need to be good so much as pretty and famous- but these actors are all amazing, and if they were famous before this film, they were generally people famous for being generally amazing- Ian McKellan (a fantastic choice as Gandalf), Ian Holm (genuinely touching and riddled with pathos), Cate Blanchette (celestially beautiful and a wonderful combination of infinite power and infinite sadness), Christopher Lee (spectacularly evil). Viggo Mortensen (so good in PORTRAIT OF A LADY) finally gets a chance to shine, and Sean Bean gives his best performance to date- as does Liv Tyler, my only real casting fear before seeing the film who does a surprisingly good job. Elija Wood and Sean Astin both come of age in this movie and considering what the future holds for Frodo and Sam, I can't wait to see how they actors will grow with the characters. Orlando Bloom and Jean Rhys Davies provide wonderful supporting performances, and also make me look forward to the future which brings, amongst many other things, masisve expansion of their characters.
What works the best about LORD OF THE RINGS, however, is not the effects and design, or the actors, but the sheer scope of the film, it's overwhelming sense of trying to fight for the good in the face of exponentially increasing evil and terror, and it's fierce rejection of the sugary, feel good HARRY POTTER syndrome. True, some people might be disastisfied with the ending, but the whole point is that this is hardly the end (and if the ending of the film of TWO TOWERS is like the book, people are gonna be REALLY disappointed come December 2002), and if the same people find the movie too depressing, my only reponse is- too bad. A) it's going to get more depressing before the happy ending (and hey, isn't life often like that?) and B) if you can't find the beauty of heroes remaining heroic even in spite of growing doom and gloom, then it must be generally hard for you to find beauty at all. And since LORD OF THE RINGS, both the book and the movie, is mostly about the incredible endurance of that which is good being able to survive that which is evil, it's no small wonder this film will be lost on an audience grown accustomed to easy endings, easy solutions, and easy emotions.
And hey, the movie made me want to write a fantasy novel, propose marriage to someone incredible, and kill some orcs. It's been a while since any movie has made me want to do that.