Some thoughts on a great movie. *spoilers*

Rating: 10/10 (10 January 2003)

I must first confess my own bias: I've been a longtime fan of LOTR, having read the work several times since the 60's as well as other Tolkien works.
When I first heard of the project to make the movie, about a year and half before its release, my initial thought was: New Zealand?, Egad! That's where the Hercules and Xena TV series were made. What was produced, instead, far exceeded my expectations. Thank you New Zealand and Peter Jackson.
I won't attempt rating LOTR against movies like The Godfather or Casablanca. That would be comparing apples and oranges; but within its genre LOTR stands alone. Concerning length: We live in an impatient world. If one finds three hours too long for a movie, how long will it take them to read the book. For myself, I was amazed that three hours went by so quickly.
Concerning cliches: Many negative reviewers complain of this. All cliches have a point of origin, at which time they are not cliches. If one didn't take that into consideration, much of the World's great literature would be regarded as collections of cliches, e.g. the works of Shakespeare. At the time Tolkien produced his works fantasy literature hardly qualified as a genre. Most of what existed was from ancient or medieval sources. The enormous subsequent growth of the genre, as well as Dungeons and Dragons games and such is a product of Tolkien's influence.

Concerning faithfulness to the original: I have seen few novels, or even short stories, faithfully adapted to the screen. Some, in fact, are hardly recognizable as the original story. This movie is a more faithful adaptation than most works. Indeed, I have seen few movies based on *actual* history done with much accuracy to historical fact, including *Best Movie* Oscar winners.
I see nothing wrong with substituting Arwen for Glorfindel in *Flight to the Ford*. Glorfindel had no subsequent relevance to the story and there's nothing wrong with introducing more romantic interest into the story.

I do wish *The Council of Elrond* was longer. At 32 pages, it is the longest chapter in LOTR and, in my opinion, has much of interest even if lacks action. Of course, since they already showed Saruman's treason as a separate scene, that part isn't necessary but there was a great deal more in that chapter. In fact, now that I write this, it occurs to me that some of the other events discussed in the Council could have been treated in a like manner thus illustrating the breadth of the threat.
I have mixed feelings about excluding Tom Bombadil. His nature and role in the story have long been the subject of speculation among Tolkein *scholars* and there have been reams written about that subject.

One part that does bother me a bit, is the gift giving in *The Farewell to Lorien* (which is in the extended DVD but not the theatrical release). In the movie Galadriel gives Sam a coil of Elven rope as his gift. In the book, coils of rope were part of the standard equipment. Sam was instead given a box of the soil of Lorien and a seed of a mallorn tree, appropriate for a gardener. This would become a great boon to Sam's work of restoring the damaged Shire in the last chapter of LOTR. My initial thought was that this indicated that last chapter would be cut from *The Return of the King*. It is anticlimactic for modern audiences. I did notice however that Sam's daughter Elanor is listed as a character in the final movie. Hopefully Galadriel will yet give Sam that gift.
Concerning casting: I initially had reservations about the casting of Frodo. In the book Frodo was 50 (although that's equivalent to early 30s for a human) and Hobbits are described as having faces that are *good natured rather than beautiful*, etc. Elijah Wood pulled it off very nicely anyway. While I concur with the praise for Ian McKellen's performance, I would like to say that I thought Ian Holms' performance as Bilbo was even better, even if it was a smaller role. I also much liked Sean Bean's performance as Boromir.