It gave me a new appreciation of Tolkien

Rating: Null/10 (25 January 2003)

My first exposure to JRR Tolkien was the animated RETURN OF THE KING when it ran in syndication one night in the mid-'80s. To say the least, I came away hating anything even slightly hobbit-related (notably because Frodo Baggins lost his finger-not something one takes well as a kid), so when Peter Jackson set out to adapt THE LORD OF THE RINGS into a film trilogy, I couldn't have been less interested. Then my family saw THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and enjoyed it, so I decided to give Tolkien one last try.
I'm glad I did, because Jackson produced an entertaining, energetic movie (and an even better sequel) that wiped my bad cartoon memories away. I got a charge out of the sheer epic scope of the film, the lovely New Zealand landscapes, the outstanding production designs, lavish costumes, splendid makeup, colorful characters, and (of course) some great acting. Ian McKellan and the magnetic Viggo Mortensen carried this film as the wizard Gandalf and the exiled king Aragorn, respectively. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin were terrific as the hobbits Frodo and Samwise. Christopher Lee, as the corrupt Saruman, was at his evil best. Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving were excellent as Galadriel and Elrond. Orlando Bloom doesn't say much as the elfin archer Legolas, but his attitude, energy, and intensity still made him a blast to watch. It's always fun to see John Rhys-Davies, so I was tickled to see him as Gimli the dwarf. It was a huge treat to see Sean Bean, normally typecast as a villain, play a hero as the tortured and conflicted Boramir. (Somebody give this guy more heroic roles, please! He's got the chops for it!) Even Liv Tyler delivered a gritty, commanding performance as Aragorn's lover Arwen, especially when she pulled a sword on the ring-wraiths and dared them to attack her. (How often does Tyler EVER display such authority as an actress? This was a major victory on Jackson's part.) But best of all was Howard Shore's lavish, operatic score. I'm actually glad they didn't get someone like John Williams (who I like) to do the film; Williams' style is just too distinctive and would have been distracting. Shore's music fits the film like a glove.
Having seen a lot of old movies that made big changes from the books they were based on, the liberties Jackson and his writing partners made aren't a problem for me. (It also helps that I haven't read the books, and am viewing the movies from a fresh perspective.) As many have pointed out, an exact translation of the book would either be impossible or would result in an overlong and boring movie that would alienate too many viewers. Besides, even the most faithful book-to-film translations have to make some compromises in order to adapt the material effectively (Richard Donner's SUPERMAN, anyone?). Some sections of the book had to be cut or reconceived in order for the story to translate to film. And like it or not, Aragorn's romance with Arwen (which is very nicely done on film) would not have made a lick of sense on screen unless Arwen's role was expanded and built up. Sorry, Tolkien nit-pickers, but you can rant about how you "have to wait for a TRUE adaptation" until you're blue in the face. You just want a movie that's nothing but a verbatim, word-for-word copy of what's on the page, and that simply is not a realistic or even financially viable option. Keep your selfishness at the door and stop giving Jackson grief for TRYING to please you and an audience of newcomers at the same time. He wouldn't have made these movies if he wasn't a fan of the books.
That said, I don't think this is the greatest movie ever made, partly because I have my own favorite films, but mostly because this movie is still too new to make such a call. It needs to have more time behind it before we can judge how it'll hold up. And to be honest, the film's not flawless. The pacing's somewhat erratic, Billy Boyd plays Pippin like a crazed Lucky Charms leprechaun on acid, some of the dialogue is stilted at times, the editing on the fight scenes is sometimes too chaotic, and the shot near the end where Legolas just stands still and shoots arrows at onrushing orcs is mighty weak. (They could at least have had him moving around a bit..) But for all of that, the movie's a lot of fun to watch, and it certainly stands a chance of having the sort of timeless appeal enjoyed by the STAR WARS series.
That, and it got me to enjoy something I'd previously hated. No small feat. That said, I'm dreading THE RETURN OF THE KING, largely because of the aforementioned finger loss. Hopefully Jackson will handle that scene in a way that isn't too gross? (A small request to the ladies: While I am glad to see Orlando Bloom achieving breakout superstardom from these films, I feel Viggo Mortensen is getting unfairly overlooked. Please, give the guy his due, won't you?)