I thought "The Fellowship of the Ring" was a great movie. I thought the filmmakers made excellent use of the medium, so it was easy to excuse the deviations from the book. I thought the movie's approach really complemented the book and thought Elijah Wood's portrayal of Frodo was severely underrated.
Last weekend I read "The Two Towers" in preparation for the release of the second movie and suggest you do the same. I just came back from the late showing on opening night. Unfortunately, it was mildly disappointing. Now, I know it is hard for any sequel except Godfather II to live up to its predecessor, but this movie could have been better. That isn't to say it is without merit. It is a sweeping epic and a great cinematic challenge, but I think Peter Jackson took artistic license too far. Diehard fans will want to see it once but not twice. The uninitiated will be totally lost, IMNSHO.
First the good points. The movie does a good job of interleaving the multiple story lines. In the book, Frodo is absent for the first few hundred pages but you won't have to wait long for his appearance in the movie. All the actors continued to play their roles well, although Frodo's character wasn't explored nearly as well in this movie as in the first. Some of the visual effects are astounding and their cumulative weight recreates Middle Earth convincingly. It seems like no expense was spared, but the movie doesn't get caught up in the special effects themselves. They remain transparent and believable, which is no easy feat. The siege at Helm's Deep is portrayed astoundingly well. Although this episode is darker in parts, there is also quite a bit of unexpected (intentional) humor.
So what's not to like? My main complaint is the rather dramatic deviation from the book at multiple points. Some of the deviations are justifiable and even add to the story, but others change the characters in inexcusable ways. I could barely sit through the Liv Tyler scenes (she plays Arwen, who doesn't even appear in the second book) but the handling of the Ents and Boromir's brother were most disappointing. Jackson lavished inexplicable attention on lesser or invented scenes while omitting two vitally important ones from the book. I won't give anything away, but I suspect one of these will reappear in the third installment.
I remember precisely this same feeling after watching "The Empire Strikes Back." It wasn't without merit, but it wasn't as good as the first one. Peter Jackson is on record saying the movie makes no attempt to bring you up to speed if you didn't see the first episode. Fair enough. Anyone I know who didn't see the first one is renting it on DVD before going to the second one. I suspect most movie-goers have read the books, but anyone who hasn't read them recently will have trouble following the multi-pronged plot. Furthermore, movie omits the opening scene of the book, which is jolting if you don't remember precisely where the last movie left off. That said, the opening few minutes is breath-taking, as are many other parts of the movie, so you don't want to get there late. If this review is a little scattered, it is because the movie is a bit scattered as well. Parts of it were top-notch, but it wasn't as coherent or satisfying as the first episode.
I'd give it 7.5 out of 10 stars. Joe Bob says check it out.
Which was better, "Fellowship of the Ring" or "The Two Towers"?
Read More Entries by Bruce A. Epstein.
Become an O'Reilly Member
Visit the Digital Media Forums
Subscribe to the Digital Media Blog Feed
Subscribe to the Digital Media Newsletter
Hi. The thing is i only saw the movie :| . I can give u a tip if u want to register to a nice lord of the rings quiz contest. Visit lordoftheringsquiz.com for more details. Questions will be form the movie only.
Lord of the rings Quiz
finally
So the movie isn't EXACTLY the same as the books, SO WHAT! Lets see all you whiners create a movie like this with all your A.R. comments. You wouldn't know a truley epic tribute to one of the greatest Fantasy writers of all time if it crawled up yer arse! Peter Jackson definately did the best that could be done if you truley knew ALL the History and information that is in these books from the Hobbit to The Silmarillion and all Appendices in between. Best movies Ever IMNSHO.
Lord of the Rings is best ever
I admit, it could've been better, closer to the book anyway, but as far as movies go (I'm a bigger fan of books) they were the best EVER!!! I loved it, there were life lessons left and right, and it was funny, and action packed (unfortunately, love scene must be included, though it is not a plus) and it showed that the underdogs CAN win. This movie was, wow, that's the best word to describe it, wow, that was great. I've seen the Fellowship, extended edition, too many times to count, but I'm still amazed each time I watch it. I've seen TTT 3 times, and it just gets better and better, I cannot wait till November for the extended edition, and December for ROTK!!! I don't see how people can dislike it, it's got a little of everything for everybody. TTT was a little dissapointing, as far as how well it followed the book, that wasn't too great, but FOTR was the BEST book-made-movie I've ever seen. I don't know what you all think, but I hope that many of you share my opinion, or, if you don't, I hope that you accept the opinion I have, and don't rag on people for sharing it.
-Melanie
finally
Treebeard wasn't bad, but I hate movie Faramir, he lost most of the virtues, if not all of them, that book Faramir had.
That's true enough, she should be more serious, though I think that while there are more love scenes TTT Arwen is more serious than FOTR Arwen, though she could be much better.
That's true, he should be more serious, and care more about what's going on, though I think that the comic relief was greatly needed and appriciated.
I LOVED THAT!!!
I agree with most of what you said, though I love the movie, best one EVER!!!! Don't dis it!!
Short Dwarf Jokes
You are very right.
finally
I think this review hits it just about right: everyone else praises this movie to the third heaven or just trashes it. It was visually impressive, but the alterations were bizarre and often inexplicalbe. Treebeard and Faramir were wrenching disappointments, the former losing all his widsom and depth and the latter just completely reversed. The characterization of Aragorn as a sort of aimless drifter (rather than a committed and patient future king )held together only by the puppy love of a vacuous Elf-maiden (rather than the dangerously Elven--i.e., wise, ancient, and beautiful--Evenstar, who is just as patient and committed as he) continues. Gimli is now comic relief, rather than the sturdy companion and tireless warrior, and Legolas turns into some sort of X-gamer with that ridiculous bit of shield-surfing down the stairs. And there were, of course, no Elves bedside Legolas at Helm's Deep. Saruman's power over Theoden was through cleverness of words, not through demonic possession (Grima is essentially redundant in the film, since Saruman was possessing Theoden). Okay, sorry to go on so long, but I've been wanting to say something about it since I saw the movie yesterday. Thanks again for your refusal to give in to the dominant, shallow hype.
More orc dialogue!
It was great to hear the orcs do more than grunt and growl - but they reverted back to the grunting and the growling later in the movie. This unfortunately reduced them to the "faceless bad guys" instead of characters in the movie :(
One of the omitted scenes that you refer to will most likely be in the third due to pacing of the film. Or something. That's what I heard. :)
Short Dwarf Jokes
I thought the "short dwarf" were woefully out of place, and got tiring after a while.