I think i've posted about this before on JMDL, so i risk repeating myself:-) I'm a fan of the book, just finished reading it again, in fact. It's fair to say i really really love the book. I did not think the film weas perfect. Excellent yes, not perfect.It was for the most part visually stunning, atmospherically impressive and truly captivating. I am coming from the point of view of a fan, of course. Elijah *is* Frodo. McKellen is superb; apparently he was copying Tokiens own voice when playing Gandalf! and Christopher Lee, well now, i am so surprised. I saw him in the Gormenghast trilogy last year, and though he was wooden and purely awful! In this movie he was great. As for Aragorn- uttelry perfect! Galadriel was very surprising. Not at all what i had interpreted from the book. the movie interpretation of Galadriel is light years from my interpretation of her ( and frankly, i prefer the sad, forlorn, somber, reluctant Galadriel in my head to the scary, reluctant, scary one in the movie!).
Jackson's vision of Middle Earth is perhaps as close to Tolkiens own vision as we'll ever see. This may not be perfect for some us, but still pretty close. There are some very funny moments, most especially due to Pip and Merry, of course. They have been reduced to clowns basically. The characters of Legolas and Gimli are reduced to lots of standing around with the odd line in the movie; gone are all those nuances that made them so loveable in the books- including, as Victor pointed out i think, their developing friendship. Boromirs death is sad, the audience sat in disbelief for that. But it was after Gandalfs death in Moria that noone moved!! (couldnt help feeling smug when a lot of people were like "he cant die" and "oh my god, what will they do without him " and "nah, he cant be dead!!" hehe). Tom Bombadil is not in this movie, as we knew before hand. I guess he isn't entirely relevant to the advancement of the story, but it is such a wonderful little chapter. The film kept all of the key features and characters from the book. The immense detail the novel indulges in, of course, had to be cut down some for a cinematic venture. If one had not read the books, ones understanding might have been a little marred. My sister (and yes, she *loved* it, hasnt read it) really had to concentrate at some points to keep it all straight in her head, not so much as to render much negativity on the film. i didn't have to concentrate to follow the endless stream of, what in Star Trek fandom could be called, "technobabble"- Rivendell, Balrog, Isengard, Lothlorien, Haldir, Palan'tir, Orc, Nazgul, Galadriel, Elrond etc etc etc, you know, all these strange words that assault the viewer. Detailed and important parts of the book are reduced to mere fleeting episodes in the movie, but this this isn't necesarily or entirely a bad thing, it is probably needed to maintain the pace of film.And we have to admit, that pace is required for a "blcokbuster". AT just under three hours, it was imperative for Peter Jackson to keep everything moving and interesting for the general public. And yes, he really succeeded. The major problem that i found with the movie was that it all felt very contrived; and very didactic. None of that letting the audience think for themselves crap!!!! i saw the movie twice, and my enjoyment was not at all marred by the fact that i had seen it already, in fact, some things seemed clearer to me the second time i saw the the film. and some things impressed me even more! overall, i had fun comparing my impressions of the book to the equivalent parts of the movie. I found it to be faithful and satisfying. a wonderful film based on an amazing book. Jackson is not ripping us off; he is not cheating us. Any disappointments i expressed here are probably inevitable considering my feelings for the book. I would highly recommend the movie to anyone. GARRET
