I saw 'The Lord of the Rings' movie yesterday afternoon. I think it's fantastic! There were a few things I thought could have been done better or differently but on the whole I think it is an excellent adaptation of the book. Liv Tyler's role has replaced the character of Glorfindel from the book and that's why Arwen has more of a part to play in the story. I think Glorfindel was a son of Elrond's and he was the one who rode out from Rivendell and got Frodo over the river when the Nazgul almost had him. After that, Glorfindel pretty much drops out of the action so why put him in the movie? Give the scene to another character, in this case Arwen, and save hiring another actor & possibly confusing the audience with another character that pretty much drops out of the rest of the story. I thought it worked very well. I was bothered by the fact that Rivendell was virtually desserted, however. Tolkien described it as being full of elf-song and many people at all times and the principals are the only people we see there. I did like the look they gave it, however. I don't think Tolkien ever specifically described what the houses of Elrond look like and I've seen some artist's representations that look kinda like Alpine ski lodges. I never had a clear picture of how Rivendell looked in my head but I like this version. It seemed appropriate.
Loth-Lorien was another story, however. This is probably my favorite place in all of the story, the one I would most like to visit. The Lorien in the movie was nothing like I had pictured it. The 'flets' or dwellings in the trees, if my memory is correct, had nothing but rope ladders going up to them and in the movie the whole place was far too elaborate & dark, imo. And there was nothing about the mallorn trees or the box that Galadriel gives Sam or her revelation to Frodo that she bears one of the three Elven rings. But I did love Cate Blanchett as Galadriel! She is truly a fine actress. All in all I thought the film captured the spirit of Tolkien very well. Jackson has rearranged some things but in telling a linear story in a film, it makes sense the way he has structured it. In particular I'm thinking of Gandalf's confrontation with Saruman and his imprisonment at Orthanc which we don't find out about in the book until the Hobbits do which isn't until after they reach Rivendell and hear it from Gandalf himself at the Council of Elrond. In the movie, Jackson lets us know why Gandalf doesn't meet them at Bree, showing us Gandalf's imprisonment as it happens. It saves him doing a flashback during the council and also shows what Saruman is doing at Orthanc, creating an Orc army of his own and setting himself up as a second enemy. As far as character development is concerned, I think there will be more of that in the subsequent movies. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf & Aragorn are probably the most developed characters in the books. Elijah Wood is incredible as Frodo and Ian McKellan is also great as Gandalf. I'm still not sure how I feel about Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn but maybe I will like him better in the sequels. As I said, as all of these characters are further tested in their struggle against Sauron and the forces of evil, I think we will see more & more of what they are about. I never thought of there being much violence in the books and at first some of it in the film seemed a bit over the top. But on second thought, there is a lot of fighting and killing in the books. There may have been a scene or two where I felt like it was pushed a bit too close to the edge of sensationalism for the sake of selling the story to a modern audience but on the whole it was not gratuitous or offensive. At least not to me. I know this thread was over & done with a while ago but I did want to give my two cents worth on the movie. As I said, I thought it was really wonderful on the whole, I want to see it again and I hardly wait for the next one to come out! Mark E.
