[Allan Petersen]

IMO, the film was absolutely fantastic. I had finished re-reading the "Fellowship" two hours prior to watching the film, but the restructuring and reordering of events really threw all preconceptions out of the window!
I think it works as a cinematic retelling of the story, it's certainly not a LOTR-by-the-numbers!
I watched it with a friend, who had grown quite annoyed by my incessant raving (I caught the media-buzz early, and HARD!). After an hour or so I thought that he had fallen asleep, because he hadn't moved at all - turns out that he was completely floored! He had only read the Hobbit years ago and was a bit sceptical before watching this cinematic gem.

I liked the constantly moving camera after a short time, because PJ used it to explore a lot of the great sights. Argonath (the two statues by the river) is a particular example.

The Balrog was, as noted in other posts, stunning. The Watcher in the Water has not really been mentioned, but I liked the fact that we got to see it. There was a bit of a Lovecraftian touch to it.

One question, though:

Wasn't there a lot of miniatures used in this film? There is a lot of talk about CGI, but I could swear that 'practical' effects were used to some extent.

[Holadem]

Since this thread is already overwhelmingly positive, I will just point out the bad. Please note that I am a huge fan of Tolkien and I spent most last might and this morning reading again, before.

THE NAZGUL: They were good, save for one thing which is very important: They are supposed radiate horror. When a Nazgul is within a several yards, you know. When the hobbits were hidding in those tree roots, they did not seem to be terrified by the thing. They were scared, yes, but like Aragorn said, not nearly enough. They were fighting them too easily at Weathertop and afterward. I guess my point is, from the book, The mere proximity of these things chills your blood almost to the point of being paralysed. At least that was my perception of them. In conclusion, I felt the Nazgul were trivialized.

CARRHADRAS: This is a nitpick, but I did not like Saruman's involvement at all. This is akin to C3P0 being built by Vador. It shrinks MiddleEarth, because it makes it seem as if everything revolves around the ring. Carradhras is evil period. It is very important to understand that there are many evil things in Middle Earth with an agenda of their own, that have little to do with Sauron or Saruman. The Balrog was certainly one of them.

MYTHOLOGY: I am sorry to say that I did not really get a good sense of that. The fellowship must have told a story around a fire at night like 10 times in the first book. A single scene like that, with some legend would have been enough. At lot of the wonder of the book come from the hobbits experiencing the stuff of legends. I didn't get that here

ELVES: Elves are not common place on Middle Earth. Most hobbits probably have never seen an elf. Not that they care to anyway... . What I am trying to say is that Elves are a big deal. There is greatness about them. I didn't get that from the movie.

NARSIL: Again, this relates to the mythology stuff. The significance of the sword was barely mentioned. We see that it is important to Aragorn, but that's it.

ARAGORN: Nowhere was it said that Sauron would shit in his pants right now if he learnt that the Heir of Isildur was alive. The importance of Aragorn was very understated, along with his age (the guy like 80 years old) and his knowledge and experience of the wild. I am pissed about this because he is my second favorite character, next to Faramir (the two are quite similar actually, right proportions of wisdom and valor on the battle field).

TIMELINE: My friend was surprised when I told her that the story is supposed to span over several months. AT the end of the movie, when Frodo and Sam are looking at what seems to be Mordor, it doesn't seem that far away from where they came from.

There are of course many other ommisions and changes, but I have no problem with most of them - for example, I never really cared for the whole Lothlorien thing in the book the the botched version in the movie did not bother me.

Overall, I am sure non-fans will love it and it will do well. Don't get me wrong, it was great. I just wish there was less action (the whole movie felt very fast despite tis lenght), and more of the little things that make Middle Earth so dear to us.

That said, let the wait for the Two Towers begin! I can only imagine what PJ is gonna do with TreeBeard, the Battle of Helm's Deep, the Entmoot, Rohan (he will probably depart from the book by making Aragorn fall for Eowyn) and on Frodo's side, Emil Muyin (sp?), Faramir (probably my favorite character), Minas Morgul, Shelob etc... Lets not even talk about the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in the Return of the King...

In the mean time, I am going back!

[EDIT] expanded a little more...

--
Holadem

[Ryan Peter]

Holadem, I can't say I didn't have those same gripes because I did. In fact, during parts of the first 1/3 of the movie I was irritated by them. But at some point I just let go and allowed the experience to wash over me. It didn't bother me that some things were changed, the movie electrified me and made me forget those little details.

[Steve Christou]

It looks like we're going to have a lot of deleted scenes on the 3-disc (I hope) dvd out next year. I'm pretty sure Peter Jackson had to cut out a lot of stuff during the first hour of the movie to get us into the action quicker, the beginning seemed a little rushed to me, but I'm not complaining the movie was absolutely perfect.
Loved that crazy cave troll, and the Balrog was an awesome creation.

Did Peter Jackson cameo in the film? When the hobbits were walking towards the Prancing Pony there was a bearded guy in the street that looked exactly like him.

[Tino]

In short, I loved it and consider it to be the BEST fantasy film ever made.

My only (minor) complaints are that the beginning explanations were a bit confusing and the pace was a bit slow in the first half.

Overall though it was one of the most impressive films that I have seen in a very long time.

Glad to hear that most fans are pleased. So often are we disappointed in adaptions of favorite books that it is genuinely a cause for rejoicing when someone gets it right.

Mr. Jackson...you got it right!

[Morgan Jolley]

I just hope this film is a smashing success so that they spend even more love on the next two films.

Pretty much everything about this film was perfect. The one problem I had was that during some scenes, you could tell it was blue-screened, but other than that, everything was just amazing.

This is the kind of film that they should watch in Film Study courses, seeing as how it does everything a film should do perfectly.

One of my friends read the book and said that the part where the RingWraith puts its hand on the root of the tree (when the Hobbits are hiding), it looked EXACTLY as he imagined it from the book. That never happens, and I was very happy that Jackson got it right.

[Pete-D]

All of Holadem's critcisms were on point. However Jackson on the whole did an great job, because LOTR is not the easiest to adapt to a film. The Saruman and "lack of time" thing did strike me.

I thought they could've at the Weatertop scene shown that someone else had been there earlier (Gandalf) and that would've helped bring time into play.

Strider was introduced weakly (compared to the book), *but* I thought they made up for it in the movie's last 30 minutes when Aragorn really carries the action especailly him and Boromir during the Urak-Hai battle.

[Holadem]

Quote:

it looked EXACTLY as he imagined it from the book.

I totally agree, this along with many other scenes, especially the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.

I am a little jealous of non fans, who did not know what would happen on the Bridge, or at the end... From a strickly movie point of view, what happens in Moria is a very bold move. I don't think audiences were expecting such drama, not with that character. Same for the end.

--
Holadem

[Chuck Mayer]

I feel some of these gripes, while valid of course, have to do with Jackson's need to please two masters...those that have read LOTR, and those that have not. He must get the essence of the story right, which he did in spades. He must keep details in order for the fans, and must make an approachable movie for those that have not read the book. Some sacrifices were made, and all of them acceptable if proper attention is paid to certains things in TTT and ROTK. I now have utter faith in PJ, and expect it all to be perfect in the end.

I hope New Line makes all the money in the world. They recognized vision and took a huge financial risk. Bravo!

I honestly feel that this movie is proof of the power of film. I have never felt so transported in my life

Take care,
Chuck

[Andrew W]

Overall, I thought the movie was fantastic and so did my wife. None the less, I can't quite turn off my eye for technical errors, so here's a few things I noticed...

The railing at Rivendell was "hobbit height."

I hate super35. This movie would have looked much lessy grainy shot anamorphic.

The music was great, but in the style of today's movies, still slightly overdone.

The action and fighting were great. When I read LOTR, I never envisioned it quite so violent, but it really would have to be if you think about it.

The Galadrial thing was weird, BUT she is a witch...

I notice the plot differences, and where they moved some of the lines around (I wish the ring had never come to me...)
I kind of think of this as a difference of memory. If you asked each person to tell you what happened 50 years later, there might be some elaboration and forgetfulness about who said and did what exactly, but the main points of the story would be the same. Kind of like 4 witnesses to the same event.

All of the CGI looked really great, except for maybe the eagle. The balrog and troll absolutely rocked.

Moria was great. Dwarf architecture is quite interesting and they appear to have no equivalent of OSHA. (Not a handrail in site!)